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

March 24, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Mar-24 (PDF)

L097 - Thu 24 Mar 2011 / Jeu 24 mar 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 24 March 2011 Jeudi 24 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

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

TAXATION

SCHOOL FEES

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

NUCLEAR WASTE

AIR-RAIL LINK

ENERGY POLICIES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CAMPING

CANADA WINTER GAMES

LONG-TERM CARE

JOHN CARTER

YOUNG ENTREPRENEURS PROGRAM

STEVE AND LISA COOPER

DONWAY FORD

EDUCATION

JOHN BOICH

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILDHOOD OBESITY

AWARENESS MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À L’OBÉSITÉ JUVÉNILE

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE

EDUCATION WEEK /

SEMAINE NATIONALE

DE L’ENSEIGNEMENT COOPÉRATIF

PETITIONS

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HOME CARE

RURAL SCHOOLS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

UKRAINIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE UKRAINIEN

DIABETES AWARENESS

MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION AU DIABÈTE

DUTCH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE NÉERLANDAIS

UKRAINIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE UKRAINIEN

UKRAINIAN HERITAGE DAY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE JOUR

DU PATRIMOINE UKRAINIEN

DIABETES AWARENESS

MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA SENSIBILISATION AU DIABÈTE

DUTCH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE NÉERLANDAIS

DUTCH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE NÉERLANDAIS

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

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 23, 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): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just by way of getting into this debate, a couple of things I’d like to say are, first, I came out of the United Steelworkers organization. One of the things that I did when I was with the Steelworkers, along with Moe Sheppard and Omer Séguin, was a lot of work to deal with trying to find out why miners who worked underground had lung cancer and cancer of the trachea. We suspected, at the time, and we ended up proving, that in fact it was because of the environment underground.

You might wonder: What does that have to do with the relevance of this debate? I think it will illustrate the point of why I think what the government is trying to do here might be headed in the right direction but could end up taking one heck of a wrong turn, depending on what a minister would do with the powers that they have under the act.

Let me just tell you this story. Way back in the day, miners who went underground were constantly exposed to various types of carcinogens. We found, over the years, that many of the miners in, as we called it then, the Timmins gold camp, the Kirkland Lake gold camp and Red Lake and others, were getting what was called silicosis, which is a disease where the dust from underground accumulated in the lung. People contracted what was called silicosis and eventually died of not being able to breathe.

In a lot of cases, it also became a question of lung cancer. The lung cancer was not just because of the dust, but more because of the fumes underground, the introduction of diesel and various blasting agents that were used underground that were carcinogenic. Depending on the person’s tolerance, because we know that no two people are affected by what’s in the environment the same way, people contracted cancer and died.

That’s how I got involved with this. Quite frankly, I got into politics as a result of the study that we did under the Steelworkers, headed then by Omer Séguin, who was our regional rep down in Sudbury, and Moses Sheppard, probably one of the most dogged people when it came to health and safety in this province and when it came to the issue of industrial disease. I became involved with those two characters, as I like to call them, and we started a study to take a look at what had happened to those workers who worked underground.

The reason the Steelworkers and my local, Local 4440 in Timmins—at the time, Noranda mine locals—did this was, we were quite convinced that there were a lot of people who had been diseased and had died as a result of exposure. But here was the nub: The medical community, the Ministry of Labour, the Workers’ Compensation Board and others all said no it had nothing to do with the work underground; it had everything to do with their own lifestyles. They smoked too much or they were predisposed to cancer because of family genes, etc., etc. It had nothing to do with the work underground.

The problem we had was that there was really no mechanism within either the Workers’ Compensation Board or the Ministry of Labour to deal with having somebody take a look at this from an independent perspective—who didn’t have a vested interest, either as a worker or as a mine owner—and say, “All right, let’s take a look at what’s going on underground. Are people dying basically as a result of exposure to the dust and fumes underground, or are they dying because of other reasons?” We had asked at the time that some sort of independent review be done, and of course no such thing existed.

So we decided that the best thing to do was for us to start poking around ourselves. Moe Sheppard and I in Timmins and Omer in Sudbury started going through all the old mine records we had—seniority lists from the various mines in the Timmins and Kirkland Lake area. We took that, and it took me probably the better part of two years on a Tandy 1000, one of the first computers to come out—at that time it was dBASE III—to input all the information we had for miners who had worked in the various gold mines in Timmins, because we had the seniority lists as a union.

So we knew, dating back to about the 1920s, who had worked at what mines, because we had all the seniority lists for all the mines in the Timmins area and pretty much all the mines in the Kirkland Lake area, except one. We had those seniority lists, so we were able to track miners from one mine to the other. If they worked someplace for five years and popped up somewhere else three years later, we would know that.

We then said, “Well, that only gives us sort of a database of who was there.” So we started deciding we should go through our compensation records at the union hall. Moe Sheppard would bring records home every day, and Omer Séguin did the same. They would read through the workers’ compensation files on which we had represented workers on various things, from a broken ankle to an industrial disease. Everything that had anything to do with a pulmonary issue was circled and given to me to input into the computer.

So I would get the files from Moe the next day—I would pick up my 5, 10, 15 files that he had gone through—and I would have to go through, page by page, where he had circled things and try to organize it in the database so we knew, “Okay, this guy complained of a lung issue or this person had a problem with his throat,” or whatever it was. We’d put that all into the computer.

The problem we now had was that we had enough information to tell us that we had miners who were sick. So we went to the Ministry of Labour and to the Workers’ Compensation Board and we said to both, “We need you to do an independent study.” Eventually they heeded. They didn’t give us an independent study. They hired—I believe it was a Dr. Muller they hired to go out and do some work as an epidemiologist, to take a look at what had happened to these miners.

Dr. Muller, a learned guy—just like Mr. Ritter, who was appointed by the Minister of Natural Resources for the Agent Orange issue—basically went out and did his study. Of course, he came back and said, “It’s all lifestyle. There was nothing underground that could ever cause these men to be sick.” The expert Dr. Muller came back and said there was no causal relationship between the person’s lung cancer, stomach cancer or trachea cancer and the work.

Well, we knew that was hogwash, because we knew anecdotally, if we talked to the families of dead and diseased miners, that the brothers who didn’t work in the gold mines didn’t have the same diseases. We just knew that if the guy who worked underground had lung cancer and had three brothers on the surface and they were all smokers as well and didn’t have lung cancer, it couldn’t just be a coincidence that lung cancer only happened to workers in the mining industry for no reason. It had to be because of exposure.

We went back and started making the point, and we then pushed, through Elie Martel, who was our health and safety person here in the Legislature—and we should thank Elie Martel and Bob Mackenzie, who came before us. They were in the forefront of creating what eventually became the Workers Health and Safety Centre and the Industrial Disease Standards Panel and other agencies that, quite frankly, led to some very, very big innovative changes when it comes to health and safety in this province. I’m proud to be a member of the party that had these gentlemen doing this work before, and I stand on their shoulders, along with everybody else in this Legislature, when it comes to those issues.

The point was, there was no independent person we could go to who would be able to do the study. They said, “Not a problem. We’ll do a commission,” I think it was the Ham commission, if I remember correctly, that was appointed then by the Minister of Labour—I think Mr. Sorbara was Minister of Labour at the time. The Ham commission went out and did its work. They did the study, and they did interviews and looked at our data and came back and said, “No, there’s no casual relationship between the workers underground and their cancers.” Well, we knew that was hogwash.

My point is, we didn’t have anywhere to go where we had somebody with true independence, who was not having their strings pulled by the minister, the government, the Workers’ Compensation Board, the companies—or the unions, for that fact. We really had nobody independent to look at any of this.

So Moe Sheppard—and I give him great credit for this—says, “You know what we have to do? We have to go to the graveyards.” We went to every graveyard in Timmins and Kirkland Lake and we pulled the names off the tombstones. We did that for a reason: Because we now had in the database all of the men who had worked underground because of the seniority lists; all of the information because of workers’ compensation files; and now we had a date of birth and a date of death, so we were able to figure out, with a lot of the records, who was still alive and who was not. It allowed us then to go and start talking to those people who were still living, or survivors of those who had died.

The Steelworkers created a fund, for which I was hired to go on staff—that’s how I ended up on staff with the Steelworkers—to go and interview all of these survivors, either the widows or the survivors of cancer themselves. What we found was quite fascinating. We did our own crude little epidemiology study. We had a questionnaire we did. We’d go in and say, “Hi, Mrs. Aavasalmi”—I always remember the name, because it was the first name on the list of the database. We would go and see Mrs. Aavasalmi, and she said, “Yes, my husband died; he’s deceased.

This is what happened.” And we’d say, “Okay, did he have any brothers and sisters?” “Yes.” And we did a whole history on the brothers and the sisters. We did that with every survivor that we could find: either the widow, the children of the deceased miner, or the miner, if they were still alive.

When we finished that—it took about a year—we pulled it all together on the database—dBase III; man, that was fun back then, trying to work with that brute. Anyway, we got that information and, lo and behold, what did it say? It said that workers who worked underground died—what was it? Miners died 14.1 years faster than their non-mining brothers. So we looked at all the non-miners and said, “What happened to them, with their work histories? When did they live? When were they born? When did they die?” and the story was, on average, the miner died 14.1 years quicker than their non-mining brother. So we knew then we had something.

We then helped organize what was called the Victims of Mining Environment. These were the widows. Mrs. Ouimette, I always remember, and Mrs. Larcher, who were the big kingpins of this organization, organized like you would never believe before. Women in their 60s and 70s and 80s were getting organized and trying to find some way to basically bring light to this issue, to force the government of the day to do something, which at the time was the Peterson government. They came down here to Queen’s Park, I’ll always remember, on the bus.

They had made up mock tombstones, and put the mock tombstones in front of the Legislature: date of birth, date of death and what Charlie’s name was, the miner who had died. The media would go out there and say, “What’s this all about?” Then they started telling their stories.

Eventually, the media started saying, “There’s something wrong here.” They kept on calling—“There needs to be an independent review of this whole thing. We can’t have the mining companies on the one hand, and the unions on the other hand, butting heads and a government in between that doesn’t want to do anything.”

What came out of that was quite interesting. We ended up creating the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, which was a truly independent agency that was able to look at issues such as cancer among gold miners. They were appointed, yes, by the government. A selection was made based on consultation with labour and the employers, and the person, once appointed, was independent.

That independent body went out and did a whole bunch of work, when it came to what we eventually called the lung cancer gold miners’ policy, that basically allowed compensation to be paid to those workers who were diseased as a result of their time underground. We paid out—I can’t remember what the numbers were, but it was in the hundreds of millions of dollars of compensation that was paid to the families of those people who had died as a result of working underground—all of that because we questioned the authority and we questioned the government of the day.

All of the experts were saying we didn’t know what the heck we were talking about, and it took three dumb Steelworkers, as I always say, the three wise men—Omer, myself and Moe—to put the picture together so that eventually they could not refute the evidence.

I say that in this debate because I look at what we’re about to do here, and it seems to me that we’re taking some steps back in what the government is trying to create. They’re saying they want to have a—what do they call it again? The person that they want to create—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Chief prevention officer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Chief prevention officer—thank you very much. I don’t have my glasses on, so I never read notes or anything—which, in itself, is not a bad idea. The idea of having a chief prevention officer to look at these issues of industrial disease and how to make the workplace safer makes some sense. But the kicker is, this person was going to be responding to the Minister of Labour.

All I know is that I went through the process and it took us four or five years of work to try to convince the government to do something, and the problem that we had was, there was nobody out there who was able to say, “We’re doing this, not as a vested interest from the workers’ point of view or from the employers’ point of view; we’re doing this from a scientific point of view and what’s right and wrong.”

Eventually, we created, as I said, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, the occupational health and safety centres and others, which are truly independent and are able to do the work they do and, as a result, we’ve cleaned up the underground. Working underground today has far less risk when it comes to industrial diseases, let alone accidents, because of the work that was done through these independent organizations, the occupational health and safety centres and, also, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, which was eventually cancelled and shut down by the Conservatives when they came to power.

Here we are. The government is saying, now that we have these agencies, such as the occupational health and safety centres, “Well, that’s not a bad thing, but we’re going to make it all answer to the Minister of Labour.” I’m saying that then there’s no independence. Health and safety in this province are going to be driven by the minister. We all know that ministers of different types and different parties are going to have different focuses when it comes to health and safety. I would argue that the Conservatives would be on one side of the extreme and the New Democrats would be on the other side of the extreme.

We believe that workers need to have the right to refuse, workers need to have the ability to know there will be no reprisals if they refuse work, and that health and safety inspectors need to have the powers to do the things they need to do to make the workplace safe.

What you could end up with in this legislation is a person who’s appointed by the Minister of Labour who is not progressive, who doesn’t want to see health and safety as a serious issue in the workplace, and we may end up very well taking some huge steps backwards when it comes to health and safety in this province. I, quite frankly, am quite disturbed by that.

As I started to read this legislation and looked at what it is and the way that it’s structured, I said, “Yes, I’m prepared to give the government some credit. They’re trying to do something that, generally, is a good idea, as far as having”—what do they call them again, Rosie?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Chief prevention officer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: —“chief prevention officers and the panel.” I think that makes some sense. But that person is not going to be a person who’s independent.

I would say that we can’t allow the bill, in its present form, to go forward. I’m going to vote against it. My colleagues, I imagine, will do the same, but I’ll let them pronounce themselves on that. I believe that if we do this, we need to find some way to make that officer independent.

Here are a couple of ideas. We could make it an appointment of this House, just as we do with the Environmental Commissioner or the privacy commissioner, where the person is appointed by the three parties and we need to agree among the three of us. Three representatives of each party get together, as we do to choose our officers of the House, and then that person is given a mandate of five or 10 years, whatever we decide, to do the job as required. That’s one model.

The other model is to give this chief prevention officer the same powers under the act that, let’s say, the chief medical officer of health would have. The difference is, the chief medical officer of health, yes, is appointed by the government but has powers that he or she must follow in the legislation, and the minister can’t do anything about it unless he comes and changes the bill in the House.

In other words, the chief medical officer of health has a certain amount of independence to do what’s right and is not necessarily as influenceable when it comes to powers from the minister—the Minister of Health, in that case—to influence what his or her decisions would be about issues of public concern when it comes to health.

It seems to me that there are two models that the government can draw on. We can go the way of the chief-medical-officer-of-health example or we can go the way of the appointment through the House, such as an Ombudsman or one of those particular officers. I think that way, both the employer community and the worker community will know that there’s some independence to this. At the end of the day, I don’t think everybody’s going to be happy, but that isn’t the point. The point is, you need to have somebody come in who’s independent and looks at all of this stuff and has some credibility and is able to do the kinds of things that they have to do.

I just want to finish on this point. I give the government some credit for trying to do something that could be positive. I very much fear, however, that what they have done by setting it up the way they have—that the chief prevention officer and the panel are going to report directly to the minister and take their marching orders from the minister—is a step in the wrong direction. It’s actually a weakening of what we do now. For example, the Workers Health and Safety Centre at least is hired by the Workers’ Compensation Board. There’s a buffer between the minister’s office and the Workers Health and Safety Centre and other such agencies.

I just say again to the government: I will be voting against this on the basis that I truly believe that this is a step backwards, not a step forward. If we’re serious about having a chief prevention officer, which I think is a good idea, we then need to make sure that that person is truly independent and has powers that are clear through the act, so that the minister, the cabinet or the Premier can’t interfere with the important work that this person would have to do when it comes to making sure that our workplaces are safe and the workers are protected.

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I really enjoyed the presentation from the member from Timmins–James Bay. I agree with him. We do have problems. We see many of them in the workplace. I have my own personal experiences with my father. He didn’t even have a union to go to when he worked in the lumberyard, and he had problems there.

The key to the bill is that it’s based on the Tony Dean report. It was actually an expert panel that reviewed and decided how to make workplaces safer. They came up with the idea. People in the ministry came forward, and this bill was drafted. It’s founded upon the Tony Dean report. None of us would question Tony Dean’s credentials.

In the Dean report, there is a recommendation for a chief prevention officer and a prevention panel. The panel will recommend to the officer every year what should be done regarding occupational health and safety. I think it’s different than just having a bureaucrat write a report and give it to the minister every year, because the prevention officer has to take advice from the panel. On that panel are three employer representatives, three labour representatives, and other representatives who provide advice to the chief prevention officer.

So there are some viewpoints from different parts within the labour structure that will provide advice to the chief prevention officer, and that officer will provide annual reports. The minister will be accountable for anything that the panel or the officer recommends, because there has to be an annual report. I think that’s very key. We’ve also integrated the system with this new thing.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to commend my colleague from Timmins–James Bay for the personal comments he has made and his concerns around this particular bill.

What we worry about is: To what extent do the health and safety associations, the Workers Health and Safety Centre and the occupational health centres for Ontario workers retain the independence that they have at the moment? It’s not quite clear to me. They are independent at the moment. Will they retain their independence as they go forward, or will the minister override much of the opinions and the work that these people do? That remains a doubt in my mind.

The other question that is very clear and irrefutable—and that is that the chief prevention officer writes up his or her report, but that report must be approved by the minister before it’s released to the public. We worry about that, parliamentary assistant. We worry about that, because if the minister has the power to change that report, we think that could put undue influence on the kind of measures that the chief prevention officer would be bringing forth.

So if that independence of the chief prevention officer is undermined, or potentially is undermined, or could be undermined, by your government or another government in the future, that puts into question much of the work that you’re trying to do and much of the work that everybody has tried to bring forth in the report presented by Mr. Dean.

So we have serious concerns, I agree with the member from Timmins–James Bay. That’s why we want debate; that’s why we want hearings. We want to be able to hear from different people about these particular aspects of the bill before we pronounce ourselves.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I listened carefully to the member from Timmins–James Bay about his experience and his job on the mining front, where he described eloquently how people suffered in the mines, and the comparisons he made very, very well to compare people in the same family who work outside and inside, how people contract disease and people don’t, as a result of working underground. It’s important for all of us, to create some kind of safety mechanism.

I want to congratulate the Minister of Labour for bringing in some changes to the act and to the way we deal with labour and employees across the province of Ontario.

The creation of a prevention officer I think is very important, and also taking the responsibility from WSIB to labour, which means the government wants to take the full responsibility to protect our workers who work on a daily basis to provide for our economy and support our economy. I think all these mechanisms were put in place in order to create training and also create awareness among the workers to make sure that when they work in a bad environment, they have the right to report their employers, and also to create protection for them.

We believe strongly that our workers in the province of Ontario work very hard to build this province and also to continue to maintain our stability and our ability to continue to build a prosperous province. That’s why I think we owe them great respect and we should create laws and regulations in order to protect them and make all the workplaces safe.

The member mentioned from his own experience how he worked hard with the steel union and the miners in the north in order to create those mechanisms to educate the government back then on how important it is to create a safe environment for the workers, especially the people who work 600 or 700 feet underground. I had that experience when I went to the salt mine—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I too spent over 30 years in heavy industry and am well aware of the things that are missing in health and safety.

Some of the things that are important to the NDP that are not being addressed sufficiently by this bill are—external enforcement is one. Enforcement must be based on the principle that the cost of non-compliance is greater than the cost of compliance. The internal enforcement provides certified members with the unilateral power to issue stop-work directions.

I could go on. There are several other items under each title, but I’ve only got two minutes here.

Enforce and strengthen the reprisal provisions on the OHSA. Give ministry inspectors the power to investigate alleged reprisals and to reinstate workers and order back pay and other damages to employees. Improve and expand health and safety training throughout Ontario. There are many workplaces in Ontario where they don’t even have regular safety inspections; they don’t have monthly tours. They don’t follow up even after they’ve been ordered to do things, and five months later you find that at the same plant where a person was given an order, someone is either killed or injured seriously because they haven’t followed up. That’s another serious thing.

Increase health and safety support and resources to workers so they don’t have to be worried about reprisals from their employer. A regular review of health and safety systems legislation and regulations is also important. These are just some of the things that we see are lacking in the bill.

In my humble opinion, I think they’ve given far too much power to the minister. He can override his commissioner and he can override independent health and safety organizations in this province. I think they’ve done a wonderful job in the last few years and they’re an independent body that has no bias and no influence outside their own workplace. They can follow their directives and initiatives in the way they feel is correct for the people of Ontario. Certainly we have to look at all these things before we pass a bill like this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member from Timmins–James Bay has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I want to thank members for responding.

The point I’m trying to make is that the idea that the government has brought forward in this legislation is not a bad idea. I don’t think the whole idea should be shot down. However, I know from experience that I’ve gone through that if you don’t have an independent person who is responsible for the investigation into issues around health and safety and recommendations as to what to do to make the workplace safer when it comes to freedom from accident or disease—if that person is not independent, we are in a heap of trouble.

I’ve worked in that type of environment. I worked in the gold mines up in Timmins in the 1970s and 1980s in that particular environment, and I can tell you that workers struggled hard and long in order to get the minimal amount of independence that organizations such as the occupational health and safety centre and the clinics have now. They do immeasurable work when it comes to making sure that we try to prevent accidents.

I very much fear that the way this legislation is written now will turn the clock back to pre-1980s, to a time where workers, quite frankly, didn’t have somebody they could go to that was truly independent in order to do the types of investigations that have to happen to make a workplace safe.

The bottom line here is, we need to ensure that workplaces in this province are as safe as possible. We need to make sure that people, when they go to work in the morning, are going to come back at the end of the day free from accident or disease. There are ways of being able to prevent the vast majority of accidents and disease if we’re able to do the type of work that we’ve been doing up to now, but the key is, it must be an independent system that doesn’t have a vested interest of the employer community, the worker community or the government.

They have to go and do the job that needs to be done in order to make sure that workers are safe and workers are not put at risk of having diseases as a result of their exposure to the underground or any other workplace.

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

Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I’m now required to interrupt the proceedings to announce that there’s been six and a half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. The debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government indicates otherwise.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: We would like the debate to continue.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The minister without portfolio has indicated that we’ll continue the debate.

Further debate? The honourable member for Simcoe North.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you very much. I wasn’t sure what was happening there. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that happen in this place before.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: He was so kind.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: You’re such a great guy, Gerry Phillips.

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Because you wanted to hear me speak, right, Gerry? That’s what it’s all about.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: We live to hear you, Garfield.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you so much. I’m honoured that this is what happened. So you can hang in for the other folks here as well.

Anyhow, it’s a pleasure to rise to second reading debate on 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. I asked this morning to speak to this bill, and I wanted to put a few things on the record.

The explanatory note is something I always like to start with, at least. The bill amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act. That’s the key reason we’re here, because of some accidents two years ago.

“Section 4.1, which specifies the minister’s responsibility for the administration of the act and sets out some of the minister’s powers and duties in administering the act, is added to

part II of the act.

“The act is amended to allow the minister to establish standards for training programs and to approve programs that meet the standards. The minister may also establish standards that a person must meet in order to become an approved training provider and may approve a person who meets the standards as a training provider with respect to one or more approved training programs and may collect information about workers’ successful completion of approved training programs for the purpose of maintaining a record.

“Section 6 of the act is amended to authorize a director to establish policies respecting the

interpretation, administration and enforcement of the act and to require an inspector to follow any such policy.

“Section 7.6, which allows the minister to establish training and other requirements that a member of a joint health and safety committee must fulfill in order to become a certified member, is added to the act. The minister may certify a committee member who meets the requirements.

“Section 8 of the act is amended to require a constructor or employer to ensure that health and safety representatives receive training to enable them to effectively exercise the powers and perform the duties of a representative.

“Section 9 of the act is amended to allow either co-chair of a joint health and safety committee to make written recommendations to a constructor or employer if the committee fails to reach consensus.

“The bill adds

part II.1 (Prevention Council, Chief Prevention Officer and Designated Entities) to the act.

Section 22.2 of the act requires the minister to establish a prevention council responsible for providing advice to the minister on the appointment of a chief prevention officer and providing advice to the chief prevention officer on occupational health and safety matters.

Section 22.3 requires the minister to appoint a chief prevention officer responsible for developing a provincial occupational health and safety strategy, preparing an annual report on occupational health and safety and advising the minister on occupational health and safety matters. Sections 22.4 to 22.7 allow the minister to designate an entity as a safe workplace association or as a medical clinic or training centre specializing in occupational health and safety matters if the entity meets the standards established by the minister. A designated entity must operate in accordance with the standards and with any other requirements imposed on it, and is eligible for a grant from the ministry.

“Part III.1 of the act is amended to allow the minister to approve codes of practice with respect to both statutory and regulatory requirements and specify that compliance with the code is deemed to be compliance with the requirement, subject to any terms or conditions set out by the minister in the approval.

“Section 50 of the act is amended to allow an inspector to refer a matter to the board where a worker alleges that his or her employer has violated the prohibition against reprisals and where circumstances warrant. The matter cannot have been dealt with by final and binding settlement by arbitration under a collective agreement or by the worker filing a complaint with the board, the worker must consent to the referral and a policy respecting referrals must have been established by a director before the inspector may refer the matter to the board.

“Section 50.1, which gives the Office of the Worker Adviser and the Office of the Employer Adviser prescribed functions for the purposes of

part VI of the act, is added to the act.

“Section 63 of the act is amended so that persons employed in the Office of the Worker Adviser or the Office of the Employer Adviser are not compellable witnesses in a civil suit or any proceeding respecting any information or material furnished to or obtained, made or received by them under the act which acting within the scope of their employment.

“Subsection 70(2) of the act is amended to add complementary regulation-making authority.

“Provisions relating to the load-bearing capacity of structures are updated to remove references to an engineering design method that is no longer current.

“Other complementary and transitional amendments are made to the act.”

There are small amendments to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997:

“Part II (Injury and Disease Prevention) of the act is repealed. The substance of subsection 4(2) and

section 10 of that part (dealing with payments to constructions workers and first aid requirements that may be set by the board) is re-enacted elsewhere in the act.”

“Section 159 is amended to exempt information-sharing agreements between the board and the Ministry of Labour from the requirement that the agreement be approved by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.”

I understand that the whole reason this legislation was brought forward was as a result of the fact that on Christmas Day 2009, four workers were killed and others grievously injured when the scaffolding supporting them collapsed. The workers were illegal immigrants, and the scaffolding had been improperly maintained. As a result, the government launched a panel, chaired by Tony Dean, the former secretary of cabinet, for whom, by the way, we all have a lot of respect. The blue ribbon panel consisted of academics, labour representatives and members of industry.

After almost a year, the panel came back with a series of recommendations in December 2010, and this legislation, of course, enacts the panel’s recommendations.

I guess the concern I had was—and I know there has been lots of debate, and to be perfectly honest, I haven’t had a chance to look at all the other folks who have debated this. But when I first heard of this accident in 2009, on Christmas Day, I had a real problem with how it happened in the beginning. What I’m hearing—I’ve had a number of complaints from industry, the manufacturing industry in particular, who tell me that, over and over again, they’re inundated with inspections from the Ministry of Labour and workers’ compensation people.

I’m curious how a factory in Simcoe county or Grey county can have monthly inspections—sometimes five and six reports coming to them from the Ministry of Labour—and they continually update these factories.

If you’ve been in the factories—one company manufactures aerosol cans; another, plastic products; there’s a cement block manufacturing company. These are people I’ve heard a number of concerns from, and one of the concerns they’re always saying to me is, “We continually keep our products and our assembly lines up to code and these inspectors come in and make these minor changes on a regular basis,” and it gets very expensive for them.

I’m wondering how somebody who can be dangling in the air on scaffolding on Christmas Day—maybe none of the inspectors are out and looking at job sites on Christmas Day or on holidays, and maybe they only work from 9 to 4 or something like that. I’m not sure of the exact details of that.

On one hand, we’ve got an over-inspection, and on the other hand, no one seems to be inspecting equipment that’s outdated and has been improperly maintained. When was the last time an inspector looked at that scaffolding that was dangling in the air from the high-rise? It would be interesting to see some of the comments coming back. I’d like to sit in on the committee. I’d like to ask those questions at committee to the minister and to some of the people who will make deputations to the committee. How, on one hand, do we have so much time for inspections on some job sites and at other times, apparently, no one looks at them?

I keep a close eye. I’m from a construction background. I love to watch the construction sites here in the city where they build these huge high-rises. I can tell you that what I see on those sites is complete health and safety worked on to the best of their ability. You see everyone wearing hard hats; they’ve all got the colour-coded jackets they wear for identification. You see the guardrails put up everywhere around the cranes, around the edge of the construction site.

I would say, overall, on those high-rises etc. that we see being constructed in the city, that they’re doing an extremely good job of health and safety. The folks who are the contractors obviously are taking a great deal of pride in that. I think that by far the vast majority of the people working on those construction sites are doing a great job and are well protected.

However, when you hear of someone else in another part of the city dangling with a couple of ropes on unsafe scaffolding, you wonder why no one in the Ministry of Labour is going out and just keeping an eye on all of the high-rises that you see, especially when it comes to window cleaning or any of the construction improvements that they have to make to the buildings. Who is keeping an eye on those? Obviously, no one was, and, as a result of that, four people lost their lives on Christmas Day 2009.

So these are the kinds of questions I’d like to raise on this. I understand there are also questions around the prevention officer. But we pay a lot of money, as taxpayers, into the Ministry of Labour and the WSIB, and as far as I’m concerned, there’s enough money there now that these kinds of accidents should not be happening. To try to come up with another bureaucratic level or a whole new series of jobs and programs that are made to improve worker safety shouldn’t require any more money. I think the money is in the system and they should be able to easily make the work system safer for the employees with the money that’s already funded by the Ontario taxpayers into this ministry.

That’s all I’ll have to say today. I look forward to the remaining debate on this bill and also to the opportunity to debate it and to listen to the deputations in committee.

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

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I appreciate the comments made by the member for Simcoe North. I think he’s outlined in his presentation the complexity of the act in front of us today. What Bill 160 really does is amend two key acts. It amends the Occupational Health and Safety Act and it amends the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act.

The amendments are not that easy to understand, but these amendments came as a result of Tony Dean’s report, which is actually called the Expert Advisory Panel on Occupational Health and Safety. It was struck shortly after that accident. I’m not sure, but I think it was on December 24 that that unfortunate scaffolding accident took place. Shortly after that, the Minister of Labour requested Tony Dean to chair, or be in charge of this panel that would study workplaces and try to make them safer.

It came forward with a number of recommendations, I think 46 in all. Again, they did extensive consultations on their own and they came forward with a report. The Ministry of Labour was then able to bring forward a bill, and that bill is in front of us today with changes, as I mentioned, to the two bills so that workplaces will be safer.

What we want to do, and I think everyone in this House agrees, is to make workplaces safer. The bill in front of us attempts to do that and is based almost exclusively on the expert advisory panel’s recommendations—at least some of them, if not all of them. The idea is to make workplaces safer and to prevent accidents like the scaffolding one from ever happening again in the future. It’s the biggest overhaul of the act in 30 years. I think we’re going in the right direction.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I’m not quite sure I agree with the parliamentary assistant that the Dean report is mostly being followed. I think there are a lot of things that have been left out. One of the major concerns is

section 50. The way it’s currently administered discourages many workers from exercising their rights under the OHSA and does not adequately protect from reprisals those who do exercise their rights. The panel heard some key criticisms:

—MOL inspectors have no role in investigating reprisal allegations.

—The OLRB procedures are complex and take too long, and travelling to Toronto for a hearing is expensive and time-consuming.

—The MOL rarely prosecutes—I repeat: rarely prosecutes—employers for violating

section 50.

The Dean report concluded this

section with this recommendation: “The Ministry of Labour should enhance the current legislative provisions for penalties by adding administrative monetary penalties as an enforcement tool, and should develop policies and procedures that govern their use.” That lacks in this bill, big time.

The NDP supports the use of administrative penalties which would allow an inspector to impose an immediate financial penalty on an employer. Ideally, we would have liked to have seen this in the following:

—Certain violations must result in mandatory penalties relying on a

schedule of violations and penalties.

—Repeat violations resulting in higher penalties.

—Penalties must reflect the seriousness of the violation, how long the violation has been occurring, the number of workers affected and the impact on workers—injuries and illnesses.

Such a system would be speedy and not easily circumvented. Employers and other workplace parties would be aware of the cost of non-compliance with certain sections of this act. This is a very important part that is lacking.

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: As we all know, we’re moving forward with the changes to our health and safety system that makes workplaces safer for all Ontarian workers. I spoke previously about my son having a summer job working on road repairs. I was very pleased that they were giving him the training as a youngster. I think it was very important. But every day that he went to work we would always say to him, “Make sure that you come home, and be safe and don’t do anything that you don’t know how, that you haven’t been trained on.”

I think it’s very important. I’m pleased that, as we’re making these changes, the education and training of workers and employers—of course, we all know it’s crucial, in order to ensure that all our workers are safe, that employees have enhanced safety training and a more effective reprisal complaint process. If a worker sees that something is not right, it is their duty to stand up and say something without fear of reprisal.

I know that the member from Simcoe North spoke about the inspectors. I’m pleased that our government has put inspectors back into the system in all areas across a number of ministries that were cut previously. I think that has helped to improve safety across the board in so many areas of this province.

The fact that we’re going to have a new chief prevention officer will be of benefit to all the workers in this province. I agree that we have to make sure that those inspections are done across the board and that the proper regulations are in place so that people will be able to know that when their loved ones go in to work in the morning or in the evening, they’re going to come home again. It’s crucial to the safety of our workers in this province. I know that, personally, I want to see all those people come home.

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

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to speak on behalf of Bill 160. I had the opportunity a couple of days ago to speak at greater length, but I’d like to commend the member from Simcoe North for some of the points that he covered.

Just to go over some of the points that I raised a couple of days ago: On this side of the House, we, the official opposition, strongly support the Dean report but we’re not in favour of this bill as written. We think that it needs a lot of amendments and it needs a lot of work done at committee to improve it.

We think there are lots of improvements to make. It drastically deviates from the original Dean report, which we commended, as I say, because the Dean report did take a lot of time to look at the issues. I feel, and I think a number of other people have said this, that this bill, at the end of the day, will do nothing to prevent bad employers from entering the underground black market, where they would still be able to operate because it will probably drive more people underground with more of these regulations.

This is just another bureaucratic committee that would, I’m sure, lead to a number of patronage appointments that would do nothing to add to the safety of workers in this province.

This chief prevention officer would take over control of all occupational health and safety activities within the government and within the province. It would remove prevention activities from the former WSIB mandate, where they are now, and would upload them to the Ministry of Labour. It also authorizes the minister to license and set standards for training programs recommended by this chief prevention officer—another onerous load on small business and legitimate businesses that are trying to do business in this province. It will do nothing for the ones that are underground and the ones that will further go underground.

The Dean report had a lot of recommendations to the bill. Like I say, we strongly support the Dean report, but we feel that this bill needs a lot of improvement. The devil’s in the details, as the old saying goes. It needs to get to committee as soon as possible. I’d recommend that that committee travel. Come to Sarnia–Lambton, where we have a great safety and prevention record.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Simcoe North has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you to the members from Scarborough Southwest, Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock and Sarnia–Lambton for their comments this morning.

No one wants to see anybody injured in the workplace in Ontario: That’s a given. I think that’s what everybody in this House would agree to. What I want to know and what I would like to ask at the committee is—because I don’t think I’ve heard it here today, and I don’t think the parliamentary assistant has answered or that I’ve heard it from any of the government members—how you’re going to stop something like this from happening again.

This was created because someone went out in a holiday season. They had illegal immigrant workers. They had a scaffolding system that was set up that was unsafe and had not been properly maintained. I want to know how next Christmas, the same thing couldn’t happen to somebody else. How is this bill going to stop something like that from happening? Because you can’t legislate against someone who, I feel, could be doing something illegal; they probably set the timing up for that particular job so that they would not have to abide by workplace safety inspectors, because they knew they were probably off on the holiday season. I think that’s probably what happened here.

I’d like someone to tell me how this legislation will actually stop that from occurring another time. We don’t want to lose four more people in a tragic accident like that—just looking at it as not only a legislator, but as a common person looking at it from the outside, wanting to know what this legislation will do to stop it from happening again in a year or two, or whenever. The way I see it right now, there’s nothing that will stop that from occurring again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): We’ve had over seven hours of debate. We’ll now go into 10-minute debate rotations.

Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to speak to Bill 160, and I want to talk about some personal experiences. Everybody has a personal experience, which I think is useful to share with everyone.

My father was a construction worker, and two of my brothers were carpenters—two of us became teachers—and like most immigrants, my father and my two brothers worked very hard in carpentry and in the construction area. Part of that experience reveals many problems, because I recall my brothers and my father talking about how difficult it was in the workplace and how frightened they were to admit that they might have been injured or that they might have a physical problem that could prevent them from working. They were afraid that if they weren’t able to work, to whatever degree, they would be let go, and/or if they got injured, there was no recourse to them.

That story is very typical of a lot of immigrant groups. It wasn’t considered manly to report an injury. They were afraid, as I said, that if they reported the injury, they would be fired. Many who reported an injury would be paid by the employer and were told they shouldn’t report it to the then Workers’ Compensation Board, because, of course, if they did, that would hike up their costs, because the more injuries you have, the more you had to pay.

Imagine a worker not reporting a potentially long-lasting problem that they might continue to have for a lifetime. Not reporting it means that it’s not on the record. Not reporting it means that if there were no witnesses, you would never be able to prove that you ever had the injury. These were the stories of the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, and it still goes on, I suspect. There’s nothing new under the sun, as it relates to injuries.

We sometimes don’t respect workers. We oftentimes don’t respect injuries. I think about how we, as a society, respect firefighters when they die in the workplace—as we should, correctly. I often think of the tremendous societal grief that there is when a policeman or policewoman dies on the job or gets killed. The whole of society rallies to the families in grief. For some bizarre reason, we don’t do the same when an injured worker dies. We feel bad. We feel sorry. A day or two later, the injury and the death is gone, and the families suffer it on their own. Why is it that that happens?

Why is it that there is no public collective grief for the injured workers? I find that a bit of a problem, and I wanted to share that with the members of this Legislature and whoever might be watching this bright, early morning.

I want to say that I support many aspects of Bill 160, and I have some criticism, which I’ll share with you straightaway.

One of the things this bill does is to eliminate some of the fragmentation that exists in health and safety. You’ve got a Workplace Safety Insurance Board that deals with some aspects and you’ve got the Ministry of Labour dealing with others, so the argument for many years has been that the system with health and safety is fragmented. This finally brings the two together. It’s a good thing. Prevention and enforcement are finally brought under one roof, and we think that, too, is a very useful thing to do.

The Ministry of Labour sets the standards to protect worker health and safety, and we believe that is correct and that’s a healthy thing to be doing. But there are some concerns, and my colleague from Timmins–James Bay spoke to this earlier. Some of this concern relates to the independence of many of the groups that dealt with health and safety, the independence they used to have and which could be under threat under the new bill.

Health and safety associations had independence to present their work. The Workers Health and Safety Centre had their independence to do the work around health and safety, and we felt that that was the right thing to have. The Occupational Health Clinics for Ontario Workers did very much the same. We worry that their independence is questioned, is potentially undermined under the new system, and we want to make sure and we want to have assurances from the parliamentary assistant, the minister and this government that that indeed will not be the case.

But assurances in and of themselves may not be enough; we need to see them in law. Because when we look to the chief prevention officer, we note that his or her report must be approved by the minister before it’s released to the public. That is a fact. That fact undermines the individual’s independence to present a report on health and safety in whatever way he or she believes it ought to be presented. But having to have the minister look at the report, have his or her oversight, have his or her override over that report, questions the independence of the chief prevention officer.

The parliamentary assistant doesn’t speak to that. He keeps on saying how Mr. Dean has presented this report, and it’s a presentation that he, Mr. Dean, makes on behalf of all of the consultations he has made, but he never speaks to the issue that I have just raised. He avoids it, and the parliamentary assistant avoids it because he knows that the independence of the chief prevention officer is under threat; it’s questioned. That’s why he doesn’t want to speak to it. That’s why his minister will avoid speaking to that issue and the government will avoid talking to that particular issue.

The Conservative Party, as presented by the member from Lanark, Frontenac and others, says that they oppose the way the prevention council is structured because it is the minister who decides who he or she will have on that prevention council. According to the member from Lanark, Frontenac and others, the problem with that is that what will happen is you will have a whole lot of Liberal appointees to that board. As a result, he argued, this puts into question the entire work of the prevention council.

I argue, in a contrary position, that if you have the Conservative Party in government and they are hostile to this prevention council or to prevention in general, that presents a similar problemo, in my humble estimation of things. It could be that you could have a Conservative minister who might be friendly toward injured workers. God bless. It could very well be.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Exactly. And it could very well be that you might have a friendly Conservative government vis-à-vis injured workers; it could very well be. But if they happen to be hostile, they would present the same problem that the Liberals are presenting by way of how they are structuring this particular council.

So we worry about the independence of the prevention council, and we worry about the lack of independence of the chief prevention officer. We have profound questions that we need to address in committee hearings, and we hope to be able to hear them before we declare ourselves on this particular bill.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: During my early days and my first jobs as a graduate engineer, I was involved in the construction industry in Ottawa. There were two construction failures there that caused death, and I remember them to this day. They both involved, in the shoring, falsework failures during concrete-placing operations. One was the Heron Road Bridge—I think it was seven or nine people who were killed in that accident—and a building on Elgin Street. They came within one or two years of each other.

I attended the coroner’s inquest on the building failure and it was quite traumatic for me, as a young engineer, to hear the evidence come out on how the failure occurred, and knowing, from the coroner’s recommendations, that it would have been preventable if certain things had been done.

I think it’s important that we’ve moved ahead as a government. One of the first things we did was hire more inspectors. The present Attorney General said, when he was the Minister of Labour, that there were a billion reasons to have better safety on our construction projects.

I think that’s the direction we’ve been going in, and this, the Occupational Health and Safety Statute Law Amendment Act, 2011, Bill 160, takes us again in that direction of more safety in the workplace, trying to make sure that there are fewer areas that are not going to be looked at. Where accidents have, in the past, been occurring, we can block those.

I’m very much in favour of what we’re doing with the chief prevention officer. We’ll be able to coordinate the prevention system. That’s going to bring it all together under one person, and we’ll have a say for Ontario’s construction workers.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: The member for Trinity–Spadina is always passionate and often informative. This bill, as he has said, and anything that we do to improve workers’ safety, for them and their families, is very important. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has made it very clear to us that that is why this bill is a worthy discussion.

Here’s the real issue: Those Ministry of Labour investigators that were just mentioned by the previous speaker already had the authority and, indeed, the responsibility, to inspect that site. I think this bill is more or less a broader response to workplace safety, and more importantly, it’s looking at the WSIB.

One of the features of this bill is that it uploads the responsibilities for prevention to this new office, the chief prevention officer. It takes it out of the responsibility of the WSIB, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board. The WSIB is off the rails; we know that now. Their operating deficit is around $11 billion. It is a mess, and the Auditor General said that as well. That money is actually paid by employers, not the government; they haven’t got one nickel in this.

On the enforcement side, they do. What is so shameful is that this accident could have been prevented by the existing structure. This bill will not change that. In fact, there’s no argument here that it may not improve the underground economy, which some could argue was the case of these four workers in 2009, being new to Canada and maybe being taken advantage of.

We want to protect safety in the workplace. It is the right thing to do. This bill is probably a bit overboard and excusing the government for not doing the job they were supposed to do back in 2009.

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would argue with the last part. I don’t think this bill is a little bit too much overboard. I think, quite frankly, what you’re going to end up with is all of those independent agencies that currently exist put in a position where the minister is going to have a whole bunch of ability to direct what happens with those agencies. I don’t think that’s a good thing. I don’t think that you, as a legislator, or I, as a legislator, or they, whoever the government is, should have the right to muck around with what is supposed to be truly an independent agency. That, to me, is the crux of the issue.

The idea of having a—what do they call it, Rosario?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: A chief prevention officer.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Chief prevention officer; jeez, I keep on forgetting it in the debate.

Anyway, the idea is not a bad one, but you really have to have that person be independent. I suggest that there are a couple of ways to come at it. We could do similar to what we have with the chief medical officer of health, where there’s legislation that sets out the powers of the chief medical officer of health and there is a form of independence. Yes, that person is appointed by cabinet, but there’s a form of independence through the law. So it’s not as if that person answers directly to the minister. They do, but there are some safeguards within the law.

I think the best thing to do is a similar type of thing to what we do with the Ombudsman or with the privacy commissioner, whoever: The three parties get together, they put a person each on the committee, we agree who that person is for a five- or 10-year term, and that person reports to the House. In that way, you can truly have an independent system. I think that’s where we need to be going, because I know from my experiences, and I think you know, as a worker—and I know Mr.

O’Toole worked a long time in the automotive industry—that health and safety is something that is truly important to the bottom line, because the fewer accidents we have, the better it is for the companies and certainly the better it is for the workers. To do that, I think we need to have a system that’s truly independent from government and can’t be influenced by the minister of the day.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to stand up and speak and listen to the member from Trinity–Spadina speaking about this bill.

This is all about the democratic process. That’s why we introduced the bill and the opposition voiced their concern and added to the debate and advised us about different issues. We sent the bill to committee, and the committee enhanced the bill and gave it more ability. That’s what democracy is all about.

I listened to the member speaking, and while he’s criticizing some, in the end the chief prevention officer is not going to work alone. He’s going to have a council built from workers and also owners and experts in safety, in order to advise the chief. Those mechanisms are in place to protect the workers and create a safety mechanism for all of us in the province of Ontario.

In the end, the suggestion here is to enhance safe working conditions and make sure that all the workers in Ontario, all the employees in Ontario, work in a safe environment, and whoever violates those safe environments is going to be punished. That’s why the chief prevention officer is going to work hand in hand with the employers, with the workers, with the experts, to create those conditions.

Also, moving the responsibility from the WSIB to the minister shows our commitment to protecting workers in the province of Ontario. I think it’s a great step forward in order to create safety for the people in the province of Ontario.

I listened carefully to many people speaking in this House. Of course, the Conservatives didn’t want anything to do with this issue. I know they’ll abolish the WSIB. They have different issues about unions and labour; they don’t care about those areas. But in the end, we on this side care about the unions; we care about labour; we care about the people in the province of Ontario. We want to create safe conditions for all of them to work in—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. The honourable member for Trinity–Spadina has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to commend the member for London–Fanshawe for being the chief booster of the Liberal Party; you can tell by his remarks, and the remarks from my friend from Ottawa–Orléans as well.

We are questioning the independence of the chief prevention officer, and we question the problems around the prevention council and whether or not they’re going to be independent. We are worried that they’re not going to be independent. And they should be.

Neither of the two Liberal members who spoke addressed the concerns we raised. They just keep saying how this is a good bill and this is good for injured workers; we’re getting everything together so that we can do the best for injured workers. They just ramble around the issue and never once do they address the questions that we have raised: that the independence of the chief prevention officer is under question. Merely by reporting to the minister and having his report looked at and approved by the minister in advance of the release of the report questions his or her independence. None of you ever speak to that. It’s a serious worry we’ve got, and you’ve got to address that.

You also have to address other areas. We should be investigating alleged reprisals against workers. We’re not doing that, and we’re not likely to do that. We should be enforcing swiftly, with onerous penalties as well on those who violate health and safety concerns. I don’t believe we’re going to do that. We’re not doing that as well as we should be doing it. We should simplify the prosecution process so that inspectors can prosecute straightforward cases more speedily.

These are some of the areas we need to address. Yes, that is why we, too, are looking forward to the hearings to get opinions from everyone around these issues.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome the family of page Ciaran Thomas to Queen’s Park today. Ciaran and his family are from my community of St. Paul’s. Joining us today in the members’ gallery are Ciaran’s mother, Alison; grandmother, Emily; and his sisters Bronwen, Charlotte and Hannah. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Today at Queen’s Park is Greek flag-raising day, and I invite all members to come outside for the Greek flag-raising.

I also would like to recognize some of our guests today: the Honourable Mr. Dimitris Azempoulos, the consul general of Greece, will be here; the consul general of the Republic of Cyprus, Mr. Stavros Augoustidis; Fotini Houlios; and Mr. Panos Androthis.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome one of my constituents from York–South Weston, Barb McLeod, who is here to watch the proceedings today, and we’ll have lunch together. Welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Yesterday, the Ontario PC caucus introduced a motion to give Ontario families relief. The motion calls for the expensive new hydro agency that Premier McGuinty created and called the Ontario Power Authority to be dismantled and the cost of that bureaucracy to be removed from Ontario families’ hydro bills.

On Monday afternoon, Ontario families and seniors will see which members of this assembly respect them when they say they can’t afford this bloated bureaucracy any longer. Will you join us in offering relief to Ontario families or will your members vote to offer relief to the bureaucrats at your bloated, overpriced agency?

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve taken several steps to keep the costs of electricity down, and those actions are saving energy consumers about $1 billion a year. We froze the compensation structures of all non-bargaining public sector employees. We’ve limited travel costs and other expenses. We’ve requested Hydro One and OPG to revise down their 2010 rate applications to find savings, and they did that. All of our energy agencies are significantly reducing their operating costs. For 2011, the OPA has reduced its overall operating budget by 4.1%.

His trash-talking of the public service today is a reminder of the days when they sat in cabinet and they took pleasure in insulting the good work being done by our public servants—our teachers, our nurses and our power workers. Those were dark days in energy, they were dark days for this province—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier McGuinty used to say that the Ontario Power Authority was a transitional agency, so you can’t be opposed to dismantling the OPA for a principled reason. The Premier’s so-called transitional agency keeps on growing more and more bloated. It’s gone from $14 million to $80 million in just five years. It may seem small to you, but that $80 million works out to $20 a year for seniors who are struggling to keep the lights on at home.

Every day members of the Ontario PC caucus hear from seniors and families who say they’re unable to pay their hydro bills any longer. Don’t you and the McGuinty Liberals sitting around hear the same thing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: On Tuesday, after a line of questioning similar to that, where I think the Leader of the Opposition received a fair amount of push-back, he said this to the media, “Listen, in the past we’ve seemed to function without the Ontario Power Authority.”

I’d like to ask the member opposite what their definition of “functional” is, because when his leader was in cabinet, their system wasn’t functional at all. In fact, it was completely dysfunctional. Does he think it was functional to put up the use of coal by 127%? Does he think it was functional, when his government was in power, that their failure to invest in power nearly crippled our power system? Did he think it was functional to pay $1 billion in import costs to US coal plants just to keep the lights on? Their memory may be fading but families are going to remember the dysfunctional energy system—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: This, coming from a minister who raised the use of coal in Ontario by 29% last year alone.

Yesterday, Premier McGuinty boasted about recovering $5 million a year from a sham of an agency review. The Ontario PCs have found a lot more in savings that can be taken off the hydro bills: $80 million a year more, and more than that, if the OPA keeps bloating at its current pace.

If the McGuinty Liberals voted for the Ontario PC motion to dismantle the OPA and take that cost off hydro bills, it would give Ontario seniors and families real relief, the relief they need. Why do you constantly vote to raise hydro bills, but will not support an Ontario PC motion that will actually reduce Ontario families’ hydro bills?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll tell you why we won’t support their motion: They have absolutely no credibility when it comes to accountability and transparency in government—none whatsoever. Their leader sat in cabinet and actually allowed Hydro One to buy a yacht. Their leader sat in cabinet and allowed Hydro One CEO Eleanor Clitheroe to earn $2.2 million a year. The CEO today earns half that amount, and that doesn’t include inflation. Our energy agencies are no longer in the yachting business. The salaries of the top 20 executives at OPG are now on average 35% lower than they were when your leader sat in cabinet.

And let’s not forget, the PCs removed Hydro One and OPG from being subject to freedom of information. Why did they do that? Because they wanted to make sure that they could keep those the energy agencies for their own personal—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: He just doesn’t get it. Families are crying for relief and he wants to rattle on about some irrelevant stuff.

Two weeks ago, the Minister of Finance held a press conference—

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Energy, again. He almost dislocated his shoulder from patting himself on the back for finding 0.0002% savings from a sham of an agency review.

On the same day, McGuinty Liberals hinted that the Premier is thinking about using the budget to streamline the alphabet soup of his expensive and bloated hydro agencies. You’ve made it clear you’ll fight tooth and nail to keep Ontario families paying for an overgrown OPA bureaucracy they don’t need, that you created. What sort of tinkering with hydro agencies will you do and how much more will that cost Ontario families?

Hon. Brad Duguid: That party wants to continue to attack the Ontario Power Authority. That’s fine; we understand where they’re coming from, because they don’t support any of the work that is being done by that agency. They do not support the efforts the Ontario Power Authority is making to help us get out of dirty coal, something that you put up 127% during your time in office, something we brought down by 70%, and that will be gone altogether by 2014, cleaning our air and building a healthier future for our kids.

Who would be putting out those feed-in tariff contracts that are creating thousands of jobs across this province, benefiting farmers—the microFIT projects that are benefiting farmers—to the tune of $10,000? Under them, they wouldn’t need those contracts going out because they don’t support those jobs; they don’t support the farmers when it comes to the microFIT program. They don’t support cleaning up—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: If the Premier’s sham of an agency review is anything to go by, then Ontario families should brace themselves to keep paying for an Ontario Power Authority they don’t need and can’t afford. The crowning achievement of the Premier’s agency review was to take two bloated agencies, Infrastructure Ontario and the Ontario Realty Corp., and turn them into one uber-bloated agency.

Premier McGuinty’s expensive hydro mess includes more bureaucracies than you can shake a stick at: Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, the Independent Electricity System Operator, the Ontario Energy Board, the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp., not to mention the Ministry of Energy itself. How much more will it cost Ontario families when you merge the OPA with one of these bloated agencies?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I say again, that party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to accountability and transparency in our government agencies and government altogether—no credibility whatsoever.

Your leader sat in cabinet, as I said before, while Hydro One purchased a yacht. I think Defiant was the name they called it.

At the same time, your CEO, Eleanor Clitheroe, was making $2.2 million a year. The CEO of Hydro One now makes half that amount. As I said before, the top 20 executives at OPG are now, on average, earning 35% lower than when you were in cabinet. Who are you to lecture us when it comes to accountability in those agencies?

When they were in power, those agencies were absolutely out of control. Their operating costs are going down. We’re working hard with those agencies—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Sarnia–Lambton.

Final supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It appears the minister’s on a ship, but I think it’s the Titanic.

Premier McGuinty does not show respect for Ontario families with half measures and tinkering that do nothing to lower Ontario’s hydro bills.

Eleven thousand bureaucrats at the alphabet soup of hydro bureaucracies earn over $100,000 a year. That list includes a security guard at OPG, a landscape architect at Hydro One, a Web and Internet adviser at the OEB, and something called an “executive adviser” at the OPA. The McGuinty Liberals won’t agree to shine light on these agencies and how they’ve bloated or to dismantle the expensive OPA bureaucracies that Ontario families do not need and cannot afford.

Will you finally put Ontario families first and support our motion? Will you, Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member opposite talks about respecting Ontario families, but their actions do nothing but disrespect Ontario families. Why would you vote against a 10% reduction in their energy bills? Our clean energy benefit is bringing down energy rates by 10% for Ontario families, farmers and small businesses. Show some respect for Ontario families and support our efforts to lower their energy bills.

How can you claim to respect Ontario families when you voted against and opposed the creation of thousands of jobs that Ontario families in this province need, especially at this time in our history? We need those clean energy jobs, jobs that you don’t support, jobs that you’re going to kill. That’s totally disrespectful for Ontario families. If they respected Ontario families, they’d be supporting our efforts to clean our air and get out of coal and build a healthier future—

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

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. The Acting Premier told the press that he’d be campaigning with his federal Liberal counterparts if a federal election is called later this week. If a voter asks him whether he supports the Liberal Party of Canada’s plan to roll back corporate tax cuts, what exactly is he going to say?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As I’ve indicated publicly, Ontario’s corporate tax rates are still far above our sister provinces. So it’s important to understand, as many Ontarians do, and apparently the leader of the third party doesn’t want to do, that we have to be competitive with Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick. That is just the reality.

We also have to continue to be competitive with OECD countries. Canada’s at the mid-level right now. Frankly, by doing what we’ve been able to do, that helps all of Canada be competitive but, most importantly, makes sure that we won’t lose jobs—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: After taking $4 billion from the federal government to implement a new sales tax on everything from home heating to gasoline and heeding Mr. Flaherty’s call to offer a multi-billion-dollar handout to some of Canada’s richest corporations, how can the McGuinty Liberals now claim that they’re the only ones who can take on Harper’s Conservatives when they’ve been in lockstep with them all along? Seriously, who is this minister trying to kid?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I’ll remind the member opposite that it was $4.3 billion that the Conservative government gave us because they wanted us to harmonize the sales tax. Every nickel of that went to small businesses and to Ontario families—every nickel of that. In fact, the last payment will be in June, which is important. By the way, in British Columbia, they didn’t forward that on to the people.

I would remind the member opposite that the pulp and paper industry in northern Ontario said they needed these tax changes not only to help with the competitiveness of taxes but to help deal with the rising value of the dollar. The member may not have noticed this: The Canadian dollar is above par right now.

This is the right thing for jobs in Ontario. It’s the right thing for a better future. It’s the right thing for a—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People realize that this is a desperate move from a desperate government. The McGuinty Liberals have no credibility criticizing the Harper Conservatives. This government brought in Harper’s HST and copied his corporate tax cuts.

Will the Acting Premier be giving every Ontarian a little grain of salt to go with the budget next week?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Today is Harry Houdini’s birthday, and that member wants to get herself out of all kinds of untenable tie-ups. She doesn’t want to create jobs in Thunder Bay or in Timmins; she wants to create them in Red Deer and Edmonton. She doesn’t want to create jobs in Windsor; she wants to create them in Detroit. She doesn’t want to create them in Hamilton; she wants to create them in Pittsburgh.

We’ve laid out a clear plan that will create jobs and enhance investment. That is why even Ken Lewenza and Sid Ryan advised her to go easy on her criticisms of our tax policy, because they know it’s important to a new and revitalized auto sector and more jobs across the province. It’s the right plan for a better future for all of our children.

SCHOOL FEES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. Our public schools were founded over a century ago on the idea that no one should be denied an education because of how much money their parents had.

Why are already-stretched families being asked to pay more and more to put their children through high school?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think that it’s important to remind the honourable member that education has been a priority for this government and, as such, we have increased our investment in education by some 40% since coming to office. We also have worked very closely with teachers and with parents to understand where we need to be streaming those dollars.

I’m happy to say that as a result of our investments, because our focus has been on enabling students to be successful, we now have results that demonstrate our students are more successful. In fact, our students are among the top 10 best in the world as a result of the investments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It may be a surprise to the minister, but a new report was released by People for Education. It shows that high school course and activity fees are on the rise. Families are now paying almost 20% more in course fees this year, on average $25 per course, to give their sons and daughters the education they need.

Why are families being asked to pay more for public education?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to be able to correct the honourable member when I say that fees are not allowable for anything that is a curriculum requirement in our schools. Students are not required to pay fees for those things.

As a result of concerns that have come to us from parents, we have put guidelines around fees in place. We have done so with the co-operation of our parents. In fact, we will also be presenting guidelines this week around fundraising activities as well.

We are very conscious about the importance of ensuring that access to a quality education in the province of Ontario is equitable for all students. That is why we have acted as we have to put guidelines in place for fees. We will be coming out with guidelines for fundraising and also for corporate participation in our schools.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In a September 2010 letter, the Minister of Education stated that mandatory flat fees for courses leading to graduation are ineligible for fee charges, just as she said just now. Yet nearly 70% of high schools are charging course fees. That is the point.

Families are feeling the squeeze, and paying the bills at the end of a month is already a struggle for thousands of Ontarians. Why are the McGuinty Liberals refusing to enforce their own policy, and once again making family essentials more expensive when they need to be more affordable?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to inform the honourable member that, as part of our fee guideline structure, we are now requiring boards to report what fees are collected, how they are collected and why they are collected to ensure that boards are, in fact, complying with the fee guidelines. Up until now, no government has undertaken this kind of reporting.

We are very serious about ensuring that students and their families are not required to pay fees for what is required of students to gain their secondary school diploma or their elementary education. We are very serious about this. That is why we have put the reporting requirements in place. We want to know where boards are charging fees and what they’re charged for, because no student should be required to pay a fee in order to graduate from secondary school.

COMPENSATION FOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Attorney General. This morning I moved a motion in the legislative committee on justice policy which called for an investigation into the victims’ justice fund. This was an opportunity for parliamentarians to undertake their role as representatives of Ontario families and empower them to support victims of crime, such as Liz Hoage.

Liberal committee members voted against my motion, claiming that it was partisan. But my motion was taken directly from the 2008 recommendations of former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry in a report you commissioned.

Why did you direct your parliamentary assistant and other Liberal committee members to vote against my motion that would have supported victims of crime?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: In fact, no government has been more complete in its support for victims of crime. The very report he references, the former Chief Justice’s report, says that Ontario has the best approach to victims’ issues in Canada.

The problem with his motion, quite simply, is he sought to start at 2003, but we have a very good record of making sure that there’s not unallocated money in the victims’ justice fund.

He really should have looked at his own record for eight years, when they built money up in the victims’ justice fund, did not disburse it to victims, did not disburse it to agencies, and had a $77-million surplus at the end. We now have, apart from the contingency, $3 million in unallocated funds.

Our record is clear. He needs to investigate his own.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I notice the Attorney General doesn’t speak to the victims.

Today’s motion would have led to an investigation of the flawed victims’ justice fund and produced recommendations to ensure that the needs of victims are addressed—victims, Attorney General. Yet your parliamentary assistant voted against my motion because he said it was partisan.

My motion was taken directly from the 2008 recommendations of former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry—a direct quote from him. Clearly, it was your parliamentary assistant and Liberal committee members who were playing politics on this issue.

But if you agree with your parliamentary assistant that Chief Justice Roy McMurtry is, in fact, partisan, will you still have him conduct the inquiry on the G20?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member, with respect, is not being accurate in our approach. Our approach has been all about supporting victims. In fact, one of former Chief Justice McMurtry’s suggestions was that we make the victim quick response program permanent, which we’re doing, to make sure that we were as generous as people would expect us to be with victims.

Under both the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, where we put an extra $100 million in to clear up the backlog, and under the victims’ justice fund, where all of those funds are allocated to victims’ issues or to agencies that serve victims directly—that’s exactly what we’re doing: spending public funds for the assistance of victims. What the member wishes to do is to go back to his own record, which did not support victims as they should, built up an unallocated surplus, and he wants to ignore that—

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

DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you will know that Mayor Diodati and his council in Niagara Falls are concerned about the possible use of Agent Orange in their community. They want something done about it. They want an investigation. They call over and they’re told, “No problem. We’ve got this guy, Len Ritter, who’s supposedly the guy who’s going to be the independent fellow doing the review.”

How can the mayor of Niagara Falls—and, more importantly, the citizens of Niagara Falls—feel confident that there will be an independent review when we know that Len Ritter was the very guy who approved the use of Agent Orange when he was the head of that department back in the 1980s?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m very pleased to stand and speak about this issue again. It’s obviously very important to us, and we’re committed to finding all the facts and sharing the information in a transparent fashion.

In fact, our 1-800 number is operating and continues to receive inquiries and questions from people across Ontario. Since March 23 we’ve received 466 calls. The WSIB line continues to receive calls from former workers who were possibly exposed to the herbicide, and as of March 22, WSIB has received 534 calls and 171 claims that have been initiated.

We’ve fulfilled our commitment to establish an independent panel looking at 2,4,5-T, and certainly Dr. Ritter will be supported by panel members who will be serving him on a part-time basis to get to the bottom of this issue. There are far more questions and answers, and we’re committed to getting all those answers, and I’m committed to making sure those are—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The answer that Mayor Diodati and his council want to know is, how is there going to truly be an independent investigation when the person you appointed to head the investigation—and he in turn appoints those people to help him—was the guy who approved the use of Agent Orange? How can that be independent? The mayor of Niagara Falls and the citizens of Niagara Falls and citizens across this province need to know there will be an independent review. How could you have appointed somebody to head this up who was working for the very department that allowed the use of Agent Orange and eventually became the head of it at that time?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: It’s pretty clear to me what this honourable member is trying to do. He’s trying his hardest to discredit a world-renowned toxicologist. In fact, the honourable member has been trying to discredit the panel Chair even before the panel Chair was chosen.

As we all know, 2,4,5-T was removed from the list of approved herbicides nearly 30 years ago. Ontario is the first Canadian jurisdiction to launch a government-wide review of the use of this herbicide. Dr. Ritter would have been fresh out of university 30 years ago, working as a junior toxicologist for Health Canada. I’m sure that the honourable member knows that science has evolved significantly since the 1980s. Dr. Ritter is an award-winning toxicologist and a world-leading expert in the use of herbicides and pesticides. I have great confidence in Dr. Ritter. I’m sure that the rest of this Legislature will—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Earlier this week, the member for Nepean–Carleton visited Pickering to stand in front of a transformer station and talk about the debt retirement charge that her party slapped on my constituents’ hydro bills, as well as her party’s opposition to clean energy and the modernization of our electrical system. I know that the few people who showed up to hear about her party’s plan for energy left disappointed when she refused to share even one thoughtful idea her party has.

With so much at stake in our electrical system, would the minister get to the real facts out there in Pickering for their families and tell them what you’re doing to build the modern electricity system that they need today and will definitely need in the future?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Ajax–Pickering for that question. I want to remind them that this is the government that refurbished the switchyard at that very Pickering transformer station. This is the government that upgraded the Whitby transformer station. This is the government that refurbished the Cherrywood transformer station in northwest Pickering. This is the government that brought energy reliability back to the families of Pickering and broader Durham region.

When PC caucus members go out and hold these photo ops, I think it’s just a tad embarrassing for them to note that they’re standing in front of power infrastructure that they neglected and that we’ve upgraded. Our government has invested more than double what they used to invest in transmission upgrades. These are investments that that PC Party has opposed every step of the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, also last week, the Leader of the Opposition went to London, stood in front of a transformer station and talked about the debt retirement that his party placed on our constituents in London. Also, he—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member will come to order.

There have been a number of comments that I’m hearing from the opposition benches about whether a member will be here or not. I don’t want to hear about this. I know I’m not going to be here, but I don’t need the comments being thrown across the floor at other members on the other side. The electorate will decide on October 6. I do not need to hear from you in that regard. Thank you.

Please continue.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Also, they showed their opposition to our clean energy strategy, that will make sure we have clean energy in the province of Ontario. I know the two people who showed up wanted to hear about their plan for energy, which the Leader of the Opposition is proposing for Ontario, but you know what? They left frustrated because they didn’t hear anything, because they refused to share it.

Minister, can you tell us and tell my constituents in London about your plan for energy in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Duguid: Absolutely. I want to thank the member for London–Fanshawe for that question. I welcome the opportunity to share with him and this Legislature the fact that this government indeed has a long-term energy plan that invests in building a clean, reliable and modern energy system.

It may, however, be just a little bit embarrassing for the Leader of the Opposition to know that the particular transfer station that he was standing in front of in London had just undergone a $6-million upgrade to install a new capacitor bank that will help facilitate the phase-out of coal. That’s the kind of investment and upgrade that’s going to help the reliability of our energy system and help build a clean and healthy future for our kids. That’s the kind of investment, however, the PC Party failed to make when they were in office and have consistently opposed every step of the way.

I think it’s just a little bit embarrassing for the Leader of the Opposition—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Minister of Energy: Over the past two months, I and my colleagues have been travelling the province, talking to and hearing from Ontario families and seniors who say that they’re looking for relief on their skyrocketing hydro bills. I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to say that we’ve visited almost every transformer station in the province, some of them twice. Minister, will you do the right thing and give Ontario families relief on their hydro bills by voting in favour of our opposition day motion to scrap the Ontario Power Authority?

Or should we go back out, start our cars, get out to those communities and tell them you don’t care or give a damn about their hydro bills?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind members on both sides of the House that temperate language is very useful in helping to maintain order and decorum.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: If that member cared about energy costs for Ontario families, he and his party would be supporting our clean energy benefit. It’s taking 10% off the bills of every family in this province and every small business. Families are saving about $150 a year from this, small businesses about $1,700, farmers about $2,000 on average a year. That party isn’t supporting the assistance that we’re providing for Ontario families.

Our clean energy benefit is helping Ontario families cope with the costs of rising energy. Investments have to be made in our energy system. We need to build a clean, reliable, modern system, something they did not believe in when they were in power, something they don’t believe in now. We’re helping Ontario families; they’re opposing the help that we’re providing to those families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I guess it leaves us no choice but to start our cars and go out and tell them that you don’t care about their skyrocketing hydro bills.

In each town that we visited, families and seniors say they simply can’t afford it. In fact, if they knew we were in town, they would come out in front, join us at the transformer stations and tell us that they could not afford their hydro bills, and they would bring their bills with them. They told us that they cannot afford your billion-dollar smart meter tax machines, your billion-dollar energy exports to Quebec and New York and your billion dollars a year that you’re making of the debt retirement charge by turning it into a permanent tax grab.

It would be nice, for a change, if we could tell our old friends in Cobourg and Wallaceburg and Goderich and Mississauga, or any of the other 35 stops, that the McGuinty Liberals actually took something off their hydro bills to give them relief. Unfortunately, we can’t do that, but you have a chance to abolish the OPA by voting for our motion on Monday. Will you do that?

Hon. Brad Duguid: You know something that would be really nice for Ontario families? It would be really nice of the party opposite and their leader to tell Ontario families why they’re afraid to share with Ontario families what their plan is for energy. I can think of a lot of reasons why you’d be hesitant to do that—maybe because you don’t support that clean energy benefit taking 10% off their bills. That will be hard to explain to Ontario families. Maybe it’s because you don’t support the thousands of clean energy jobs that we’re creating in communities right across Ontario.

Maybe you don’t want Ontario families to know that you’re going to kill thousands of jobs in their communities. Maybe it’s because you don’t support our efforts to get out of dirty coal by 2014, cleaning our air and providing a healthier future for Ontario families.

I can understand why you don’t want to share your plan, but Ontario families deserve to know. What is your plan? When are you going to bring it out? When—

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

NUCLEAR WASTE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. Dr. Hazel Lynn, the medical officer of health for Grey–Bruce, has testified before various government bodies, stating that her health unit has conducted a formal risk assessment of Bruce Power’s plan to transport 16 massive radioactive steam generators across the Great Lakes to Sweden. She claims this assessment shows that this plan is risk-free. Does the Minister of Health support Dr. Lynn’s conclusion that there is no health risk to this widely opposed plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy, Speaker.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s interesting that the NDP continues to dwell on this particular issue, because it has been raised in the past, and I think we’ve been very straightforward in our response to this in the past. But it is interesting that this week, in the wake of what’s going on in Japan, that the issue would quietly emerge here again.

I don’t want to question their motives on this, and I never would, but let me just repeat: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission has studied this matter in absolute detail. They’ve held public hearings. This is a federal agency that is fully responsible for making decisions on this particular matter. I wrote to my federal colleague on this, and I wrote to Bruce Power as well, making sure that they’re taking every measure to protect the safety of Ontarians. But I asked the leader opposite whether she wrote to anybody on this at all when the hearings were going on, and she—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is actually back to the Minister of Health. Dr. Lynn is using her formal risk assessment to persuade Ontarians that the transport of radioactive steam generators is safe, but there’s a little bit of a problem. When Dr. Lynn refused to provide us with a copy of the actual risk assessment, we submitted a freedom-of-information request, and what did we get back? A speech, a series of emails and a template for what a health risk assessment might look like.

Is the Minister of Health concerned that a local medical officer of health is testifying before government bodies and speaking about this plan when a formal health risk assessment she cites doesn’t even seem to exist?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission held public hearings on this, and as I said, I, as Minister of Energy for this province, wrote to Bruce Power and my federal colleagues, impressing on them the importance to ensure that all measures were taken to protect public safety. The leader of the NDP had an opportunity to appear before those hearings. She could have—

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: If she was really concerned about this when those hearings were going on—it wasn’t that long ago—she could have let her voice be known. Why is it that today, in the wake of what is going on in Japan, the leader of the opposition decides that now she wants to make sure that her voice is heard? I can’t help but think that some of the media were right last week when they suggested that the NDP fascination with nuclear—all of a sudden, again this week—is nothing less than distasteful.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Again, I want to remind all members that the use of temperate language in this place is very important. It helps to maintain order and decorum. And any time that we start to bring it below a level that starts to deliver an attack at another member, it is not helpful for the dignity of this House as a whole. I would just ask all members to be conscious of that.

New question.

AIR-RAIL LINK

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. The Georgetown South project to expand GO Transit service and to build an air-rail link to connect Union Station to Pearson airport has seen a number of significant improvements in my community since its original proposal. These include making Weston an air-rail link stop and tunnelling GO trains and the air-rail link through parts of the Weston rail corridor to reduce noise and vibration and improving safety and the look of the corridor. It also includes expanded GO service for local residents to downtown Toronto and a commitment for a new GO station at Weston.

It has come to my attention, however, that word is spreading in the community questioning GO’s commitment to this station. Can the minister please assure my constituents that the planned new Weston GO station will go ahead?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for the question about the Weston GO station, for which she advocated, and I want to assure her and her constituents that we are proceeding with the construction of the new Weston GO station. That is on track. It’s because, as I say, of her advocacy that the consultation took place in the community.

Now, most riders will take the service from the airport to Union Station, but we recognized, as a result of conversation in the community, that there was also an opportunity to give residents in that community new service as well.

That construction of the GO station is going to be phased. The first phase will be to shift the existing station platform from the north of Lawrence Avenue to just south of Lawrence Avenue. Then, as we proceed with the station building and additional parking, Metrolinx will be speaking with local stakeholders and updating them regularly.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: As the minister knows, it is very important for the residents of York South–Weston to have the opportunity to provide input as this important work moves forward. The new GO station will be a welcome addition to the community, especially as services increase. It is very important that the community continues to be consulted and informed about the next stages in the process. Metrolinx has stated that the new station will be a temporary modular structure and that a master station plan will be carried out in 2011 to determine future transportation centre requirements.

Can the minister please tell this House more about this future GO station, as well as the next step for community input and involvement?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Metrolinx is working with the city of Toronto and the Urban Land Institute to develop the station master plan for the future Weston station, and there’s also going to be a public meeting in May 2011, a bit more than a month from now, to generate ideas and further development options for the Weston community.

Metrolinx will also be adopting the mobility hub guidelines to inform the station development. That process will involve the city and it will also involve the local community.

Because of the advocacy, again, of the members from York South–Weston and Davenport, we’ve acted on community concerns regarding the construction of the whole Georgetown South corridor. GO has a dedicated community relations team and community offices in the Weston and Strachan neighbourhoods to make sure that there’s ongoing communication with the community.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Acting Premier. In recent media, you’ve been telling anyone who would listen that you are campaigning for Michael Ignatieff. This is the same Michael Ignatieff who said that Premier McGuinty’s imposition of industrial wind turbines raises a threat to democracy. Will you backtrack on your support for Michael Ignatieff or for Premier McGuinty?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the member—and I say this to all members in the House. It appears that there is going to be a federal election campaign. I don’t want to see this election campaign fought out in this chamber. I want to see—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, on both sides.

I’d like to ensure that there are questions that are asked—I’m going to give the member an opportunity, as he still had some time on the clock—to ensure that it’s a question that is asked that pertains to policy of the provincial government.

Mr. Peter Shurman: I’ll simply rephrase it, Speaker.

There was a comment made pertaining to industrial wind turbines and a threat which is seen by your federal counterparts to those. Are you going to backtrack on your support for your federal counterparts or your Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What Ontario would like to see is our clean energy industry get the same support—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Lanark will withdraw the comment he just made.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdrawn.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What we would like to see is a national government that will give the same support to Ontario’s clean energy business as it does to the fossil fuel business in western Canada. What we would like to see is a federal government that will treat Ontario the same under labour force market adjustment programs as it does the other provinces. What I also said is, we want a federal government that will give Ontario an immigration settlement agreement that is as generous as it is to the other provinces. Finally, what we want to see is a federal government that acknowledges the work of the Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Again, I remind the honourable member on this side of the House to talk about provincial issues.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: There’s a quote out there from the Liberal candidate for Haldimand–Norfolk that says, “I have to take what you say to” the Ontario energy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I am being equal, and that’s what I’m trying to do. Don’t challenge the Chair, please, Minister.

I just remind the member to be talking about provincial issues and not a candidate for federal office.

Mr. Peter Shurman: In fairness, I am talking about provincial issues. I’m quoting a candidate who says, “I have to take what you say to” the Ontario energy minister “and tell him there are problems with wind turbines. I will tell him that you are not being heard.”

The Acting Premier may want to turn around and pass the message along to the energy minister sitting behind him.

The question for the Acting Premier is, how do you keep a straight face saying that you support Premier McGuinty’s expensive wind turbine experiments when you don’t?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am proud of the fact that we have the largest, most expanding clean energy program in the world—without question. I am proud of the fact that this government has invested unprecedented resources in closing coal and in opening up not only windmills but also solar farms. And what about biogas for our farming communities?

Most of all, I’m proud of the important incentives we’ve given to the creation of jobs throughout southern Ontario and eastern Ontario. That is the kind of support that is necessary to build a new industry, to build better schools, to build better health care and, most importantly, to build a better and cleaner energy future for all of our children.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Young adults with developmental disabilities are languishing on waiting lists for both Passport funding and special services at home. A recent ARCH alert says that 2,492 young adults are receiving Passport funding but nearly 4,000 people are on the waiting list. The same ARCH alert says that special services at home is frozen: No new applications have been approved since 2008—three long years.

Will the minister assure this House and the thousands of families—some of whom are here today—who languish on waiting lists that they will receive top priority in her ministry and in the budget next Thursday?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all, I would like to welcome the families and their children in the gallery today. I want to thank them for their advocacy roles on behalf of their children. I always say that parents are the best advocates for their children. I talk to a lot of them, and I’m so impressed.

What I want to say to the member on the opposite side is that the Passport program was created by this government. When you were in power, you just did nothing. When we came into power we initiated that wonderful program, and it’s a very, very successful program.

Yes, we have a waiting list, and yes, I would like to eliminate this waiting list. So we’ll have to wait for the budget. But this government is determined to do more for—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister doesn’t understand that the program is frozen. This minister knows full well that thousands of desperate families have begged for adequate support for years. Special services at home cannot be offered if no applications are being approved.

In the last fiscal year, the program provided an average of only $4,200 per family for respite care. Even worse, last March, there were 7,160 families on the wait-list. We know that a small amount of money has been allocated for Passport funding for this year, but that will only reduce the wait-list by 3%.

Will this minister tell families that every young adult in Ontario who qualifies for Passport funding and special services at home will get the services they need, or does she prefer to dither while they languish on wait—

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the question and I appreciate the concern from the member of the opposition.

I want to remind him that this government created the Passport program, helping more than 2,500 people with funding in their communities. Since 2003, we have increased annual base funding for special services at home. We have increased the budget by 50%. We have invested in developmental services 500 million new dollars and increased funding by 50%.

This government has done a lot. Do we have more to do? Yes, we have more to do, and we will be working with the parents and with our partners to make sure that we continue to invest in that program.

EDUCATION

Mr. Jeff Leal: This morning my question is to the Minister of Education. Parents in my riding of Peterborough have been contacting me with their concerns. They’re concerned about the situation that is unfolding in Wisconsin. Teachers there are losing their collective bargaining rights and teachers are being portrayed as overpaid and underworked. Parents in my riding are very concerned that a similar sentiment could be making its way north of the border.

What can I tell my constituents to address their concerns? Do they need to be worried about the future of their child’s education?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: That’s a very important question, and I can say that it’s a question that I’ve heard from some of my constituents as well.

What I can say to the honourable member is that our government, our party, is absolutely committed to the collective bargaining process for teachers, ECEs and all support workers in our schools. We are absolutely committed to labour peace. We are absolutely committed to peace in our schools. We value peace in our schools because labour peace supports student achievement. That is why test scores are up in the province of Ontario.

We have also been able to increase graduation rates. It’s because our committed staff in all of our schools have been able to focus on doing what they do best, and that is educatin