Thursday, May 21, 2026

The committee met at 1000 in room 151.

Official source

Consideration of the following bill:

Official source

Bill 105, An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 105, Loi édictant la Loi de 2026 visant à renforcer la réglementation des agences artistiques et modifiant diverses lois.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order. We’re meeting today for the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 105, An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. We’re joined today by staff from Hansard and by Kristi Cairns from the Office of Legislative Counsel to assist us with our work. Should we have any questions, we’re also joined virtually by counsel from various ministries via Zoom. The proposed amendments, which have been filed with the Clerk, have been distributed to the members electronically and in hard copy. Before we begin clause-by-clause, I will allow members to make comments to the bill as a whole. Afterwards, debate on the bill will be limited to the specific items under consideration. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. Committee members, pursuant to standing order 83, are there any brief comments or questions on the bill as a whole? MPP West.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

In general, I think we heard very clearly in committee that people are not in favour of many of the changes that are happening to WSIB. The minister had said very clearly that she wanted to have a “tell us once” ministry. Everyone—except for the people who were there specifically to speak about talent agencies—said they’re in opposition to the changes for WSIB, and to improve the changes. I hope that my colleagues keep that in mind while we’re talking about these amendments that are coming forward.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I just wanted to note how many people who wrote, outside of their concerns about the WSIB sections, with concerns about so many things thrown into an omnibus bill, so that we’re not in a position to really debate and hear from people about specific sections of the bill. This omnibus practice is a significant problem for people.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Fraser.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I want to echo my colleagues’ comments. When I take a look at this bill, it’s a red tape bill that creates red tape. So you’re saying to injured workers who, after 72 months or six years who were deemed to be injured with a permanent injury, “Now you’ve got to prove it.” I think that’s creating more red tape. I didn’t think it was a bill to create red tape, and it is. We’re all sitting here, we’re all healthy, we’re not at home. We don’t have a fracture in our neck that doesn’t allow us to do our job, right? We don’t have that kind of injury. We’re not missing a limb. And we’re saying to these people, “You have to prove it—again.” Their life is already hard. That’s red tape. I’m sorry to say it, but it is. I think that’s a fair and reasonable thing to say. I think we need to recognize that there are a few of us here who are past the age of retirement. Chair, I think that might be you and I, not the rest of these folks—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

I just want to point out that that age is when you see it is.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

That’s my point. Thank you, Chair. I don’t need to say anything else about that. Now, stuck in the middle of this is the Environmental Assessment Act and the Ombudsman Act. There are good things that are in this bill. Raising the rates is really good. Raising the rates for coverage on WSIB to 90% is the right thing to do. I’ll give the government kudos for doing that, but you’re taking away at the same time. There has been a one-sided approach to WSIB up until this bill, and there was an opportunity to take a look at injured workers and what their needs were—not all the surplus going to employers; some of the surplus going to people, which you’re doing right now, which is upping the rates. That hasn’t happened for a long time. There is about $21 billion; I think that’s the amount of money that’s been returned. We’re not against that, but we want to see some balance. Because workplace safety insurance benefits the employer by avoiding litigation—it’s an insurance against being litigated against for workplace injuries; that’s why we started it—and it benefits the employees. So when you have a situation where you have a surplus, you have to have some sort of balance there to ensure that you’re covering people on both sides. It’s not there. I am very pleased about the coverage for—and this is another good thing in the bill, I’ll say this—the retirement home workers and the group-home workers. It’s very important. We’ve been working on it for a long time. I’m only going to say one thing about that right now: I think I might need to follow this one right through to the end, because it’s important that, when we pass legislation—and I imagine this bill will pass—that we actually execute the things we put in the bill. I’ll just leave it at that, and I’m sure my colleagues can speak.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

I appreciate that. I’ll be relatively short on this as well. I want to thank all the members who have come in today for this. This is a constit week. Normally, we would be back in our constituencies, and when I look around the table, the distance that the majority of us have had to travel—this is not one day out of the constituency, for many of us; it’s actually three. Travel would have happened last night. We’re here all day. We have the potential of staying until midnight. That means that travel back home would be tomorrow. So effectively, a lot of the members here have lost three days in their constituency, where they would be working directly with their constituents, where they’d be hearing the concerns of those. I do truly appreciate that everyone has had the dedication to travel that much of a distance to come in to do this, knowing full well that they’ve given up two extra days in their own ridings, working with their own constituents. So thank you to everyone who’s come in today for this.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

No further discussion? If not, as the committee will notice, Bill 105 is comprised of the preamble, three sections and nine schedules. Since the majority of the bill is set out in the schedules, I propose that we stand down the preamble and sections 1 to 3 of the bill to postpone their considerations and start with schedule 1, section 1. Do the members agree? Agreed. MPP West.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’d like to have a recorded vote on our votes. Do I make that every round, or can I just make it right now as a blanket request?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Yes, we can; if you want it on all your amendments, we can agree to that. The process says if I miss one, I’m not going to take the blame for it.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

He’ll remind you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

That’s actually the point, because that’s the only difference between having it each time and being reminded that it’s done. So, with that, it’s noted. We will now begin our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 105, starting with schedule 1, section 1. There are no amendments to sections 1 to 4 of schedule 1, therefore I propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Is there any debate on sections 1 to 4 of schedule 1? MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Actually, regarding schedule 1, I want to point out concerns raised by Unifor about the fact that, in schedule 1, it’s possible to summarily dismiss complaints—that there is no process to ensure that complaints that are brought forward are actually heard, so I think that needs to be on the record.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? If not, is the committee ready to vote? Shall schedule 1, sections 1 to 4, inclusive, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. There are no amendments to sections 1 to 29 of schedule 2. Therefore, I propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Is there any debate on sections 1 to 29 of schedule 2? No debate? Ready for the vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. If there’s no further discussion, shall schedule 2 carry—there is a notice— Interjections.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP West.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

For the record, the Ontario NDP recommends voting against schedule 2 to the bill.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

We recommend, as well, voting against schedule 2, and that’s because, essentially, what you’re doing is you’re stripping away environmental protections. You’re stripping away communities’ right to go to the Ontario Land Tribunal. You’re reducing oversight. If you live in a place like Dresden and they’re going to resurrect a 30-year-old dump that’s had nothing going into it—if you live next door, it’s a problem. I guess if you don’t live next door, it’s not a problem for you, and maybe that’s why members have no problem doing that. It’s not right. There are processes in place to listen to the voices of Ontarians, even when the government doesn’t like to hear what those voices have to say. It does, at times, take a little bit more time, but I think we would all appreciate the fact that if we had what we felt was a legitimate reason to oppose something or recommend something, that the government would take the time and make sure that things were in place so I’d be heard. I’d maybe not get the answer that I want, but I’d at least be heard. My take when I see this stuff is just like, “We’re just going to say no anyway, so why are we doing this?” That’s the vibe, right? That’s the vibe that you get from this section in the act, and it’s bundled in with a whole bunch of stuff. I don’t want to get going about Bill 5 and the special economic zones and all the things that are being done that are saying to people, “We’re just going to say no, and we’re going to do what we want, and why are we wasting time listening to you?” That’s why I think we should vote against schedule 2.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I would like to support what MPP Fraser has said about this section because there is an assumption that input from people who are actually affected by, for example, where dump sites are going to be placed, that there’s no room to hear those concerns. Schedule 2 really chokes those voices from having a space, and for what reason? Then, is the assumption that government will always say no, regardless of what concerns are brought forward by the people you are actually supposed to be representing? Because we are here to represent our constituents, not particular business lobbies. We’re not here to undermine environmental protections. We are here to make sure that we have the highest possible standards in this province to protect people from harm, and harm that can be caused by government and by poor government decisions. I’ll note that the city of Toronto wrote quite strongly with concerns about schedule 2 of the bill.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Yes. I think that the members already spoke really well to this, but just for the record, this allows the minister—to remove the requirement for the minister to conduct, publish and review a comprehensive environmental assessment. That’s something that’s pretty concerning. As my colleague from the Liberal Party had said, there are a lot of people who feel like the Conservative government isn’t listening to them when it comes to environmental concerns. I’m not trying to imply that is what’s happening, but there is that perception, and I think saying that we’re not even going to go through the pretense of pretending to listen anymore is a frustrating experience. I don’t know the qualifications that the minister has, but I know if I were the minister, I don’t have the qualifications to assume that this is done well. It’s not my background. It’s not my expertise. If I were ever in that position, I think that I would likely make some errors. As we learned, I think, from committee, and we learn often in committee, there are things that the public share with us that we hadn’t considered. They have a different perspective. Behind me—I know we can’t use props; I don’t know if the same applies to committee—is a photo of Sudbury, Ontario. Sudbury was known for looking like the moon. The environment was not important to the government of the day. We were allowed, in our city, to have twice the amount of pollution than any other place on the planet—exposed to our city. It killed off our trees and our wildlife. It scarred the ground. It made the lakes turn black. It was from the community pushing back that those were there. I think there’s a tendency sometimes to think, “What’s the big deal?” But the big deal can be very big. It’s a lot easier to not think of it as a big deal if you don’t live there, but when you do live there, it’s a very big deal for a lot of people. Environmental Defence is concerned about this. We’re very concerned about this. We work for the public. It’s our role. Listening to the public is our job, and writing rules, writing laws that say we don’t have to listen and report to you anymore is not about a solid democracy.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Fraser.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I’ll be very quick. Something that my colleague said that I just think is worth underlining, is, as individual members, even in the government, you have to look at the amount of power that you give a minister. There needs to be a check and balance on that, because if there’s something in your community—and you may know this—that you’re concerned about, that you’re asking a minister to address or at least listen to people, and they don’t respond, that puts you in a very bad position as an MPP, especially if you’re in government—even if you’re not in government. The order in council and the checks and balances—the Lieutenant Governor in Council—those checks and balances that we have against ministerial power support all members on all sides, and I just wanted to point that out. Thank you for giving me a little extra time there, Chair.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further discussion? Are we ready to vote on schedule 2?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Recorded vote, please.

Official source

Kanapathi, Racinsky, Dave Smith, Triantafilopoulos, Vickers.

Official source

Fraser, Vaugeois, West.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The motion is carried. There are no amendments to sections 1 to 4 in schedule 3. I therefore propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? All those in favour? Opposed? Carried. Is there any debate on schedule 3, sections 1 to 4? No debate? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 3 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 4: There are no amendments to sections 1 and 2 of schedule 4, therefore, I propose that we bundle these sections. Do we agree? Agreed. Is there any debate on sections 1 and 2 of schedule 4? If there’s no debate, are you ready to vote? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 4 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 4 carries. Schedule 5: There are no amendments to sections 1 to 9 of schedule 5, therefore, I propose we bundle those sections. Agreed? Agreed. Is there any debate on sections 1 to 9 of schedule 5?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I think that schedule 5 is a positive step forward in terms of the voluntary recording of occupational health exposure ratings. I would encourage the government to do more on this issue. Occupational health is the sort of thing that doesn’t make the news when people die because they die near the end of their careers. It isn’t that sudden impact the same way that if someone was hit by a car or crushed by something—that major impact—but it does cost our health care system a lot of money at the end of the day. If it’s compensable through WSIB or if it’s not, you’re still going to end up in care, which is going to cost a lot of money, and we need to protect our workers in their workplaces. This is a positive step forward, but the reality is that, for the most part, this is only going to help workers who are aware of what’s happening. It’s only going to help the workers who know the forms exist, who write them down, who have functioning, strong joint health and safety committees, who have employers who encourage this to happen. The reality is not every workplace is like that, so I would encourage them to continue the steps forward on this so that we can truly help workers, and not just the workers who are aware or who know this exists.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Fraser.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I echo my colleague’s comments. It’s a positive step forward to address this. I do think we had one recommendation that came before us from the building and trades, which was to have a unit that would take a look at, more broadly, where exposures occurred so that it would be easier to manage this. I just would encourage the government to consider doing that as an investment that will make what they’re trying to do here more effective.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I’d like to note that we heard—from quite a few people—concerns about the fact that this is a voluntary record, which is never going to capture what’s really going on in a workplace, and that there was a system up until 1996 that actually had people going to workplaces and doing the tests in real time in those workplaces, which apparently worked very well. So I would recommend that the government look at that and bring that back. I would also like to note that we heard, when we heard presentations, that the standards of exposure are far too high in Ontario, particularly in the mining industry but also in construction, where people are inhaling a lot of diesel particulate. We know that that standard needs to be lowered. When it’s not lowered, again, the costs go to the health care system, which is taxpayer-funded, whereas these are business expenses that should be reduced in order to be protecting the safety of their workers. We can’t really be saying it’s saving money to not have the best possible protections for workers, because, ultimately, it costs the public a great deal more. Why would we allow people to get incredibly sick because of their workplaces? We have the means to stop this, and we should.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? Ready to vote? Shall schedule 5, sections 1 to 9, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 5 carry? Debate? If not, all those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 5 carries. Schedule 6: I believe in section 1 we have a government amendment: MPP Smith.

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

I move that section 1 of schedule 6 to the bill be amended by striking out subsection 2(3) of the Ombudsman Act and substituting the following: “Conditions for appointment “(3) An order shall be made under subsection (2) only if, “(a) the person to be appointed is proficient in English and in French; and “(b) unless decided otherwise by unanimous consent of the assembly, the person to be appointed has been selected by unanimous agreement of a panel composed of one member of the assembly from each recognized party and chaired by the Speaker who is a non-voting member.”

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Discussion?

Official source

Mr. Dave Smith

This is just a technical change to the schedule. It was something that was advised to us by legislative counsel, so we’re making that change.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion? If not, are you ready to vote on the amendment? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. Shall schedule 6, section 1, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 6, section 2: Is there discussion? If there’s no discussion, are you ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 6, section 2, carry? All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 6, as amended, carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 7: There are no amendments to sections 1 to 4 of schedule 7, therefore, I propose we bundle those sections. Is there agreement? Agreed. Is there any debate on sections 1 to 4 of schedule 7? If there’s no debate, ready to vote? All those in favour? All those opposed? Carried. Shall schedule 7 carry? All those in favour? All those opposed? Schedule 7 carries. Schedule 8: There are no amendments to sections 1 to 61 of schedule 8. I therefore propose that we bundle these sections. Is there agreement? I thought I might get agreement on that. Debate on sections 1 to 61?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Just as a comment: I think that all around the table we’re aligned on what we are hearing here, but during committee, I had noticed that people around the committee weren’t 100% sure of how the whole system worked, and there was the opportunity to learn more. But because it’s an omnibus bill, as my colleague has said—lots of things were thrown together in it—there wasn’t always that opportunity, between our three panellists who had come to speak about different things, to be able to ask those probing questions. And also, on this bill, once it passed second reading, it was brought to committee, I believe, on a Tuesday at 9 a.m. And if you wanted to deputize and bring forward any comments on it, you had to submit it by 4 p.m. of that same day and submit a written response, I think, within two days after that. So the reality of what was happening here—even though I think it’s good legislation, I think we missed an opportunity to better understand how that system could be further improved. I know there was one of the talent agencies who had some concerns. At a personal level, I didn’t have the opportunity to fully understand what the concerns were. But they had been in business for more than 30 years, and so I think there was an opportunity for us in the committee to learn a lot more from people deputizing here. And I think that’s what happens when a majority government, any majority government, has the power to limit the amount of time for people to speak. But I think that we really missed an opportunity to better understand how we could help people in the entertainment industry right now—just as a comment.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I would also like to comment on the fact that we acknowledged in this room that there was almost nobody who had any experience of working as a performer in the field, with the exception of myself, and even so, listening to the delegations, it was pretty clear that there was a lot of experience and knowledge that none of us had been exposed to prior to the hearings. And so one of the requests was that, when the regulations are put together, consultation take place with those groups—particularly those who have written in and who took the trouble of coming and presenting to committee—because it’s clear that the knowledge was not in the room, really, to adequately assess this part of the bill. Again, it is a problem that it’s an omnibus bill and that it was pushed through very quickly. So I would like it to be on the record that when it comes to making the regulations that further consultation take place with the affected people in the industry.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? Is the committee ready to vote on schedule 8, sections 1 to 61, inclusive? All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Shall schedule 8 carry? Further debate? If not, all those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried. Schedule 8 carries. Schedule 9, section 1: We have amendments to that. We start with the Liberal amendment: MPP Fraser.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I move that subsection 1(1) of schedule 9 to the bill be amended by striking out clauses 43(1)(b) and (c) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and substituting the following: “(b) if the worker was less than 65 years of age on the date of the injury, the later of, “(i) the day on which the worker reaches 70 years of age, or “(ii) if the board has determined a day in response to a request made by the worker under subsection 43(1.1), that day; “(c) if the worker was 65 years of age or older on the date of the injury, the later of, “(i) the day that is five years after the date of the injury, or “(ii) if the board has determined a day in response to a request made by the worker under subsection 43(1.2), that day;”

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Discussion?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Yes, I’m going to do that right now. If we look around us, the reality is, you walk into a Walmart, you walk into a grocery store, you walk into just about anywhere and there’s a lot of people who are past what we say is the retirement age. I think I mentioned this earlier in my opening remarks. I think it’s important that we recognize we’re healthier. We have to work longer because life’s harder. So we can’t penalize people for something that is, what I would say, a regular practice. There are I think something like 400,000 people over the age of 65 in Ontario still working. That’s close to half a million people. As I said, Chair, you and I are in that bracket. I’m not going to speak for anybody else in here, but you can put up your hand if you want to. The Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic brought this forward because they thought it was an important thing to do. Their experience in what happens with older workers is they’re basically being left in the lurch at a time when life is probably less affordable for them. It’s harder to gain employment—I think we all know that. It’s the right thing to do to recognize that 70 years old is a more reasonable retirement age and that we ensure we recognize the reality of today—that people are working longer because they’re healthier; they’re working longer because they have to. This idea of retiring at 65 for a lot of people is something that’s just not there. They don’t have an adequate pension. They’re in sometimes precarious work, and as you get older, the risk of physical injury—I used to be in the grocery business. If I was still working there stocking shelves and slugging dairy and stuff like that—your risk of injury is pretty high, and they don’t bring you in for modified work. In my riding of Ottawa South, there was a man I knew who worked in the produce department at Loblaws—and this was a number of years ago; he must be in his eighties now. And he was probably about 75, still working, still hauling out boxes of bananas and boxes of oranges. This amendment is important, because for those people that have to work in jobs where hopefully they don’t get injured because your body just—and we would know this, Chair, not that I’m trying to pick on the two of us. It’s like your battery runs out faster and it’s easier to get hurt. So I think this amendment is a reasonable thing—

Official source

Interjection.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Well, MPP Smith, I’m not going to make any comments; you might be close to us. I would encourage my colleagues to support this. It’s just something that we want for our families and our constituents and our friends to make sure they’re not penalized because of age and doing something that they have to do or doing something that’s just what we do now. We picked an arbitrary age of 65 at one point years ago. That hasn’t changed. We’ve changed and times have changed. I just would encourage my colleagues to support this amendment. Thank you very much.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I thank my colleague for bringing this amendment. I think there are some other amendments that are going to be on this, but I think it’s an opportunity. For the record, though: I know he talked about you a couple of times, Chair. I remember we had travelled, I think, to CSG, and I had to stay an extra day for an executive meeting. By the time I was boarding my flight, I think you went to four events already. The member might be slowing down but you don’t seem to be, and I think that speaks to the point of it, right? You get to a certain age and you may want to continue to work. You may still be healthy and want to continue to move. But I think, for the most part, a lot of the people—and we’re talking about people who are injured: long-term injuries, workplace injuries—their bills go up really high. I come out of mining. Local 6500 is my union. I worked at Vale and Inco for almost 20 years. From being there, it’s a physical and demanding job, and your income is pretty high. Because of the wage cap of WSIB, you end up in a really tough financial position if you’ve been injured, especially for a long time. You may lose your housing. You lose all of your toys. People tend to have quads—you lose your truck. Then you’re starting to rebuild your life with a limited amount of income. So your priority as a parent, very often, especially in small towns—probably everywhere—is that you do what you can to help your kids along. I know it’s the decision my wife and I made, where our mortgage is now extended because we want to make sure that our kids are able to graduate without debt. So you make tough decisions, right? Even if you don’t have any savings, you work extra. You put whatever you can in to help your kids get a better step in life. So for more and more people in Ontario, that opportunity to retire at 65 might be like you, Chair, where you’re just not wanting to and enjoying what you do and still healthy—or it could be, financially, you just can’t. I think the part that resonates with me, and I think all of my colleagues would remember this because when Marvin made the statement—Marvin was one of the injured workers. If you noticed—I come from a workplace where people have back injuries—sometimes Marvin was sitting and sometimes he was standing because when you’ve injured your back, you’re never quite comfortable in any position; you’ve got to keep moving around. But when Marvin said, “I don’t know what I’ll do when I turn 65 because I think I’m worth more to my family dead than alive,” that’s a shocking impact for all of us. I say that to emphasize this. I thanked him for saying it because it’s a personal thing to say, but it also is the sort of thing that makes you think, “Are we doing the right thing? Has the world changed?” If people can’t afford to pay off their mortgage and are worried that their family is going to be homeless, we don’t want them to be in a position where they lose their income—around the table, I think nobody does. And when injured workers are thinking, “I’m better off dead than alive. My family would be better served with my life insurance than with the income I’m making because of the injuries that happened to me,” we need to change this. We need to adjust it. The only recommendation, I think, on this is, I don’t think we should have a requirement for the workers to keep asking for this to happen. I’m very supportive of this, but I would nudge it along to say that it should just be a blanket of 70 for people—if I’m reading it correctly, John.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

There’s a series of consequential amendments that deal with that. We’ll have to see how that goes. Obviously, with these amendments, these consequential amendments—which I will read in anyway—we’ll see where we go from there. I just wanted to say one more thing. It’s not only that WSIB should extend to age 70, but those who are working past 65 should have benefits for the full length of their working years. Ontario should extend the period of extended coverage from two years to five years. Workers injured at 68, if they’re still working age, should enjoy five years of guaranteed security, not just two. I’ll leave it at that and encourage my colleagues to support this amendment.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I would like to also support this motion and to note that, first of all, as the legislation is written right now, it will increase the amount of red tape considerably—lots of increased red tape for WSIB employees, but also a burden on those having to go through yet another difficult administrative process to prove that they still intended to work. Some of us were at the pre-budget hearings in Thunder Bay. I know that MPP Kanapathi was there. I think you were there, MPP Smith. You’ll recall Teddy Bobrowski, who spoke as an injured worker, and how he had lost everything. It took 10 years to actually get his money refunded. In the meantime, he had lost his house and so on, and he was living on the street. One of the things he has said a number of times—perhaps not at that meeting, but in other spaces—is that, when he turned 65, miraculously, he was cured. All of a sudden, he didn’t have a broken back anymore. Of course, he’s being sarcastic, in that when 65 is the cut-off date, it does not represent reality, the reality of people with severe workplace injuries. And what we heard from virtually all the presenters on this issue—I think the lowest age cut-off was 68 and the highest was 71—is that we should be following the lead of the federal government’s approach to the last time we have to contribute to our RRSPs and so on and that we should be making it as simple as possible for the workers to access that support, which is supposed to be there for them. That’s the whole reason we have the WSIB; it shouldn’t be a huge ordeal to actually qualify. It seems to be something they need to qualify for automatically if they are continuing to work. I’d like to just note that MPP Fraser has said five years’ relief from the time that you can no longer work—I think that’s what you said—or when the accident takes place. I would like to support that, so it could be older than 70.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Fraser.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Yes, I would just like to thank the Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic for helping us, bringing this to our attention and bringing the amendments forward. These are some consequential amendments, again, that I think are important. I just want to go back to one thing, and I’ll be quick, because I know people would like to go for a vote on this: When we’re talking about the surplus and the surplus is really tilting towards employers for the last eight years—about $21 billion worth—this is an opportunity to use that fund, because it’s a fund, to ensure that we reflect what’s actually happening there in the workplace with so many people. As I said, I think something like more than 400,000 people over the age of 65 are working. And so again, I’d like to encourage my colleagues across the way and beside me—although I’ve heard they’re going to support it—to support this amendment.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Any further discussion? If not if not, are you ready to vote?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Recorded vote.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Recorded vote requested on schedule 9, section 1, with amendment number 1.

Official source

Fraser, Vaugeois, West.

Official source

Kanapathi, Racinsky, Dave Smith, Triantafilopoulos, Vickers.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

I declare the motion lost. We now go to section 1, Liberal amendment number 2 on schedule 9: MPP Fraser

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I move that that subsection 1(2) of schedule 9 to the bill be amended by striking out subsections 43(1.1) and (1.2) of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 and substituting the following: “Same “(1.1) A worker who was less than 65 years of age on the date of the injury and is entitled to payments under this section on or after the specified date may, on or after the day the worker reaches 65 years of age and before the day on which the worker reaches 70 years of age, request that the board determine whether the worker is likely to be working in suitable and available employment or business past 70 years of age and, if so, the day on which the worker is likely to cease working in such employment or business. “Same “(1.2) A worker who was 65 years of age or older on the date of injury and is entitled to payments under this section on or after the specified date may, before the day that is five years after the date of the injury, request that the board determine whether the worker is likely to have been working in suitable and available employment or business past the day that is five years after the date of the injury and, if so, the day on which the worker is likely to cease working in such employment or business.”

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

On the third line from the bottom, Mr. Fraser—

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Oh, did I miss something?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Would you read that again?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Oh, I thought I made it—“request that the board determine whether the worker is likely to be working in suitable and available employment or business past the day that is five years after”—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. You got it all now.

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I knew I’d missed a word there somewhere.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Discussion?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Just going back to what is reasonable and fair and a recognition of what’s happening out there right now: Just walk into any retail store. Go to any work site. You see people working well past the age of retirement. And I think that this amendment is—again, I want to thank the Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic for bringing this forward. You know, we should be making it easier for people. We shouldn’t be creating hardship for people, especially in what we call their golden years, which for some aren’t so golden. So, again, I’ll go back to the last thing I said about the previous amendment, which is: The fund is in surplus. It has been in surplus for a while. Let’s actually have a little bit more balance. Let’s tip the scales to one side a little bit more and recognize that there are workers who need to be protected past age 65 and shouldn’t be in a position of hardship because we’ve picked a date of retirement that is—30 years ago or whenever we picked it; it must be about 30 years ago—not actually reflective of the fact that we’re healthier and that people are working longer. That’s just the reality, right? In a sense, it is age discrimination, when you think about it. It’s clear what this amendment does: It protects older workers. It makes sure that they have coverage, like other people younger than them would have, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further discussion?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Over the weekend, I was at one of our colleagues’ celebration of life, the member for Sudbury East, Elie Martel—I almost said Eloi Rancourt, who was my journeyman. Elie Martel was a champion for workers’ rights, and I want to share a short story that’s related to this, because when I was elected, about two weeks afterwards—I hadn’t even hired staff yet—Elie showed up at my office with a stack of paper. He had been working on this case of a young man who’s now in his early sixties, who at his first job, when he was 15 years old, was working at a gas station and received burns to over 80% of his body. I don’t know how Elie got involved with this, but some time during his tenure as an MPP, he started working on this case and continued to work on it after his riding eventually became MPP Gélinas’s riding—after Shelley Martel. And when I got elected, he knocked on my door and said, “I need MPPs’ signatures on this to help move it up the chain a little bit,” and it was successful. That was the first WSIB case I was ever successful in, but I didn’t lift a finger, honestly. It all comes to MPP Martel for doing this. The reason I’m bringing this forward is, imagine you had an injury where you’re pumping gas and you get burns to more than 80% of your body. You’re 15 or 16 years old. You’re 60 or just past 60 years old when you finally get redress, and five years later, you’re cut off. Imagine the life, the income, the impact it had on you, your inability to work—all the other impacts. Because of an arbitrary rule, now at 65 you’re cut off. I think it’s supportive of this to go beyond that. It does make sense to have a sort of safety valve. I know that previous amendment to move it forward, to have the cap no longer just be at 65—but the idea of appealing beyond to say, “Look, I would still be working. I intended to work,” I think is at least an open door. On the infinite liability that has been brought up, this has been a chicken-and-egg-type scenario where, years ago, the Mike Harris government decided that there wasn’t enough money and began denying workers at a really high level or giving them lower payouts because there wasn’t enough money. Then, when there was enough money, they declared it as surplus and gave it back to the employers. This has been a thing that has happened cyclically for—my colleague would know better than I, but I’m going to say 25 years or more. So what happens is that the point of WSIB, as my colleague MPP Fraser had said, was a great compromise. It is supposed to be a balance to prevent workers from suing their employer. We see this in the States all the time, where there’s massive lawsuits to the employer, and many injured workers tell me on a regular basis, “Let’s just go back to suing. I’m getting ripped off.” Injured workers groups talk about their colleagues. They are living in poverty. They’re not treated fairly. They are given the short end of the stick. They’re being rejected. They have to fight and appeal, they have to fight tooth and nail, for just a minimum amount of money. Many are ending up on ODSP and living below the poverty line. Meanwhile, employers, including employers like Fiera Foods, who—I know of five fatalities in that workplace. I never heard of them before that, so there may be more. But employers are getting rebates back because of how safe their workplaces are while injured workers with major injuries have to jump through hoops and live in poverty. Let’s throw them a lifeline. Like my colleague said, I think this is a supportable motion.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I’d like to note that, up until the 1990s, I believe, the intent was to support the injured worker for the duration of the injury, and if that was for life, that was for life. We know some people—Steve Mantis, of course, who lost his arm, was lucky. I’ll call it “lucky” because it wasn’t lucky to lose his arm, but he has been able to retain support. That changed during the Mike Harris government when the age 65 cut-off was implemented. It didn’t exist before that, so I would call that age discrimination and a change that certainly harmed people with permanent injuries. Employers are paying one third of the premiums they were paying in the 1990s. It’s pretty unreal if you think of what each of us is paying for our own drivers’ insurance, our home insurance. It certainly has not gone down, and we don’t expect to get money back if we don’t make a claim. It’s shocking to me that those premiums have gone down so much and yet people with serious injuries are having to fight so hard. WSIB has a policy of saying no. We know that because, when it goes to appeal—if the worker has the wherewithal to take it to appeal—70% of those cases are overturned in part or in full. So, in fact, the initial decision should have been yes, but it was no, and again, if they have the wherewithal to take it to appeal, they can win. But they shouldn’t have to go through that.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate? If not, are we ready to vote on amendment number 2 to schedule 9 of section 1?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Recorded vote.

Official source

Fraser, Vaugeois, West.

Official source

Kanapathi, Racinsky, Dave Smith, Triantafilopoulos, Vickers.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The amendment is lost. The next amendment is NDP amendment to section 1, schedule 9, subsection 1(6).

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I move that subsection 1(6) of schedule 9 to the bill be struck out.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I wasn’t sure if we had to wait for you to confirm it or if it was debate.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Okay. Debate?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Yes, please.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP West.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I apologize for the delay. I thought I had to wait for you to acknowledge the amendment. Last week, when we had people speak to this, every person who spoke about this section told us this part was bad—every single person. The only people who didn’t were the medical students, who weren’t talking with WSIB, and the people who were speaking about—I forget what schedule it is, but the STAR portion that has to do with talent agencies. The United Steelworkers said this was bad. The Carpenters’ Regional Council said this section was bad. SEIU said this was bad. Steve Mantis said this was bad. The Provincial Building and Construction Trades Council of Ontario said that this was bad. Ontario Federation of Labour said this was bad. Ontario Compensation Employees Union—those are the people who do WSIB claims—said it was bad. IAVGO Community Legal Clinic said this was bad. The Workers’ Health and Safety Legal Clinic said this was bad. Glenn Cockburn, who is part of the talent agencies, also mentioned this was bad, which was interesting because he wasn’t speaking about this portion of it. The Injured Workers Community Legal Clinic said this was bad, and the Canadian Union of Public Employees said this was bad. So you have 10 out of the 16 who were allowed to speak here all saying this section does not make sense and would make life harder for injured workers, make it harder for the workers who have to deal with the claims, that this would actually penalize workers and create a life of distress for injured workers with long-term, six-year injuries. I want to couch that—the minister, when she was speaking, had said, “We are a ‘tell us once’ ministry.” All of these people coming to deputize said, not once but 10 times, “This is a bad move that you’re making. We are against this move. This will cause more complications.” It is really important that if the minister wants to be a “tell us once” ministry, that it isn’t “tell us once” as the employer but “tell us once” as the employees—tell us once how it’s going to be affecting you so that we don’t create more red tape. Ironically, she’s the Minister of Red Tape Reduction, but creating a mountain of red tape through this. This is not a supportable part of the bill. Literally, this is the major poison pill in this bill. This is penalizing workers who are injured and penalizing them beyond the point of where they had been in the past. These are the most injured workers with the longest injuries who now, for the rest of their lives, will be on notice and in jeopardy of losing any little bit of income. We’re talking about workers like Steve Mantis, who are missing an arm, who on a regular basis may be asked, “Are you still missing your arm, Steve? Can you confirm it? Can you send some medical documentation for us?” It makes no sense. It creates a mountain of paperwork, and it’s penalizing injured workers. The reality is that, as I said many times in the past, you cannot say that you stand with skilled workers if you don’t stand with injured skilled workers. You can’t say that you stand with mine workers if you don’t stand with injured mine workers. You cannot say that you stand with workers if you don’t stand up for injured workers.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

I mentioned this in my opening remarks. It’s hard to understand, when you’re calling something a bill to remove red tape, that you make people who have a serious injury for an extended period of time—you remove the protections for them or the thing that we’re doing in the 72-month, six-year cap on them having to come back and prove the thing that’s wrong with them again and again and again, and now you’re saying, “You need to keep doing it again and again and again.” And so, there’s that red tape piece to it, which is creating more work for people, creating more work for the injured worker. But then there’s back to the surplus, right? What’s the point of doing this if you’re already in surplus? Where’s the balance between the employer and the employee? It’s kind of, “There but for the grace of God go us” that we’re not sitting in their chairs. And seeing this in front of them is all of a sudden going to make a whole bunch of people, going forward, have to report on something that they haven’t had to report on, and they have a serious injury. So it kind of feels like the government giveth with one hand and taketh away from the other, and I don’t see what the obligation is to take away. It’s been tilted on the side of employers for a long time. I think it was Carmine from the building trades who came in and said, “I know which employers are asking for this and it is such a small fraction of people. There are other ways to deal with that.” In trying to get at a very small fraction of people—I think it’s just something like less than 2%, because it’s just an anomaly—you’re penalizing everybody. How does that make any sense? I know that probably there’s some feeling when you’re doing a piece of legislation that you’re trying to keep everybody happy, right? You’re trying to make sure that employers get a little bit of what they want so they won’t complain about the bill. This 72 months—it’s more than a poison pill. I mean, I said I am going to abstain on this legislation because there’s a piece in here that a whole bunch of people worked on, and I’ve had the pleasure of working with a whole bunch of people on, to protect people in residential care by making sure they were treated fairly and got WSIB. But if that wasn’t in the bill, I would not abstain. And this provision in the bill really makes me feel like not abstaining. It’s just not fair. It doesn’t pass the test of fairness. I don’t think that’s unreasonable. My colleagues didn’t write the bill. I just would encourage you to think about—not the big picture, but imagine yourself with a serious musculoskeletal injury or an exposure, a chronic disease caused by your workplace. You have to keep going back again and again and again. This 72 months was put in place to prevent that from happening and to prevent the extra work that it creates, because it’s pointless. So think about that. Think you’ve got—my colleague MPP West, in mining—an occupational injury because of the particulate you inhaled. Is it fair for you to come back again and again and again after 72 months, after six years? It seems very punitive. It just doesn’t pass the test of fairness. I don’t understand the need to put this in this bill, especially when you hear from the compensation workers who, I think, are the number one place in Canada for a stress-filled workplace because of their workload, so you’re going to give them more? The other piece that we don’t—we’re not sitting on the other end of these claims. Many of you, I’m sure, have had a chance—I know I’ve had a chance—to meet people who are looking for some help with workers’ compensation. My colleague MPP West talked about this one individual—how much work that is. Well, when you’re sitting on the other end and you’re seeing what happens to people’s lives—the pressures that happen to them because they’re injured and they can’t work, the pressures because they’re not earning the income that their family needs—it’s a really hard job because you’re listening to, in some cases, tales of human misery, right? People are hurting and they don’t have a way out. So the people who hear this every day, it’s really hard, and if you keep piling it on, it’s not going to get easier. It will injure them. I know of cases of people who are working in this line of business, and they go, “I can’t do this anymore. I can’t adjudicate these things. I can’t deal with these claims.” We need those people to make this thing work. And so that’s another reason why this doesn’t make sense, and I just would encourage you to support my colleagues.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Further debate?

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

I’m going to restrict my comments at this moment to the notion of clawing back if a person’s income theoretically goes over 100% of the WSIB claim. Now, first of all, if there are government payments, those are entitlements that everybody else in the province can have and hopefully add a little bit to their income. This seems to be a solution looking for a problem that doesn’t actually exist. We have 2.4% of workers who are still on loss of income after 72 months—and I’m going to talk about that more later. But what a worker gets from workers’ compensation is meant to compensate for the injury, for the change in a person’s life. A person’s life is completely turned upside-down. If you have a back injury or you have been poisoned, you can’t function in the way that you did before. You can’t do things with your family. You may not be able to—well, I’ve heard this from workers who have been severely incapacitated; that they can’t do things with their families anymore. They can’t do things with their kids. Their lives have changed utterly. Somebody who used to cycle everywhere and hike with their kids and kayak with their kids—all gone. So what they’re getting from the WSIB, really—it’s the loss of earnings, but it barely compensates for what has actually happened in a person’s life. And then to decide that you’re going to claw back any little bit of money that anybody else is entitled to, as if that was, somehow—that you should never have gotten as much as you did—it’s usually very little from the WSIB—it’s punitive. It makes no sense. As I say, it’s a solution in search of a problem that I don’t believe exists. But it will be an excuse, and I think Carmine—I’ve forgotten who he represented—

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Building trades.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Building trades?

Official source

Mr. John Fraser

Yes.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

—said that it’s going to create a cottage industry. We believe these are schedule 2 employers. There will be this new cottage industry of people actually looking to help them save more money on the backs of injured workers. How can we get more money out of those injured workers? What a terrible objective for any company to be taking on. And certainly, we know we’re going to see this; people going into business to help schedule 2 employers claw back money. There may be another solution, and that perhaps schedule 2 no longer needs to exist as a distinct category—and you’ll find that recommendation in documents that we received—so that there’s no longer an incentive to be running away from WSIB responsibilities.

Official source