Wednesday, May 13, 2026

The committee met at 0902 in room 151.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Good morning. We call the meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs to order. Before we get on with the business, I believe MPP West has a motion.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I move that MPP Bell replace MPP Shaw as First Vice-Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You’ve heard the motion. All those in favour? All those opposed? The motion is carried.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Second motion?

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I move that MPP Bell replace MPP Shaw on the subcommittee on committee business.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

You’ve heard the motion. All those in favour? Opposed? The motion is carried.

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)

Before we begin public hearings, I would like to make the following announcement: On May 6, 2026, the subcommittee on committee business adopted changes to the committee schedule for the consideration of Bill 105. The subcommittee was authorized by the committee to revise meeting and deadline dates and times, if necessary. The first change was to move the public hearings date to today, May 13, 2026. Additionally, the Minister of Red Tape Reduction is now scheduled to appear before the committee at 1 p.m. The witnesses were rescheduled to a new meeting date, where possible. Finally, the deadline for written submissions has been changed to 6 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, 2026. We will now begin public hearings on Bill 105, An Act to enact the Strengthening Talent Agency Regulation Act, 2026 and to amend various Acts. Please wait until you are recognized by the Chair before speaking. As always, all comments should go through the Chair. The Clerk of the Committee has distributed committee documents, including written submissions, to committee members via SharePoint. To ensure that everyone who speaks is heard and understood, it is important that all participants speak slowly and clearly. As a reminder, each presenter will have seven minutes for their presentation. After we have heard from all three presenters, the remaining 39 minutes in this time slot will be used for questions from the members of the committee. The time for questions will be divided into two rounds of five and a half minutes for the government members, two rounds of five and a half minutes for the official opposition members, two rounds of five and a half minutes for the recognized third party members and two rounds of three minutes for the independent member of the committee. I will provide a verbal reminder to notify you when you have one minute left for your presentation or allotted time speaking. I want to point out: Don’t stop when I say, “One minute,” because the punchline is between that and the end. At the end of the time, I will stop it immediately. Are there any questions from the committee? If not, we will start with the first panel.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

The first panellist is Mila Ferri and Naina Ganatra. They are virtual. I believe they’re on the screen. The second presenter will be the United Steelworkers Local 6500. The third one will be Carpenters’ Regional Council. With that, we will—as you’ve heard the instructions—start with the first presenter, Mila Ferri. The floor is yours. I just want to point out, we ask each presenter to identify themselves before they start speaking so we can attribute the comments to the right person. We also ask that if anyone else speaks, before they speak, that they introduce themselves for Hansard. With that, the floor is now yours.

Official source

Ms. Mila Ferri

Hello to the Chair and members of the committee. My name is Mila Ferri, and I’m honoured to be here today to present in strong support of schedule 4 of Bill 105. Despite being born and raised in Ontario, I’m a second-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. Today, I’m here to speak on behalf of all Ontarian international medical graduates. When choosing to study medicine abroad, one of my biggest fears was the prospect that I may never return home to practise medicine. This thought is terrifying to all Ontarians who study medicine abroad, who have envisioned re-establishing their roots and careers in the very place that raised them. Today, I want to highlight the advantages to each and every Ontarian’s health care that passing this bill will cause. The primary care crisis that we are facing is no longer a future risk. It’s our current reality as 2.5 million Ontarians do not have a family doctor, and the number continues to rise. As ER wait times rapidly increase—now at 4.5 hours—I think about 16-year-old Finlay van der Werken, who died after waiting eight agonizing hours in an emergency room in my home region of Halton, despite him being triaged at level 2, a category that requires a doctor’s assessment within 15 minutes. I also think about my elderly grandparents living in the Niagara region, where 90% of patients wait for up to three days in the ER for an in-patient hospital bed. Additionally, the average Ontarian patient is trapped in an arduous ordeal regarding specialist treatment. In critical specialities, the journey from referral to life-changing treatment takes nearly a year. This is why schedule 4 is vital. We cannot manage these year-long patient journeys without a stable, local physician workforce across all specialities who will practise in our communities for the long haul. Schedule 4 isn’t just a technical change to the residency match, it’s a critical tool for patient survival and physician retention. Prioritizing the 1,500 international medical graduates with Ontario ties is backed by clear data. Physician retention is highest—over 80%—when doctors train in the communities where they have deep roots. Schedule 4 ensures we prioritize doctors with ties to Ontario, as these are the individuals statistically most likely to open a clinic in their hometown and stay there for an over-30-year career. Currently, the match process for international graduates has a 4-to-1 ratio of applicants to spots. This risks giving a taxpayer-funded residency spot to someone with zero connection to Ontario, who may leave Ontario as soon as their residency is complete. With this match rate, we don’t just need a doctor for the two to five years of residency, we need a doctor for over 30 years of practice. The Ontarians studying medicine abroad want to come home to re-establish roots and spend their entire careers serving Ontario’s patients. Individuals who already know the challenges that Ontario health care faces can directly relate to, and be part of, the urgent solution. Furthermore, this bill brings Ontario into alignment with our peers in BC, Alberta and Nova Scotia that already use similar provincial-tie criteria. By legislating this, we provide stability by prioritizing Ontario’s own workforce without the fear of policy reversals. We are simply ensuring that Ontario’s tax dollars are used to train Ontario’s future doctors. This bill would be adapting and accommodating to the established standard in other provinces, whereby Ontario is simply modernizing to remain competitive and up to date. The time and money invested in training residents would therefore benefit each Ontarian whose taxpayer dollars are funding the residency training. This bill removes the barriers and obstacles that prevent Ontarians that are internationally educated from returning to serve their own neighbours. I urge you to support schedule 4. Let’s bring our students home, let’s protect our investment and, most importantly, let’s get doctors for the millions of Ontarians waiting for one. Thank you. I’m going to dedicate the rest of my time to allow my fellow student Naina Ganatra to speak.

Official source

Ms. Naina Ganatra

Thank you, Honourable Chair, and hello to the members of the committee. My name is Naina Ganatra, and I am also currently a second-year medical student at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland in their direct-entry medicine program. I am also speaking to support schedule 4, regarding the provincial changes to the Canadian Resident Matching Service. When I started to pursue medicine, my original plan was to attend McMaster medical school. However, by the time I reached high school, that plan no longer seemed realistic. Instead of pursuing an undergraduate degree and then trying to get into a medical school close to home, I chose to move an ocean away for a six-year direct-entry program, because it would realistically take less time than waiting to be accepted into a Canadian medical school. I am not alone in my endeavours, as approximately one third of my first-year class was Canadian, and the vast majority of us were from Ontario. This follows a consistent trend, as over a quarter of physicians in Canada are foreign-trained, and much of that statistic is made up of Canadian international medical graduates. Myself and my colleagues all share a similar objective: match back to Canada, and Ontario, specifically. I chose to attend RCSI because of its strong ties to Canadian residency programs, but these programs are not kind to international medical graduates. Although Ontario has added 551 residency spots since 2018, international medical graduates are disproportionately rejected compared to Canadian-trained graduates. CaRMS applicants must be Canadian citizens or permanent residents. However, Canadian medical graduates are consistently elevated throughout the process, whilst only 10% of spots are allocated for IMGs. As of 2021, 97% of CMGs matched, whereas less than 25% of IMGs did, despite our outstanding qualifications. The disparities in CaRMS as of right now prevent myself and other Ontarians from achieving our goal of practising in a country and province that desperately need doctors. Luckily, this sentiment is shared across the country, as the recommended alterations to CaRMS have a precedent set by other provinces such as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island. Saskatchewan also prioritizes IMGs by allocating more residency seats. The changes proposed to CaRMS would greatly benefit myself and other Ontario international medical graduates as it puts us on a more level playing field with Canadian-trained medical graduates. It would also allow us to make meaningful change in a struggling system, as my colleagues so—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Naina Ganatra

Thank you—and improve health care across the province. Furthermore, I implore each and every one of you to recognize that it’s time for CaRMS to evolve to reflect both the growing need for doctors, as well as the expanding IMG population, and most importantly, allow myself and my fellow Ontarians to return home. Thank you, and I yield the rest of my time to the Chair.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. With that, we will now hear from the United Steelworkers Local 6500.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Good morning. Thank you, Chair, and to the committee for having me today. My name is Sean Staddon. I’m an executive board member for USW Local 6500, and I’m also the WSIB compensation officer for that local. We represent over 3,000 workers in the Sudbury basin, as well as 7,000 pensioners, retirees and their families—many living with chronic injuries and illnesses from the mining industry. We are the largest mining union in the province, and we’ve been representing workers in the basin for 62 years. I want to start by acknowledging that this bill does contain some needed improvements. Increasing loss of earnings to 90% for injured workers matters. It recognizes the financial pressure injured workers face. Improvements to benefits beyond age 65 also reflect the reality we see every day, that many workers in physically demanding occupations cannot retire safely or with dignity. These changes matter. But, respectfully, they are not enough. Removing the 72-month lock-in period is being presented as a benefit, and it is not. It is a removal of protection. Under this bill, the WSIB can review a worker’s earnings at any time, and for the rest of their life. For workers living with chronic, progressive diseases, that creates a permanent uncertainty. It turns what should be a system of security into one of constant anxiety. That’s not protection; that’s instability written into law. And while 90% of loss of earnings sounds strong, many of the workers I represent will never actually see 90%. In section 54 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, the WSIB and legislation places a cap on their earnings. For workers, especially in dangerous occupations, that means that most of them are actually receiving closer to 70% of their earnings. When someone gets hurt for doing some of the most dangerous work in the province, they should not be punished for what they earn. Section 54 of the WSIA needs to be eliminated—full stop. What brought me to here today though, committee, and through the Chair, are my friends Ron Rousseau and Jacques Labelle. Ron was diagnosed with occupational lung cancer when he turned 64. Last month, he received a letter from the WSIB saying that his benefits were going to be cut off in July. Imagine being told that you won’t have an income while you’re fighting for your life. My friend Jacques is handcuffed to an oxygen tank in Timmins, Ontario. He has severe, life-threatening COPD he got from the mining industry. He was forced to take a reduced pension and walk away from a career that he loved. These are not isolated stories; these are the consequences of a system that does not work for the people who it was built to protect. Bill 105 needs to remove the arbitrary cut-offs and worker election to receive benefits after 65. It should be automatic. We also need to introduce retroactive protection, so that workers who’ve been injured get the same benefit through this law as their peers will moving forward, because if this bill is meant to protect workers, it has to protect the ones who need it most. The reality is that mining is not just dangerous for acute injuries, but irreversible occupational diseases: 87% of mining fatalities come from fatal occupational disease. In the last decade, 179 workers have died from lung cancer, COPD and pulmonary fibrosis. This legislation does nothing to address this epidemic. These are not accidents; they are slow, preventable diseases. Mining workers face a 54%-higher chance of getting lung cancer in their career, and a 165%-more chance of getting COPD. These illnesses are caused by known exposures—diesel engine exhaust, silica and arsenic—yet Ontario allows these exposure limits far above what researchers and scientists say, higher than Australia, higher than the United States. That’s not prevention; that’s accepted poisoning. At the same time, the compensation is failing. It can take one to two years to come with an initial decision from the board, and much longer if that decision is denied. Instead of recognizing the combined effect of these carcinogens, the board looks at them in isolation. So, yes, Bill 105 does have some needed improvements for those fortunate enough to get approval; far too many of the people I represent do not. If we are serious about protecting workers, we need real change. We need to reduce red tape and introduce presumptive legislation for mining workers in the province’s most dangerous industry. If a worker spends their career underground and gets lung cancer from the work they do, it should be assumed it came from work. Science supports it, and it’s the right thing to do. This means faster access to care, less red tape at the board and dignity for families and those fighting their diseases. We also need to bring exposure limits in this province down. Ontario has some of the highest exposure limits for non-carcinogens, and it’s embarrassing.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Critical minerals are essential to our future and to this economy. Ontario cannot claim leadership while allowing preventable disease in its most important industry. Workers shouldn’t have to choose between a good job and their health. I thank the committee, and I welcome your questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. We’ll now hear from the Carpenters’ Regional Council.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Finn Johnson, director of government relations for the Carpenters’ Regional Council. I am joined virtually by my colleague Sally Chiappetta, our WSIB representative. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to Bill 105. We are supportive of many elements of this bill and would like to speak to the positive changes being made to reduce the length of the open period in construction, and the steps towards harmonizing training certifications in the construction industry. However, we do have concerns with the changes being made to the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act. To begin, we support the proposed amendment to shorten the open period in the construction industry to 30 days. The current 60-day window creates prolonged uncertainty for workers and contractors. In construction, where projects rely on tight timelines and coordinated labour, this instability can disrupt productivity and delay completion. A shorter open period will reduce disruption on job sites and help maintain productivity and stability in our industry. We also support the creation of a worker occupational exposure registry. It will improve the tracking of workplace exposures, support better health outcomes and strengthen accountability across the industry. Another beneficial change in this bill is the move towards national standards for training and PPE. This will eliminate unnecessary barriers, like retesting and duplicate certifications; reduce costs and delays for workers moving between provinces; and increase labour mobility. Ontario’s construction sector is under pressure from major infrastructure and housing demands. Enabling skilled workers from across Canada to contribute immediately when and where they are needed will help keep projects on track. We hope this step is one of many on the path towards nationally recognized standards for safety and training across the construction industry. I would now like to pass it over to Sally Chiappetta to speak about the proposed changes to the WSIA.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

Thank you, Finn. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Sally Chiappetta and, like Finn mentioned, I’m one of the WSIB representatives at the union, Carpenters’ Regional Council. While we support the move to provide loss-of-earnings benefits to injured workers past the age of 65, we have significant concerns with the broad discretion afforded to the WSIB to make the determination of whether an injured worker is likely to continue working past age 65 without clear criteria. With the language proposed in the bill, if you are injured on the job before the age of 65, you are not automatically entitled to benefits after that age. Instead, the WSIB will be required to make a determination of whether they think you would have continued working past the age of 65 if you were not injured and for how long. This approach will certainly increase disputes and appeals, causing further backlogs to a system that is already overrun with cases. This is the wrong way to implement a good idea to help injured workers. Instead, workers should be entitled to loss-of-earnings benefits up to the age of 68 if they were injured before the age of 65. This recognizes the reality that many workers are retiring later due to the high cost of living and people living healthier lives well into their mid- and late-sixties. Further, we are also concerned about the removal of the 72-month lock-in period for loss-of-earnings benefits and the expanded review powers for the WSIB proposed in the bill. Whereas now, after 72 months, an injured worker’s loss-of-earnings benefits are set and cannot be changed, this bill proposes that loss-of-earnings benefits be reduced at any time for any reason, and as many times as the WSIB decides to. This would leave workers feeling like they are under constant review. Over time, loss-of-earnings benefits will decrease based on statistical increases in earnings or increases in the minimum wage. This has real consequence, as it can complicate access to mortgages and loans and undermines long-term financial planning. Further, by allowing perpetual reviews of benefits, the WSIB is taking on a tremendous administrative burden that will be costly to maintain. As we try to attract young people into the trades, they want to know that they will be protected in the event they experience a workplace injury. Removing the 72-month lock-in will significantly undermine confidence that a worker will have long-term protection if they are injured in the course of their employment. Finally, we are concerned about the proposal to allow WSIB to consider other sources of income when determining reductions in loss-of-earnings benefits with the goal of ensuring no worker is earning more than 100% of their net income pre-injury. The proposed language is broad, and the types of income that the WSIB would consider when determining reductions include CPP retirement benefits and employer or union pensions. This represents a significant departure from current practice. More importantly, it changes a foundational principle: Workers’ compensation has always been based on loss-of-earning capacity due to injury. This proposal shifts the focus towards total income rather than a worker’s ability to earn employment income. Additionally, union members can often begin collecting an unreduced pension before they retire—some as early as age 50. This means they could be punished for having a strong union pension, and their loss-of-earnings benefits could be reduced. This is a fundamental change which risks undermining the purpose of the system. Finn?

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

In closing, Bill 105 includes several important and positive reforms that we support, particularly around labour stability, safety and mobility. However, the proposed WSIA changes raise serious concerns about fairness, predictability and the integrity of the compensation system. In the last two years, employers have received $4 billion back in premium rebates, while injured workers are going to be harmed by the WSIA changes in this legislation. This is simply not fair. We encourage the committee to amend the bill regarding loss-of-earnings benefits after age 65 to automatically cover workers up to age 68, to keep the 72-month lock-in period for loss-of-earnings benefits and to remove the cap on loss-of-earnings benefits at 100% of pre-injury net earnings.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Thank you for your time. We look forward to answering your questions.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you. That concludes the presentations. We will now start the first round of questions with MPP West.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I want to thank everybody, but I’m going to start with the Steelworkers just because of the amount of time that we have. Actually, a lot of things the steelworkers said, the carpenters said as well, so I might go back and forth. Sean, do you want to expand a little bit on removing the 72-month lock-in period and what that means for workers?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, absolutely. Through the Chair, I thank you for the question, Jamie. Removing the 72-month lock-in could devastate a worker with a long-term injury. We’re not talking about sprains or strains or things that resolve in six-to-eight weeks. A lot of the workers that I represent have life-changing injuries. They may never go back to the workplace again. Their life has not only changed from their health outcomes but financially taken a hit. They based their mortgage—they based their entire lives on what they were able to earn at their workplace, knowing at any time that an oversight agency like the WSIB could review and make their changes and reduce your earnings even further. As far as I’m concerned, the legislation as it stands now—if there is some kind of alarm bell from the WSIB or there’s a material change post-72 months, the WSIB has the ability to review the earnings. I’ve seen it happen. I’ve seen workers have their earning capacities changed because of a material change in their job; they started earning more money and it was appropriately changed. There is absolutely no reason to change this legislation as it stands.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thank you. Finn or Sally, in your submission, you mentioned concerns about this lock-in period as well and honestly talked about the administrative burden that will be costly for the taxpayers to maintain on this. I wanted to know if you could expand on that.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Sure. I might pass that to Sally first and then I can jump in after.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

Thank you. As far as the administrative burden, our office deals with many decisions that go through the appeal process. We see already, as it is with the decisions that we’re dealing with and the caseload that we’re dealing with, that we’re faced with backlogs; that decisions could take a couple of years to go through the entire appeal process. Those are on decisions with the way the legislation is currently written. With the broad discretion for the WSIB to now review benefits following 72 months and it would be perpetually reviewed, that would just open up files to be continually assessed, scrutinized and reviewed, and those decisions would be appealed. I know my colleague and I in our office would encourage our members to appeal those decisions because that would be the right thing to do. That would be the best thing in their interest. That would just further burden a system that’s already taxed with dealing with the file work that they already have. So in addition to the financial implications, as the steelworker rep mentioned, there are a lot of administrative and bureaucratic concerns that we have with this sort of decision. The system at the WSIB currently is simply not equipped to deal with the level of work that this proposed bill would create.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

I’m going to go on to some of the things that Sean from Local 6500 had said about mining having irreversible occupational injuries. The stats were pretty stunning: 87% of fatalities in the mining industry in Ontario come from occupational disease. You said that’s not prevention, that’s intentionally poisoning—54%-increased chance of lung cancer, 165%-greater chance of COPD. I think, very tellingly, you talked about the importance of dignity for families. I used to be a member of their union; I know from visiting people at the hall, you often meet children and wives of the miners—predominantly male-dominated—on the verge of tears, and miners just hoping to get a response from WSIB before they pass away so they know their family will at least have some partial care. I want to understand this because while you were talking about this, I was thinking about how people can’t smoke at the mall anymore. You mentioned intentional poisoning. So why is it, in Ontario, that our rates are much higher than in other sectors or other regions around the world?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Through the Chair, I thank the member for the question. As to why we are allowed to have occupational exposure limits set where they are, I couldn’t really answer that question. Those limits have been set, as far as I know, since the late 1980s and have not changed. They have not kept up to date with the technology that is underground, with the heavy introduction to diesel equipment. This province is far behind our neighbours to the south, who, under the current administration, have lowered their silica rates by 50%. That’s how important mining is to North America—that our American neighbours are changing the silica laws. We’re far, far behind. Everyone’s worried about the economic cost it will take to do that. The economic cost on the health care system—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time. We now go to MPP Blais.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Thank you, everyone, for your presentation. Sean, I’m going to give you a chance to conclude your thought there, if you would.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Thank you, through the Chair: It’s not just economically a burden for the employers to have to implement controls; it’s what needs to happen, because those costs are being shifted to our already stressed health care system. Someone is going to get silica and be treated for it. Now, whether the WSIB benefits pay for that treatment or OHIP does, it will be paid for. Quite frankly, our local has taken the position that as long as we allow the employers—because they are doing nothing wrong; they are following the law. What we need to do is change the law to reduce the amount of people, the amount of miners, the amount of smelter workers, the amount of refinery workers and even my friends in construction. We need to lower the limits to enforce this. It’s the right thing to do so that families don’t have to lose a husband at 67 years old, that they can retire with dignity for longer than five years after they take their pensions. This isn’t an orange question, blue question or red question; this is the right thing to do for human beings.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Yes, I know. I do appreciate that, and I agree with you. Whether we pay through WSIB insurance or with the health care system, the bill is going to come due at some point. Forgive my ignorance: I’m not a miner and I don’t have any miners in my family or close circles. How are exposure limits monitored? Is it a matter of the amount of time you’re spending in the mine? Are there air quality monitors while you’re in there? Maybe educate us a little bit about that.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, absolutely. I appreciate the question. Through the mining regulation and through the designated substance regulation here in the province, each employer who has these designated substances in their workplace is required to monitor it, whether that’s through wearing a personal sampling pump on your coveralls—you wear a pump that collects the air for an eight-to-10-hour shift—or we have area monitoring, where we would set it up in a location in the mine for a run-time of 10 hours. It’s collected and analyzed at a lab. An occupational hygienist would assess it and would determine how much of the contaminants are in the air. For silica, right now, we’re allowed 100 micrograms per metre cubed over an eight-hour shift. Science tells us it needs to be at 25. The United States have moved to 50 and will move to 25 in the coming years. This isn’t some union trying to push employers to do the bad thing. This is based on science, based on people a lot smarter than me who have been researching this for decades. The employer I work for does an incredible amount of exposure-limit monitoring. The WSIB has decades of test results because of this. They know how many people are sick, who have been overexposed and who are getting these preventable diseases.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

I presume I know the answer to this, but silica is not the only concern. What are the other types of, I guess, airborne contaminants that you face in your industry?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

The second-largest one—and kudos where it is. Three or four years ago, the Minister of Labour did reduce diesel particulate—or we call it elemental carbon. That’s the soot from a tailpipe of a scoop tram—a haulage truck—that can get into your lungs. That’s from the engine exhaust. We have inhalable and respirable nickel from the ore we mine and from furnace emissions. Arsenic is in the ore—asbestos, anything. If you took a rock and placed it on a table and just started drilling—all of that dust that comes up, that is full of known carcinogenic agents.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

And when you’re in the mine, are you wearing some kind of respiration device, or are you just—your face is open?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

For 95% of the shift, you are not required to wear PPE whatsoever. Now, we may encounter areas where it is required, but for the most part, no.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

There are operations in our smelting facilities where, yes, you do have to wear a respirator. But I’ll remind the committee of the hierarchy of controls: PPE on a worker is the last line of defence. We have to engineer controls, eliminate the hazards, before we start putting things on workers.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Yes. I will get to everyone else; I’m just quickly running out of time. I do want to thank you very much for telling us Ron’s story. A very sad story; I’m sure he’s by no means the only one. You did talk about presumptive protections. Have you received any momentum or any information from the government about their openness to looking at that?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

We’ve had primary discussions with the government about presumptive legislation along with our colleagues in the building trades. The firefighters, as you know, have presumptive legislation for the same cancers we’re asking for—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time again. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you to all our presenters this morning. Sean, did you want to finish that thought?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, very quickly. Thank you. We’ve had some primary discussions. It’s been something we’ve been talking about for the last couple of years—always willing to talk with any member who wants to, and very open to educate the entire House on this matter. There hasn’t been any willingness and, really, we’re not going to be able to do it alone. We need our partners at the Ontario Mining Association. We need our friends here in the House because, like I said, this isn’t a team A or B thing; it’s a human dignity issue we have.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you. I represent USW Local 8782. I have many friends who actually work at the steel mill, and I know what a demanding job they have. I have the utmost respect for our Steelworkers. I agree with you. Under the current WSIB framework, locked-in benefits represent far more than a financial calculation. It represents the first genuine sense of certainty and stability for that worker and their family. I agree that the proposed elimination of the lock-in would place permanently disabled workers into a state of indefinite review. I think that’s very scary, and the anxiety that would cause makes me very sad. If you could, describe what message this legislation is sending to those workers in physically demanding professions in this province. I suspect that you were not consulted prior to the tabling of Bill 105. I’m wondering—I think you said, Sean, that maybe we should have left well enough alone—would you have liked to have seen the WSIB changes in a stand-alone piece of legislation rather than in an omnibus bill?

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Thank you for the question. I think that injured workers and advocates across the province have been asking for WSIB reform for many, many years. Our organization was not consulted. I was lucky enough to see this bill was coming. All of us in this space tried to rally very quickly and be able to present here. So, yes, we would have liked to have seen a separate bill so we could discuss our challenges and our friends at the carpenters’ could bring forward. I guarantee you today, most of us will be saying the exact same thing. Thank you.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Thank you. Finn, was your organization consulted prior to the tabling?

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Yes, we were. We agree, in principle, with many of the ideas in this bill—I think, in particular, benefits to individuals over the age of 65 for loss of earnings. But the actual mechanisms and how broad the legislation is written—that gives such discretion to the WSIB to make decisions that, based on the language that’s in the bill, seem incredibly arbitrary. The actual—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. We’ll now move to the government: MPP Racinsky.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Thank you to all the presenters for coming this morning and for being flexible with your schedules after shifting some things around. We appreciate it, and thank you for all your feedback so far. Mr. Johnson, I’ll start with you. Going back to the start of your presentation, you talked about the open period for construction. We’re proposing to shorten that from 60 to 30 days. Our government has a very ambitious, over-$200-billion capital program. We want to get building, and we want to get it done quickly. Whether it’s our government, the federal government, getting these big projects moving is a top priority for, I think, everyone across the country. But I know this also is a benefit for your members, for your workers. So please explain a bit more about why this is important to do and, really, a win-win.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Sure. The open period in the construction industry does create a lot of uncertainty amongst contractors, union members and within the industry as a whole, especially when you go into areas of the province that have higher unionization rates in construction. The open period is essentially a 60-day window leading up to the expiry of the current collective agreement. In the construction industry, all of the collective agreements are aligned. They have three-year terms that expire at the same time. So there’s a huge amount of uncertainty amongst all of the construction trades in the ICI sector as the agreements come to expire. When they have the 60-day window, there’s a lot of instability. It’s a bit chaotic. To have the period shortened to 30 days does create more certainty for employers and for workers, more stability. That’s something we need right now, at a time when we have to get lots of work built. We need lots of individuals in the skilled trades. We’re excited. Our members are excited to build this province, and having that stability, a reduced period of uncertainty, is certainly beneficial.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

That’s great. Thank you. You also mentioned the standardization of training, PPE, health and safety across the country. That’s another thing that has been very important for us: breaking down provincial trade barriers, making sure that we’ve got labour mobility. I’ll get to Ms. Ferri later about health care, but why is it important to have that mobility, to be able to move people from different provinces to different projects? Just tell me a bit more about that too.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Ontario has been a real leader in this area in terms of harmonization of standards and certifications for safety and training in the construction industry. Labour mobility is so critical. Projects have tight timelines. We want to get projects built on time and on budget. Oftentimes, large-scale projects are popping up in many different areas of the province—incredibly large scale—where we do need to bring in individuals from out of province in order to meet the demands of the industry. With the current system and in years past, if I’m an individual who’s working in Alberta, for instance—typically, Ontario has been one of the provinces that does a better job of this, but if I’m an individual working in Ontario and I’m looking to work on a project in Alberta, the timelines are really important. When I have training and safety standards that are already in alignment with the standards that are required in Alberta, but when I get to the province they say that I need to re-take all of those standards because they aren’t the Alberta standards, even though what you actually learn and what you get certified in is the exact same, that’s an additional cost that’s borne by the worker. That’s a delay for them, in terms of the time it takes for them to have to train before they can get onto the project. That’s days of lost wages that they’re retraining for or recertifying for. A lot of these projects that are on tight timelines when we have individuals coming in from out of province are typically turnaround jobs in the oil and gas sector, shutdown work or sometimes camp projects, where there are these sorts of tight timelines when you would be able to work on the project. If you miss a couple of days, sometimes that costs you two weeks because the project is under way, and you have to wait for the next turnaround. So there’s a huge burden on workers. To be able to harmonize these standards across the industry is really going to help big things get built and reduce the burden on workers, who we really need.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Joseph Racinsky

Just for time, I want to quickly go to you, Sean. Again, talking about the health and safety standardization, labour mobility—is labour mobility important for your sector as well and making sure that health and safety is standardized across the country?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Absolutely. Standardization to help us attract new, young workers and people who want to be involved in Ontario mining—absolutely. I wouldn’t be here saying that we should stop mining. We need more people, and the way we’ll get more people is showing the province that we’re going to make it safer. We’re going to take real leadership so that young people will enter into mining. If my kids came to me and said they wanted to go underground, I would tell them “No, it’s too dangerous. You’ll get sick and you won’t enjoy your retirement.” So, yes, standardization, absolutely—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time again. MPP Vaugeois.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

A question to Sean about lowering the amounts of poisons that workers are exposed to: Are you aware of any organizations or associations that are opposed to lowering these limits?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Very easy answer for me: No, I am not aware of any safe-work associations or unions that would be. The one association that comes to mind would be the Ontario Mining Association. They have not publicly said they are staunchly against it, yet they sit on the section 21 committee. It is tabled there and remains unpassed at this time.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Okay. So it really requires us as representatives to make that happen, to push that to happen. The age 65 provisions in the bill are very complicated, and from what you’re saying, it also seems likely that nobody is actually going to get through this process and have their earnings extended beyond age 65. What are your thoughts on how that could be better? Because this is a red tape reduction bill and yet this seems to be creating an enormous amount of red tape and barriers to actually receiving compensation.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, absolutely. It’s hard. I welcome us at least looking at this idea, that people are working past age 65—very happy, because this is something that we have appealed multiple times. I probably have a dozen appeals that we can’t take forward and we are looking at constitutional challenges because we know people are working past age 65. But then to say that the worker has to let us know, that they were planning on it and they need to means-test that and, “Show me your mortgage payments” and everything—that is going to create far more appeals, in my opinion. It’s really adding a lot of barriers to workers who just want to be able to pay off their house and were planning to work longer. Ron, for example, had worked for a mining company in the 1980s that went defunct. Then, he had to go to a different mining company; it went defunct. He did not have a chance to get to his 30-year pension. People say, “You should be able to retire and be good to go at age 65.” That’s not the case anymore for many of our workers. I see this really being more discriminatory. It’s going to be a super challenge for the workplace safety insurance tribunal, honestly.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you. I also have a lot of concerns about the 72 months, lifting that cap. I already have concerns about the 72-month period because what we see—perhaps either of you can speak to this—is that the WSIB seems to be always looking for a way, a rationale to reduce benefits to people. We see the practice of deeming and perhaps you could explain that. I understand deeming to be when an injured worker is told they could be working somewhere, they could be earning something, and so therefore that money is taken away, whether or not that job exists.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

I’ll let my colleagues go first, if they want.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Sure. I’ll pass that one to Sally to start.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

Thank you for the question. The concern with deeming is a long-standing one. The idea that the WSIB decides that a worker should be earning something, whether the job is available or whether they’re able to do the job or whether the job is sustainable, has been, like I mentioned, a long-standing concern. The problem by lifting the 72-month review, just like you mentioned: It gives the WSIB another way to further reduce what workers are already receiving. It just provides the worker less financial stability and it removes the worker’s ability to finally catch their breath. Having a claim go on as long as it does with the WSIB creates enormous pressures on a worker and the family unit. So to have the WSIB be given the authority to review benefits and determine benefits whenever they feel fit, for no reason other than they can, at any time, when they want to, is something that I can’t even begin to understand how to describe to injured workers.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

So the practice of deeming is definitely a concern, but to give the WSIB even more authority and more power to look for reasons to further reduce a worker’s benefit following injuries that prevent them from returning to their work and are with them forever—the injuries, many times, are chronic and are long-standing—can only be considered punitive, which, again, is not the intent of this legislation. The intent of the legislation is to protect workers and compensate them after workplace accidents.

Official source

MPP Lise Vaugeois

Thank you.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

MPP West, 19 seconds.

Official source

MPP Jamie West

Thank you for your submission. I also want to thank you for bringing forward the importance of being punished for having a unionized pension. It’s important that our members around the table here understand the importance of having a unionized pension, and that you shouldn’t be losing earnings just because you were injured in a job that you love to do; that you’d prefer to actually be doing—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. We’ll now go to MPP Blais.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Just on that same topic: Sally, I don’t quite understand the “strong pension” problem that you alluded to and Jamie was just talking about. I’m wondering if you could, in maybe a minute, explain what that challenge is.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

Sure. Currently, the WSIB does not consider retirement income—pensions, so union pensions—in their calculation of employment income. That’s what the WSIB uses to determine whether the worker should receive less benefits, so whether there’s an offset, if you will, on the WSIB benefit. Historically, retirement pensions are not considered employment income. With the vague language in the proposed bill, it reads that the WSIB could offset, and will offset, payments that a worker receives from their employer on behalf of the employer, which would mean that examples of income that were not considered prior—that were safe, if you will—are now part of this offset regime, which is problematic. Many workers that we know of, many workers that my colleague and I represent, are working and receiving their retirement pension. The same is true with workers that are receiving a partial loss of earnings from WSIB, because they’re injured and can’t get back to their work, and offset those losses with their union pension—a pension that they’ve worked towards, a pension that is there to provide for them and their families. The fact that they are able to take it prior to retirement at 65—it’s something that’s available to them, and again, it’s to offset the cost of living. It’s to offset the losses that they do experience with the claim. So to now use that as a way to say, “You’re receiving too much” is punitive. That’s not the intent, again, of the legislation, and the retirement pension ought to be protected from any offset or any sort of calculation when the WSIB considers what a worker should receive after an accident.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

I’d like to touch on this idea of extending the full coverage to 68. I agree: Many people are working longer, either by choice or because of financial circumstance. But I do remember the Conservative government tried to increase the retirement age a number of years ago to 67 or 68, and there was extraordinary pushback from people—from labour unions, from the population—in terms of increasing the retirement age. I’m wondering: If we start to extend these benefits as of right into that threshold, are we not maybe opening the door to that conversation of making the retirement age later? Sally, you were the one that talked about this; other people can answer it.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

Sure. I don’t mind jumping in here first, Sally.

Official source

Ms. Sally Chiappetta

Okay. Thank you.

Official source

Mr. Finn Johnson

This is not a new idea in Canada, the idea to have loss-of-earnings benefits after the age 65. Quebec has it up to age 68. Many other provinces also have loss of earnings benefits over the age of 65. The difference here is that their language that’s in the legislation in those provinces is much more defined. It’s much clearer, so there’s an expectation as to what a worker would potentially be entitled to. There’s clarity for the workers that are filing a claim to be able to understand what they might be entitled to, and what documentation they would provide that might get them there. With the way the language is written right now, essentially WSIB gets to make a decision when a worker turns 63. If they were injured prior to the age of 63, the WSIB gets to make a determination. There are no factors listed in the proposed bill, but the WSIB is able to determine if, in a hypothetical—in an alternate universe where the worker was not injured, would they have worked past the age of 65, and if so, for how long? The WSIB gets full discretion to make that determination, which, in our opinion, doesn’t make sense. I don’t understand how the WSIB would possibly be able to make a determination if someone would have continued working had they not been injured without any factors outlined in the legislation.

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

One minute.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

Sure, I understand that. I guess my question is more that they could be 70. They could be 75. But also, if you open the door to a later date in one area of law, do you not then encourage that door to be opened up on the other side and that’s the pension side? But I get that point. I do want to move on very quickly back to Sean and the Steelworkers. You mentioned 100 milligrams per metre—

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Micrograms, yes.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

The Americans have brought it down to 50. You said the science says 25. Are there any Canadian jurisdictions that have brought it down below 100?

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, thank you for the question. Very quickly, yes, several: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Alberta—

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

And are they at the 50 or have they—

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

They’re at 25.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

They’re down to 25.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

Yes, and the Canadian labour code calls for 25 as well.

Official source

Mr. Stephen Blais

So Conservative governments in Alberta and Saskatchewan have lowered it to 25.

Official source

Mr. Sean Staddon

I couldn’t accredit that lowering to them—

Official source

The Chair (Hon. Ernie Hardeman)

Thank you very much. That concludes the time again. MPP Brady.

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

I’ll move over to our medical students. I’m curious. Despite your support of schedule 4 in Bill 105, I have concerns that the legislation itself does not define what an Ontario connection actually means. It leaves that definition to future regulations written by cabinet or the ministry. You know the saying; I’ve seen all too often that the devil is often in the details. I’m wondering if any of you actually have concerns about who gets to count as having a legitimate Ontario connection.

Official source

Ms. Naina Ganatra

Thank you for your question. I believe in the changes to CaRMS, they defined an Ontario connection that would pertain to the bill as living in the province for 24 weeks the year before you start to match, having at least two years of Ontario high school and having around, I believe, a year of university full-time within the province. Furthermore, I don’t believe Mila and I have any concerns at that point, in terms of what would define—

Official source

Ms. Bobbi Ann Brady

Do you believe that the criteria, from your perspective, is fair and it’s evidence-based?

Official source

Ms. Naina Ganatra

In terms of what we can see in the bill right now, we believe that it does cover a large portion of Ontario graduates, specifically those who are closer to entering the medical workforce, as we entered medical school right after high school. Mostly, students are going into med school right after university, so they would need an undergraduate degree. In addition, if there are newcomers to Canada and they live in Ontario for 24 weeks before they start the residency-match process, then that would also be classified as an Ontario connection. I think I speak on behalf of both of us: We do believe that that’s fairly—

Official source