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

December 10, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Dec-10 (PDF)

L098 - Tue 10 Dec 2013 / Mar 10 déc 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 10 December 2013 Mardi 10 décembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

RESIGNATION OF

MEMBER FOR THORNHILL

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

JOB CREATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

JOB CREATION

NORTHERN ONTARIO

HYDRO RATES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PAN AM GAMES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

WASTE DIVERSION

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DEAN TIESSEN

POVERTY

FOREST LABORATORIES CANADA INC.

BURLINGTON ART CENTRE

TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

EDWARD LEVY

EVENTS IN UKRAINE

SHOP THE NEIGHBOURHOOD

JOHN WISE

ORDER OF BUSINESS

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

RELATIVE À LA POLICE PROVINCIALE

DE L’ONTARIO

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

RELATIVE À LA POLICE PROVINCIALE

DE L’ONTARIO

ANNUAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL /

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

MOTIONS

HOUSE SITTINGS

HOUSE SITTINGS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE MOIS

DU PATRIMOINE SIKH

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

PETITIONS

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

FIREFIGHTERS

DISTRACTED DRIVING

AIR QUALITY

CHARITABLE GAMING

BREASTFEEDING

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPORTING SMALL

BUSINESSES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À SOUTENIR

LES PETITES ENTREPRISES

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act and the Solicitors Act / Projet de loi 111, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le Barreau et la

Loi sur les procureurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further debate?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’ll ask everyone to settle in. We’re going to go for a little ride down law society legislation.

Interjection: Law Society Lane.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Before I begin with this bill, I need to make some comments about the importance of the bill, in terms of timeliness, and even before I do that, I need to make sure I recognize some very important individuals we have with us today, who have been integral in helping bring this bill forward.

Let me introduce Sheena Weir, from public affairs at the Law Society of Upper Canada; Rob Lapper, the CEO; and Cathy Corsetti, chair of the paralegal standing committee. Please welcome them to the House.

Sheena’s not here at the moment, but I’m sure she will be shortly.

There’s a certain time constraint that this bill faces. One of the components of this bill is to change the number of paralegals who are currently a part of the law society’s governing body and increase them from two to five. The reason there’s a bit of a time constraint is that the elections are upcoming.

The elections are going to be in March, and if we don’t amend the Law Society Act before that election time period, we’ll miss the four-year election cycle and it will throw off the spirit of this legislation, which is to increase the representation of paralegals in the Convocation, which would be a good step forward, given the fact there has been the step toward incorporating paralegals into the law society, in terms of registered and licensed members. So to increase the representation would be a strong step forward.

It needs to be done before March so that they can be caught up in the four-year election cycle, which brings me to my next point. We’ve known about this. The law society has done a great job in terms of advocating the importance of having this bill passed in a timely manner and the time constraints that exist, but despite that, knowing full well that this bill was a non-contentious issue, non-partisan—it’s something that increases the checks and balances. It increases representation.

It’s essentially a housekeeping bill to improve the Law Society Act. Knowing that, the Liberal government has decided to not give it the priority it deserves. They could have full well called this bill much earlier. The legislation and the issues were all known to the government. It was available to the government, but they did not take the step to actually table it with enough time to ensure that it would get passed. And now, here we are, two days before the end of session, and we still have this bill on the table.

So I implore the government and other members of this House to ensure that this bill passes and to give it the priority it deserves. It needs to pass. It needs to get done. Let’s move this forward. Just in case there are any issues or concerns about the content of the bill and whether or not it is actually an issue that we can all support, I’ll go through some of the components of the bill and why it’s something that certainly we all support and, as the justice critic for the NDP, I wholeheartedly support.

The major components of this bill—as I indicated, one component is to increase the representation of paralegals. The other component is to bolster or strengthen the process in which lawyers who are subject to law society complaints or other issues—the way they’re dealt with.

Currently, there is a tribunal, but there isn’t a permanent, independent chair. So what this bill would also do is establish a full-time lawyer who would be separate from the Convocation and not an individual who is a bencher. That individual would act as the chair. An independent individual would act as the chair of the tribunal. It would establish something called the law society tribunal, and this law society tribunal would include the appeals division and the law society hearing panel.

So, essentially, it would modernize the process by which complaints are heard. It would allow for someone who is separate from the benchers, who are the lawyers that are elected to represent the profession. It would allow someone who is independent from those folks to sit as an independent chair. It would create some consistency in terms of the leadership of the tribunal and the process, and it would increase the fairness and the effectiveness of this tribunal.

So this is a step to support or to ensure public confidence in the profession. It would also ensure that members of the profession can have the reliability of having a consistent chair and having some of their concerns addressed in terms of having a more effective system in terms of dealing with complaints.

Another component of the bill, which is quite straightforward, is that in cases where there is someone who has not paid costs following an order—usually what would have to happen is that if they didn’t pay costs, there would have to be another hearing to determine whether or not their licence would be suspended. This bill would also amend that

section so that if a lawyer doesn’t pay costs on an order, the suspension would flow without the need to have a hearing. Again, these are just steps to modernize and streamline the manner in which complaints are dealt with.

To address some of the issues around privileged or confidential information, the Law Society Act also has a clarification with that piece. It indicates that “privileged or confidential documents or information may be received by the society or the Complaints Resolution Commissioner … in the context of specified processes.” So it also allows the manner to provide some security with respect to confidential documents and information that is received in the process of complaints.

I have to commend the law society with respect to the decision in 2007 to begin regulating paralegals—a component of this bill is the increased representation of paralegals. What the law society did, and I think they handled it very, very well, was that they had to struggle with balancing the concern of the access-to-justice question—of the existence of paralegals, who often provide services that are more affordable for folks who have less means or who don’t have the resources to hire a lawyer in some circumstances, and only have the resources to hire a paralegal—with the concern of also ensuring that people receive high-quality legal representation.

In balancing that concern, the law society began regulating paralegals as members of the law society. By doing that, we’ve noticed that from 2007 to the present, the number of licensed paralegals has actually grown to 5,600. There is a 13-member paralegal standing committee.

The paralegal standing committee—the chair is here today—has done great work in ensuring that members receive adequate training, that they are qualified and that they are professional, and I think it speaks very well, in the sense that there has been a clear response that satisfaction levels are quite high from people who have been able to use the services of paralegals. It gives us, as legislators, and I’m sure it gives the law society, great comfort knowing that the public is satisfied with the representation they’re receiving.

I think this has been a great step forward. I know that a number of constituents have complained about issues around access to justice. In a society that’s governed by the rule of law, our ability to access the courts and our ability to have knowledge of the law or have representation on matters in regard to the law is really fundamental for us to navigate society. This ability to access resources is a more compelling issue when there are issues of vulnerability—particularly members of our society who are more vulnerable.

Those members of society are the ones who are often in the most difficult situations when it comes to accessing resources related to justice. The step to regulate paralegals was really quite a bold step and quite an important step—and recognition of the fact that in our society it is becoming more and more fundamentally important that people are able to access the courts or access the justice system.

Interjection: The government has cut the funding to community legal clinics.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My colleague brings up a great point. Given the climate where there are concerns that are raised by a number of legal aid clinics and other service providers for access to justice in local communities—their concerns that their funding is being reduced, some circumstances where local community offices have been defunded or faced the risk of being defunded in that climate—it becomes even more important to make sure we have various avenues to access justice.

So I fully support, and the NDP fully supports, the idea of local community legal clinics that provide services to folks from lower socio-economic backgrounds, recognizing the fundamental importance that if a society purports to be a society that governs itself by the rule of law—and if you could only access the court system or justice if you have wealth, then we’re really creating a society that is inherently unjust and unequal. It’s essential that we have easy means of accessing justice.

The fact that the law society took on this issue in 2007 was, as I said, a bold step in recognizing the importance of access to justice and the interest of allowing for affordable legal services, and balancing that with ensuring that they’re professional and that they’re high-quality.

One of the other housekeeping elements of this bill, and it is quite important but it’s non-contentious, is that with the increase from two members who are paralegals to five members with the current amendment, those five members would automatically become members of the standing committee on paralegals.

That’s also another housekeeping element that’s non-contentious, and it would just ensure that those five members who are elected would also make up the standing committee that would provide the equivalence of benchers who would become the voice for paralegals to ensure that the strategies around ensuring proper training, ensuring proper continuance of education, continued learning and maintenance of a high-quality membership status would go on going forward, ensuring that the members have a voice and have a say by having their elected benchers from the paralegal community represented in the standing committee.

I just want to briefly mention the Morris report. The paralegal portion of the Morris report indicated, in essence, what I just indicated: “In the interest of striking some measure of balance between enhancing public access to justice and ensuring protection for those receiving legal advice from non-lawyers, on May 1, 2007, persons providing paralegal services in Ontario joined the province’s lawyers under regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada.”

What I now ask members of the House to consider is that given the fact that the bill itself is non-contentious and given the fact that it will do a number of things that will bolster the Law Society Act, it also would ensure a more efficient, a more streamlined process for complaints, which would benefit the public. It would allow for greater representation for the paralegals in the law society’s governing body, and it would allow for some housekeeping in terms of streamlining processes for licence suspension in cases where it’s appropriate.

The bill itself is non-contentious, so again, I want to spend some time on looking at what we’ve done over the past couple of months since we’ve returned from the summer break. In September, I asked this House to move forward on a number of bills that would be non-contentious, that would be supportable by all parties and that would not cost the government anything.

The government chose to move forward on a consumer protection act regarding wireless services. While that was an important bill in the sense that we certainly support the idea of protecting consumers when it comes to their wireless agreements, the fact that there was a federal piece of legislation that was already before us and was nationwide that supported consumer services and then went further than what was proposed by the province—the fact that that was in existence took away from the necessity or the urgency of that bill.

Given the fact that that bill wasn’t as urgently required, I implored this House to move forward on other bills and prioritize other bills that were important and that had time constraints and that needed to be brought forward in a manner that was befitting of their importance.

Two of the bills that I had mentioned—one was Bill 83, which was regarding anti-SLAPP legislation. I said that’s a piece of legislation that would protect public discourse, that would protect one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy, which is the right to dissent. Again, this government did not prioritize that bill. I criticized the government for that then and I do so now. Part and parcel with that criticism is the fact that we had this issue before us as well. Bill 111, again, is a non-contentious issue. It’s something that supports the public. It supports members of the law society, and again the government did not see fit to give it the priority that it deserved.

If we look over the past three months, there was ample time to call this bill forward. There was ample time to give it the priority it required. There was ample opportunity to make sure it made it to the House and was debated in a timely manner so we wouldn’t be rushing to get it passed. My father always used to tell me, “You make one mistake; don’t make a second mistake by not correcting it.” So you made one mistake; now let’s correct that mistake by ensuring that it does get passage as soon as possible.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: That’s good advice.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: It’s good advice, right? Sometimes I haven’t followed that advice, so I apologize for that to Mr. Singh Sr.

Ms. Cindy Forster: We heard from a lot of paralegals during the consumer protection—

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Yes, it was quite interesting. My colleague the member from Welland brought up this part, and I’m glad that she’s sitting in the House with me today. While we were addressing this consumer services bill regarding wireless services, we had members of the paralegal community come forward and testify with respect to the consumer services bill around the amendments to credit counselling and debt settlement services, around services delivered by real estate agents and water heater rentals.

The paralegals came forward and indicated that they wanted to be included in the discourse around credit counselling and debt settlement services in respect of—often they’re approached by clients, and they want to deal with these issues and people who are in debt and who are struggling to get out of debt, who are often some of the most vulnerable people.

They had indicated that they were not subject to a particular exemption or a particular protection or a particular right, I guess, that existed for lawyers, in that if a lawyer contacts a credit collection agency, then the agency has to cease any further communications. What the paralegals were requesting was to be included in that, so if they were acting on behalf of a client and they communicated that they were now acting for this client, “Please discontinue any further communication with our client.” Often, the major strategy used by collection agencies is those repeated phone calls and letters.

Once you have a lawyer retained, they can stop. But the same doesn’t apply for paralegals, so that’s an issue that I raised with the House. I know that the law society is here and I think they’re very capable of looking at this issue and addressing it, but it’s something that the paralegals did bring up. I recognize that their interest is in being able to provide greater service or greater protection for those who are vulnerable, who are looking to get that debt settled, and paralegals can certainly offer some great services with respect to that.

That might be an area that we need to look at, in terms of broadening the definition of those who can act in those matters. Perhaps paralegals would be an addition that we could consider in the future. I know that’s something that we did bring up and we did support that initiative, but we certainly look to the law society for more guidance on that matter.

Coming back to this issue of priority, we acknowledge that this bill is something that we need to do; it’s something that we need to move forward on. I again ask this government, after I’ve had the pleasure of addressing this House, to please consider what you’re going to do moving forward to ensure the speedy passage of this bill. I notice some members of the official opposition are paying attention to this matter. I also implore you to make sure that this bill does get passage and do whatever you need to move it forward.

In terms of our party, we are going to take the necessary steps to make sure that we speed up the process in any way we can to make sure that this bill does go forward and does get passed in a timely manner.

I want to talk a bit about the law society tribunal that would be established by this act and that would still contain the law society hearing panel and the law society bills division.

One of the things I’ve talked about in this House, and I’ve talked about it a number of times with respect to politicians, and I also want to raise this issue again with respect to lawyers, is that in our society—I’m sure in your communities, there are many jokes that are told about lawyers and there are many jokes that are told about politicians, and those jokes are often told in good taste—

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Now you’re both.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m subject now to both of those jokes, which is kind of an interesting situation. But though I’m very happy to hear any sort of joke, the underlying concern or message that I have is that there has been an erosion of the support or the reputation of these two professions. I think that there’s a lot we can do to regain that trust in the public and there’s a lot we can do to rebuild that reputation.

When it comes to politicians—and I’ve said this a number of times—it’s incumbent on us, as members here, to restore that support or that reputation that seems to be eroding in the community. One of the biggest complaints that I’ve received in general about politicians—and I thankfully have not been subject to that criticism, but it’s a general complaint—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Yet.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: —yet, and hopefully never—is that politicians say one thing and then do another; that they don’t fulfill their promises; that they don’t deliver on what they say they will. That seems to be something that we can easily address. Think first, and then assess what you can do or not do, and if you can do something, promise only what you can do. Don’t over-promise and don’t mislead people. It’s for all our benefit. If we can all act and comport ourselves with that level of integrity, it will increase the reputation that we have.

In fact, I think it’s no surprise—if you look at the levels of participation in terms of voter turnout and its decline and the increase in apathy, if you compare that with the falling reputation of politicians, I’m sure you can see a great connection between those three issues.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Eighty-one broken promises in 10 years.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I apologize for this criticism, but I think the 81 broken promises in 10 years that my friend from Welland is indicating has hurt us a lot in that respect.

So we can work, as members of this House, to restore the respect that politicians should have, so that we can increase voter turnout; so we can decrease the apathy that exists; so we can instill in people that their voice does matter, that politics can play an important role in their lives, that we can change our society for the better, that participating in democracy is an important and useful thing. We can restore that trust by doing what we do in this House, by making sure that we fulfill our promises and that we comport ourselves with integrity.

Similarly, and I have a bit of a vested interest in this, being a lawyer, I think it’s important that we encourage respect for that profession as well. One of the ways we can do that is to ensure that the public knows that if someone acts in a manner that’s unprofessional or if someone acts in a manner that’s not in accordance with the principles or ethics that a lawyer should hold himself or herself to, there is a complaints procedure that works, that’s effective, that’s streamlined. This law society act can be a step towards increasing the effectiveness of the complaints procedure and process.

By improving that process, the message it sends to the public is that a stronger disciplinary board that’s effective, independent and something that you can rely on—will encourage the public to then increase their level of respect for the profession, which would bolster the standing of members of the law society.

I have a vested interest now in these two professions. I want to ensure, with respect to politicians, that all the members in this House and all the members who are elected across this province and across this country—the degree to which they hold themselves out and follow their professionalism and maintain their integrity will contribute to the reputation of all of us, so that’s important.

In the same vein, the more we can do to ensure that the public respects the reputation and the profession of lawyers will also go towards another goal, a third goal, and that’s—again, in a society based on the rule of law, the citizens’ support for or faith in the administration of justice is integral in creating a vibrant democracy.

If the public feels that the administration of justice is broken, is not able to deliver fair results and is not able to provide good legal representation—if the members that helped deliver and helped navigate the rule of law or navigate the legal landscape are not acting to a high level of professionalism, a high level of integrity—then it erodes not only the respect that they have for those individuals, but it also erodes the respect for the administration of justice, broadly speaking.

We started off at a law society act that amends some key components, but the impact of that is broader-reaching than just increasing the representation of paralegals or changing the process in which the tribunal is set up that deals with complaints. It’s actually a question of restoring or increasing respect for the administration of justice, which is important in a democratic society based on the rule of law.

If anything, I’m hoping that my submissions or my arguments or my proposition to you would ensure that you recognize, as members of this House, the importance of having this bill passed because its impact is more than just the sum of its parts. It has a broader-reaching impact and a broader-reaching implication, and I think an important one. That’s what I’m hoping to drive home.

I spent some time thinking about just the component around the law society tribunal. To date, there wasn’t a consistent chair or head of this law society tribunal—not to say that they weren’t effective.

The participation of the law society tribunal that the previous form of this complaints hearing board was, members of the benchers were being part of that—not to say that there was any problem with it, but in terms of having a consistent chair and a chair that’s independent from the benchers, in terms of the appearances, it’s much more independent, it’s much more reliable and it’s much more effective, I think, in terms of a process. What it does is it shows the evolution of the profession. As the profession evolved—all professions go through learning curves and growing pains.

Self-regulation is obviously one step. Part of self-regulation is the ability to discipline your members—and as you’re disciplining members to, again, balance the protection of your members, but also to ensure that the public has trust in your profession. The manner in which members are disciplined and the manner in which the disciplinary process and hearings go, that’s something that needs to develop over time. This is a natural evolution of a society, of a profession that has years and years of experience, history and tradition here in Ontario and, for that matter, across the world.

But it’s a step forward and it’s a part of that evolution of the profession, and it’s an important step forward. I applaud the law society for taking that step. Again, I implore all the members of this House to support that.

Turning back to the increase in representation, there are currently a number of benchers. The way the system is set up is that the benchers are selected from across Ontario. There are 40 lawyers that make up the Convocation, which is the sum total of the folks elected, chosen and appointed as benchers. There are eight lay benchers and 40 lawyers—20 of whom are selected from Toronto and 20 from outside the Toronto area.

To be clear, the 40 lawyers are elected by members of the profession, and that provides both representation in the urban centre, which makes up the vast majority of lawyers, but also provides representation around the province of Ontario to ensure that the voices of everyone in the profession are heard—and then eight lay benchers to provide the input from folks who aren’t necessarily lawyers, which broadens the scope and the vision of the Convocation, and allows the input of people who are not necessarily trained in law, who are not necessarily practising law, to provide their input in terms of what the public is concerned about.

I think that was quite an important step, and I think it provides a more rich resource in terms of assessing what the concerns of the public are. The current mandate includes two paralegals. Given the fact that there are over 5,000 registered or licensed paralegals, moving from two to five I think is a good step forward. It still maintains the voice of the lawyers, it maintains the voice of the lay benchers, but it increases the voice of the paralegals, and I think it’s an important step forward.

We need to increase their voice so that they can have stronger participation and they can be involved in the development of legal services in the province of Ontario. I think it’s something quite important. In case members weren’t aware of the makeup of the Convocation, that’s what it is. Increasing the paralegals from two to five, again, is not something that should raise any concerns, and in fact should be something that is accepted and supported.

Just turning back to the issue of licence suspension if you’re ordered to pay costs under

section 49.28 and one does not—again, that’s just a very straightforward measure. If someone is ordered to pay costs, what would happen is that it would be a costly and inefficient system where—if there’s an order to pay costs and that order is not adhered to, is not followed, there would be another hearing to assess whether or not the licence should be suspended. Again, that’s more costly, it’s time-consuming and it’s essentially—there might be some very rare circumstances, but it’s quite a natural order; if the order is not followed, then the licence should be suspended.

Though hopefully I’m never in this circumstance and it doesn’t happen to me, it does take away one step in terms of a hearing stage. But I think it’s something that makes sense in terms of process and it makes sense in terms of increasing the efficiency and reducing time costs. That’s a step forward that makes great sense.

In my time given, I’ve addressed the bill. I think the bill is something we can all support and I implore all of us to support it. I want to turn our attention just to this issue of access to justice as something that’s a principle that we should give some importance and give some value in the province of Ontario. I can tell you that in my experience in Peel region, with the lack of legal clinics and with the lack of other legal services, there are a number of constituents who approach me with issues on a regular basis.

On a weekly basis I have meetings and people tell me about their concerns around the fact that they’re not able to get services in their tenant positions, when they’re renting and they’re not getting repairs done; there are issues with the conditions of their home, of their apartment, and they’re not able to navigate the landlord and tenant tribunals. They’re looking for help.

I have folks who come to me, asking me what their rights are in terms of employment law, the way they’re being treated in their workplaces, the fact that they’re not being paid, the fact that it’s temporary workers working through temporary job agencies and they’re not receiving the compensation that they’re due, and they’re asking me, “What steps can I take? Who do I turn to? I need to have some legal representation. People tell me that I need to go to court, but I’m afraid to go to court.” In most people’s minds, if you’re not a lawyer, the thought of going to court strikes fear in your heart.

It’s extremely confusing, and it’s something that people are loath to do. Many of the remedies, many of the solutions to people’s problems are found in court, or are found with commencing a legal proceeding. If people don’t have access to that, if they’re not aware of how to do that, if they don’t have the means to do it, then we are setting a number of people at a great disadvantage.

Whether it comes to employment issues, whether it comes to issues surrounding landlord-tenant issues, whether it comes to accessing a service in Ontario like Ontario Works, the fact that if someone is denied a claim—their claim which they rightfully deserve—the fact that they don’t know what to do next and that often they need to get legal representation to take the matter further and they don’t know how to access that, it’s a fundamentally important thing.

Really, if we look at what could happen if we don’t support this, if we don’t address this issue—if we don’t address this problem, what we can be left with is a society in which only those who have the means, only those who have resources will be able to obtain remedies in court, will be able to access justice, and we’ll have an entire population of folks who are left without any supports whatsoever.

Whether it’s issues around co-op evictions, that are now going to be a part of the landlord tribunal and caught up in that umbrella, whether it’s employment law issues, we need to make sure that people are not unfairly prejudiced because of the depth of their pockets, or their lack of resources, or the number on their bank account. Those issues shouldn’t reflect or shouldn’t determine how much access to justice an individual has.

I know a number of members of this House have faced this issue a number of times, and I face it on a regular basis: What do we tell our constituents who come to us and say, “We haven’t gotten this service,” or “We’re not able to access this”?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It takes two years to actually get to court.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Or the time it takes to take the matter—start an action and actually have it then resolved in court. It takes so long. If it’s a matter of obtaining some resources, if it’s a matter of suing someone for payment that you required or you’re entitled to, and you have to wait for years or wait for a year to receive that people are often living in dire conditions, living hand to mouth, and that year delay will mean the difference between actually being able to afford where they’re living and being on the streets.

It’s something, to me, that’s a painful reality. When I look at my personal circumstances, I am very comfortable navigating the courts. If I didn’t have my legal training, I would be in a completely different position. When I see constituents come to me who don’t have that comfort level, who don’t have that awareness, who don’t have that access, I feel that they are being severely disadvantaged, particularly because our society holds itself out to be a society that’s based on the rule of law, and if you’re only going to allow access to that rule of law or to those courts to those who have means, then we’re really seriously disadvantaging a great deal of our population.

I’ve met with a number of legal clinics and I’ve met with a number of folks who are legal aid lawyers, people who are committed to addressing this inequity. What they’re telling me is that one of the most important things we can do is make sure that in our communities there are access points to justice; that in our communities there are legal clinics; that the legal aid system with respect to the certificates is a system that works.

We set ourselves quite different from the system that exists in the States; people who are less fortunate, who are of lower socio-economic backgrounds, can actually obtain a certificate and retain the services of some of the best lawyers in the entire city, in the entire country, through the legal aid system. So our system is far superior in many respects to what we see in the States and our cousins just south of the border.

So in some respects we have areas where we can hold our heads high, but at the same time, there are still a number of areas where people are unable to access legal aid certificates. Often the criteria set are far too limiting. There is a number of people who are unable to qualify, not because they’re not struggling, not because they’re unable to make ends meet—and they should receive services—but because the qualification levels are set at such a difficult level to be assessed as someone who actually is meritorious or who can be approved for coverage.

Because that test is so stringent, in a number of cases there are people who literally cannot afford services, who are being denied. We need to do something to address that.

While we’re speaking about the Law Society Act, while we’re speaking about amendments to improve the law society, I want to take this time to also address the fact that we need to really be serious about ensuring the government funds and supports local initiatives to provide access to justice, that local initiatives and local access points are in many respects far superior than having a centralized call-in system.

I want to speak very briefly about that divide, that in the interests of cost efficiency there has been some talk about centralizing services, providing a central call-in centre where you would call in with your legal issues and have them processed centrally, and get rid of the satellite clinics. I’m fairly certain the Attorney General supports the clinics system. I ask all members to look at your legal clinics and, if you have a clinic in your community, to visit it, to tour it, to ask the members who work there what services they provide and how important it is.

There are severe barriers that exist. If you’re already someone who is accessing a legal clinic, there might be other barriers; for example, transportation barriers; you might face some language barriers if you’re a new Canadian. There’s also the concern of, how can you express your issues over the phone? How can you really get into detail and convey what the problems are without being face to face with someone? Often, when it’s a complicated legal matter, you might have received a letter, you might need to point to it and say, “This is the letter I received.

I don’t really understand what this is all about.” You can’t re-create that over the phone. I’m making a case for the importance of legal community clinics, that those clinics provide an access point that’s close to individuals, that’s in their community. They can access it; they can tell their stories and their concerns face to face with somebody. They also can bring in their information if there are legal papers that they want someone to look at.

It also can assist in some of the barriers that exist due to language and the sensitivities that exist where maybe there’s something that someone feels uncomfortable speaking over the phone, they want to meet with someone face to face so they can share their story. In the interests of access to justice, I really want to encourage members of this House to recognize the importance of having legal clinics that are in your communities.

The other area that is quite important is that if you look at our legal system, if you look at the way it’s set up and the manner in which resources are accessed, there is a clear unfairness that exists. I’ll leave you waiting for the answer to that.

Ms. Catherine Fife: In suspense, great suspense.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’ll leave you in suspense.

If you look at incarceration rates, if you look at the prison populations, there is a clear indication that in our prisons, aboriginals and racialized people are far over-represented. Their populations, in terms of their percentage or their proportion in the community, and if you look at the proportions in detention centres—is far out of balance. One of the arguments raised is that people who are incarcerated—if you look at those individuals, one issue that you’ll see is the connection to race.

The other issue that you will see is the connection to poverty, that people who are incarcerated are, in terms of proportion, more likely to be from lower socio-economic backgrounds and more likely to be racialized.

Interjection: And mental health.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Also, another very important issue is their mental health representation, the proportionality of those who are mentally unwell or facing mental health issues—they’re far overrepresented as well. So we have these three demographics: racialized folks, mental health issues and folks who are poor—you know, the poor in general. These three groups of people are, no surprise, also the most vulnerable people in our societies. Then, if you look at access-to-justice issues, these three groups of people have the most difficulty, in terms of the most barriers in accessing justice.

There was a recent report released, in a CBC article, on this issue of the overrepresentation of particular demographics in our community. If we want to be serious about addressing that overrepresentation, one of the root causes is, of course, poverty, and we need to address poverty. The other area where we can address this problem is access to justice. If those people had better access to justice, then I’m sure we could address the fact that they’re being incarcerated—with better representation, we could find alternate means. They could be diverted out of the criminal justice system, and that overrepresentation that currently exists would be addressed.

Now that I have a moment, I’m hoping that the Attorney General will pay close attention to this message.

If we look at the criminal justice system and the overrepresentation of particular community members, there’s also a trend that’s happening in Canada, and I’m hoping that we can stem this tide and can resist this growing trend. When we look at the type of politics, centrally, that exists and the direction in which the Conservative government wants to take our province—we look at other jurisdictions that have learned that a particular direction is inherently flawed and is not working: mandatory minimums. Mandatory minimums is something that the United States has tried, and it has utterly failed. The thought that all folks who are charged with a particular offence should immediately—

Interjection.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Okay. The thought that mandatory minimums would be a way to deal with reducing crime was something proposed by the United States. They thought, “Let’s get tough on crime.” Michigan is one of the best examples. Michigan implemented a mandatory-minimum system, and instead of reducing crime, they found that it actually increased crime.

Sociologists tried to assess why that happened, and one of the explanations given was that mandatory minimums created such a climate of despair and such a lack of hope in individuals—they were sent away for far-longer periods of time—that increased incarceration resulted in folks who came out of incarceration with less opportunities and less ability to earn in society, and it increased recidivism.

So we have evidence. The problem with the current system, in terms of the direction we’re heading, is that instead of making evidence-based decisions, what we’re seeing all too often is that governments and politicians are making emotion-based decisions. Instead of looking at data and facts, they’re looking at emotions. Instead of using this type of decision-making, I ask us to look at the facts and to make sure that we don’t make decisions based simply on emotion.

At this point, Madam Speaker, given the fact that this is a bill that we all support and given the fact that this is something that we can move forward on—it’s non-contentious—I seek unanimous consent to move a motion without notice regarding Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act and the Solicitors Act; Bill 15,

An Act to proclaim First Responders Day; and Bill 52,

An Act to proclaim the month of April as Sikh Heritage Month.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Before we can consider that, the member will need consent to adjourn the debate.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I seek unanimous consent to adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Is there unanimous consent?

I heard a no. We’ll go back to the debate and the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Let’s just summarize the position that we have here. We have a bill, Bill 111, that’s before the House. It’s a bill that we all support. It’s a bill that makes sense. I implore all the members of this House to support this bill. I know that, on behalf of the NDP, we will be supporting it. We will be doing all we can to ensure that it’s not held up.

We ask the government to prioritize this bill to make sure it does get passed in a timely manner. Everyone recognizes that one of the key components of this bill is to increase the representation. That’s going to take the paralegal representation from two members to five members. This needs to happen before the elections come up. If it doesn’t happen, just to give you an idea, there could be an election held. People will be voted in. There’s a four-year term. It will cause all sorts of problems if we haven’t increased the two members to five members before that time.

For that reason and for a number of other reasons, we need to ensure that this bill is passed in a timely manner. I ask you all to do whatever you can to ensure that this bill does get passed. It’s something that we all support. It’s something that is effective, it’s something that’s important and, above all, it increases the public’s respect for and confidence in our administration of justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to stand today to respond to the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton on Bill 111,

An Act to amend the Law Society Act and the Solicitors Act.

You know, I’m just concerned. My recollection is that we asked for unanimous consent. The government asked for unanimous consent last week to pass Bill 111, and the third party did not support it. Now we have the opposition not supporting it. The timing, of course, is extremely important. We all seem to agree that this is legislation that’s needed, and we face the end of this week with not having passed it, and I think it’s March 2014 that the next four-year cycle commences for the benchers. We’ve heard there are 50 benchers in Ontario, and this legislation would change the makeup of that.

It would be reflective of the paralegals who are in the system. I think it’s not great action in this Legislature to agree that a piece of legislation is good and say all the things that are important—it has obviously been done with the consent of the law society—and yet we may be in the position where it’s not going to be ready for these changes.

I just ask everyone here to do the logical thing. This is supported by everyone. Let’s pass it and make sure that the improvements that will come with this—certainly for the paralegals, not only in the numbers on the law society but what they can do. I urge everyone to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I do appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments with respect to Bill 111, both procedurally and substantively.

Procedurally, I think it’s important to note that we did ask for unanimous consent for speedy passage of Bill 111 last week, but it was denied by the third party, and it’s not to say that we wouldn’t agree with it today except for the fact that we were blindsided. We had no idea that this was going to be coming forward this morning.

I apologize to our guests who are here today. I hope that we will be able to work this out, because this is a bill that I do believe we all understand is a good bill and that there are some time aspects to it that we need to adhere to, because we certainly don’t want to interfere with the bencher elections that are coming up early in the next year. Of course, it is a four-year cycle, so it really is important that we proceed as quickly as possible.

I do hope that our House leaders will be able to get together, that we will be able to come to a solution that will allow us to pass this without further delay and we will be able to move forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s always good to hear from my friend the member from Brampton, but I’ve got to say a couple of things. One is, this is a non-contentious bill. This is a really simple bill. This is about changing the composition of the board and getting two paralegals on to the board in addition to what’s there already, so that you can have better representation. Nobody opposes it. I don’t see the Liberals opposing it. I don’t see the Conservatives opposing it. I don’t see us opposing it.

At this point, we have a great opportunity. We tried to get unanimous consent. It was denied; fair enough. I just say to my Conservative friends, you moved that motion last week with little notice. We hadn’t had a chance to have our leadoff speech, so we needed to get that on the record. We said okay this morning: Let’s do the unanimous consent. Now you’ve said no. I think to the people who are sitting here—

Mr. John Yakabuski: With no notice.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Just hang on. I’m saying to the people who are sitting here from the law society and those watching, they don’t understand the inter-machinations of this place and just see this as a lot of game-playing. But here’s an opportunity. Nobody has to get up and debate after the member from Brampton has finished his speech. If the Liberals don’t get up, the Tories don’t get up, and we don’t get up, guess what? We’re done. Then we can move the unanimous consent later on this afternoon if that is what seems to be indicated, which is a possibility.

I think this is an opportunity for us to do what’s right, not just for the law society and its members, but to do what’s right for us as members in this House when it comes to process.

I want to congratulate the member for a great speech, as always, and I just say, let us do the right thing, and let’s see what unfolds in the next few minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Attorney General?

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, let me just say that I’m very pleased to hear that the members on all sides agree with the content of this bill. I, too, would hope that it will be given unanimous consent at some point in time. But I also recognize the fact that whatever the arrangements are in this House, they should be agreed to by all three parties and three House leaders. Hopefully, they will be able to sort this out, and this bill, and perhaps other like-minded bills, can be passed before we take our Christmas recess.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you to all who participated. At least we have one thing—we have perhaps not formal unanimous consent, but at least informal consent that everyone agrees with this bill. I’m hoping that, with that agreement, we can move forward and have this bill move to the next stage.

I agree with the member from Timmins–James Bay when he says that moving forward, after this debate is concluded or after my two minutes have concluded, we’re in a position to then not put up any further speakers on behalf of the NDP. We won’t put up any more speakers, and if no one else puts up any speakers, then this bill will naturally move on to the next stage. I ask us all to consider, if we really want to move this bill forward, let’s take that initiative and let’s do that. That would be a step in the right direction.

Going back to my initial point, there’s a lot of things that go on in this House that outside of this House no one really gets and no one really appreciates. Some of those things we all understand are part, I guess, of the way things work here. But with certain areas and certain bills, we can put our partisanship aside and we can say, “Listen, for the good of the province and the good of the community, we can actually move things forward without worrying about what the political landscape says.”

In this case, there is no political landscape. This is something that will improve the Law Society Act. It’s an amendment that moves forward some strong initiatives, and we need to support it. So I ask once again for us all in this House to support this bill and assist in it moving forward as speedily as possible. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate? The member for Pembroke-Nipissing—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, but in any order I still know how to make it home. Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

Bill 111: I’m just going to explain a little bit of the machinations that the House leader for the third party made it clear that people don’t understand. I accept that version of it.

I want to make it very clear: Our House leader, Jim Wilson, approached the other parties last week, gave them a notice, gave them an hour on a non-contentious bill, as the House leader says, that we had all talked about in House leaders on more than one occasion. We wanted to find a way to get this through the House because it was necessary. Otherwise, these elections wouldn’t take place and it would be another four years before they could put more paralegals on the board. So we gave a notice to the other House leaders. The NDP decided to vote against that or not give unanimous consent.

We were given no notice this morning that this was coming. Our House leader, in fact, is in a press conference. But I wanted to make it very clear that we support this legislation and we want it to move forward.

The motion that we tabled last week, if this—

Interjections.

Mr. John Yakabuski: If you’d hold your horses for a second there maybe, eh?

If this is the motion, and I’d like to hear it again, we’re prepared to end the debate on this, and during motions this afternoon, when it’s the appropriate time, have the government House leader come forward with a motion for unanimous consent. We will support it, move this bill through, along with the declaration of Sikh Heritage Month—I believe it’s April—and Frank Klees’s first responders bill. We’re prepared to do that.

We expect the respect of receiving notice when this is going to be done in the House. We gave notice to the other House leaders. We will do this, if that is what comes through motions this afternoon. As far as we’re concerned, Madam Speaker, we’re prepared to end this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s good to hear that we could potentially address Bill 111 today. I do want to touch on the bill a little bit. I know that the previous speaker was more concerned with the machinations of this place, and sometimes they dominate, but I do think it’s important to touch on the fact that there are some important pieces contained within this legislation which will improve access to justice. Whenever we are talking about justice in this place, it should deserve our full attention.

We actually just yesterday received a formal apology for the people from Huronia, whose rights as citizens contained within this province were abused for years. Justice is a slow machine and there are too many people in this province who, quite honestly, are denied justice on a daily basis. I think the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton made this point very clear, that poverty is an enabler of abuses of justice. Mental health—certainly in our jails and our prisons today, as high as 40%.

There was an indication of prisoners suffering in many ways from mental illness and certainly, our racialized communities and our marginalized communities are overrepresented in the prison system. I hope that we can all agree that you do not build a strong province or a strong country by building more jails.

So the paralegals, 5,600 now in the province of Ontario, should improve access to other justice avenues versus ending up in prisons. Certainly, today, if we can get this done—for the life of me, I can’t understand why it takes so long to get things done like this. But if we can accomplish something today, then we certainly should, not just for our own reputations, but for the people of the province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John Fraser: I’m pleased to stand in support of Bill 111, and it’s very encouraging to hear that it seems like we’re going to get this done this afternoon. It is kind of amazing how long it takes us to get things done that we all agree on.

I would like to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for his remarks. It’s obvious he has a passion for fairness and justice. I would like to touch on one thing he mentioned, which is local access to justice. In my community of Ottawa South, we have the southeast Ottawa community legal clinic, which has been serving people for probably about 20 years now. I visited it about eight weeks ago and met with the executive director, Gary Stein. The work that they do there is incredibly important work. It provides to those people who are of low income, new Canadians, access to justice in front of tribunals, at refugee hearing boards.

Sad news in Ottawa is that the hearing panel has now moved from Ottawa to Montreal. If you can imagine being a new Canadian or new to Canada, being a refugee, and having to travel two hours to get to a hearing, with your legal clinic adviser with you, your family—it’s incredible that it has happened. It is really an impediment to what is fairness and justice.

Again, I’d like to say I support this bill. I’m glad we’re going to get it done.

I’d like to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for his remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Very briefly, Speaker—thank you—I think this is probably an example of some very excellent lobbying, explanation, convincing on all three sides from the law society.

I’ll do a shout-out to our friend Sheena Weir, because I think she has done an excellent job explaining the value and importance of this piece of legislation.

Ultimately, it’s our job to get it done, so we will try to facilitate that today.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I think we’ve heard it all. We’re all ready to move on this, but let’s do it in a way that respects the role that we all play here in the Legislature.

During motions today, let’s hope that the government House leader has a motion prepared to move on what we asked for last week and what has been repeated by the member from Brampton today. Let’s get Bill 111 proclaimed, as well as the two private members’ bills that we all agree are non-contentious, and we can all have a merry Christmas.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being nearly 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted to introduce the family of page Zachary Piette. The family is with us today in the east gallery. We’re joined by Zachary’s father, Richard Piette, from Guelph, and Zachary’s grandparents Allan and Edna Piette, from Oak Ridges–Markham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’d like to welcome Harold Wilson, who is the PC candidate for the riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, down to Queen’s Park today. I hope he has a good day at Queen’s Park.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m very pleased to introduce Richard Piette, the father of page Zachary Piette, who is from riding of London West, also here with grandparents Edna and Allan Piette.

RESIGNATION OF

MEMBER FOR THORNHILL

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have received a letter from Mr. Peter Shurman, which communicates his resignation as a member for the electoral district of Thornhill effective December 31, 2013.

Accordingly, on that date, I will issue a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, we had some devastating news this morning in London, Ontario, where Kellogg’s is now closing down a plant that has been there for generations. These are 500 well-paying jobs in our province. Sadly, this is the latest of a hemorrhaging of middle-class, good manufacturing jobs in our province.

Premier, I’ve asked you every day in the Legislature when you’re going to bring forward a jobs plan to reverse the decline and to bring good jobs back to the province of Ontario. My simple question is, with three days left in the session, are we going to see a jobs plan from your government? Are you out of ideas? Are we going to see more jobs leave the province of Ontario, like Kellogg’s? Can you bring forward a jobs plan and bring jobs back to our province? You’ve got three days left in the session; will you do so?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I certainly agree with the premise of the first part of the opposition leader’s question, and that is that this is very bad news for the families and for the workers at Kellogg’s. My first concern is for the affected workers and the impact that this will have on their families and on the broader community.

The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities is closely monitoring the situation, and they will respond quickly to the announced layoffs. As I understand it, they have not been contacted at this point, but they will respond immediately, and they will work with the other levels of government to ensure coordinated services for all of those affected.

We’ll continue to support growth and expansion of Ontario’s agri-food business. In the supplementaries, I will talk about some of the investments that have been made and the businesses that are coming to the province. But my first concern is for those affected workers at Kellogg’s.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’re the Minister of Agriculture. You keep seeing food processing jobs disappear. We can still buy these products; we can still buy Kellogg’s Special K and Raisin Bran. But it’s no longer going to be made in Ontario; it’s going to be made in the state of Michigan. We saw that Heinz ketchup now will be coming out of Ohio instead of the province of Ontario. Our greatest export seems to be manufacturing jobs. I want to turn that around.

I don’t doubt that you’re going to reach out and you’re going to try to help these families. You’re going to try with retraining, and good for you; that’s your job as Premier. But a bigger goal is to actually bring good jobs back to our province of Ontario, to stop the hemorrhaging, to make Ontario open for investment and to give some hope, not for an unemployment cheque or a new course but hope for a good, steady, middle-class job so you can provide for your family. That’s what we’re fighting for.

So let me ask you this. There are three days left in the session. You have no jobs plan. Will you agree to a PC call to extend the sitting of the Legislature, to give you time to bring a jobs plan to turn this province around?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Health will come to order. The Minister of the Environment will come to order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to speak about some of the specific support that we’ve given to Kellogg’s over the last few years.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland will come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And I’m happy to talk about the 474,700 net new jobs that have been created in this province since June 2009, and since February, 59,200 net new jobs in Ontario. So I’m happy—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and I will come back to the Conference Board of Canada’s projections, which are very good. But I want to talk specifically about Kellogg’s.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In 2007, Kellogg’s built a 205,000 square-foot—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Leeds–Grenville, come to order—second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —manufacturing facility in Belleville. That was an investment of $120 million initially. The Ontario government provided financial support for that initial investment, over $9 million alone, under the Advanced Manufacturing Investment Strategy.

So when the Leader of the Opposition talks about a jobs plan, we’ve been implementing a jobs plan. Jobs are coming to Ontario. It is very unfortunate that this particular plant is shutting down, but there—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, if this is your jobs plan, it has got to be time for you to pack it up and go, because we’re losing jobs every single week.

When I hear that your plans are to double down on Dalton McGuinty’s failed energy policies—you’re going to drive hydro rates further through the roof. You measure your success based on how many bills you get through with more and more red tape.

How do we measure our success? How you grow the economy; how many jobs you create to make Ontario number one in Canada.

Five hundred good, well-paying jobs—500 private sector union jobs—are joining the ranks of the 100,000 that we’ve lost already. The only jobs you’re creating seem to be government jobs or minimum-wage jobs in the private sector.

I believe we can do a lot better than this. I believe we can give hope to those who have lost hope and restore faith in this great province of Ontario.

Will you extend the sitting? Bring forward a jobs plan. That will give you at least eight days to give hope to those who are losing hope in our province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment will come to order—second time.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I think the Leader of the Opposition knows full well that we offered the opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Dufferin–Caledon: second time, and last.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —the opportunity to support night sitting so we could get more legislation through. They voted against night sittings, so that offer of a longer time—I want to draw the Leader of the Opposition’s attention to the Conference Board of Canada report that came out. What it says—it was a very positive report yesterday, Mr. Speaker—is “Ontario will see its economic growth rate jump from a projected 1.2%” in 2013 “to 2.2% in 2014 and 2.6% in 2015.... The province’s economy will add more than 300,000 jobs from 2013 to 2015” and “Ontario’s exports will also benefit from a lower Canadian dollar relative to the US” dollar.

The work we are doing on this side of the House and the investments we are making are working. The fact is it is unfortunate that there is a readjustment that Kellogg’s has made, a corporate decision. That will affect the plant in London, and that is very unfortunate—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, last time.

Finish, please. Wrap up.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I do not diminish the pain at all that those people who are at the Kellogg’s plant in London will feel, but it is our responsibility to look at the broader picture and make sure we give those people support. We will do that, Mr. Speaker.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I don’t doubt that the Premier feels for these people; we all do here in the assembly. They just want a leader with a plan who’s going to give them a job, not a UI cheque. That’s all they want in the province of Ontario.

The Premier references a Conference Board of Canada report. What that report actually says is that the Americans are recovering. They’re going to demand more products. They’re highlighting the American recovery, and no wonder, because Kellogg’s is moving from Ontario to the United States. Caterpillar has moved from Ontario to the United States. John Deere has moved from Ontario to the United States. We have Henniges Automotive in Welland, Ontario, that has picked up and moved to the United States. They blame the high cost of electricity. They blame the tax and regulatory environment. They blame bill after bill after bill you bring in that binds their hands and undermines our competitiveness.

Yes, you’re damned right the Americans are growing. They’re taking all of our jobs. I want to see jobs in the province of Ontario. Why don’t you?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s question is just not true. The fact is that there are companies coming to this province. I can go through the list: Natra is setting up a confectionary food processor in London, a manufacturing facility; Ferrero in Brantford; Royal Canin in Puslinch; Puratos in Mississauga; Maidstone Bakeries in Brantford; Dr. Oetker in London; and Bolthouse Farms in Wheatley. There are food processing plants—and we’re talking just about that sector—that are opening and expanding in this province.

The fact is that there’s a very difficult situation that’s taking place right now at Kellogg’s. I do not diminish that in any way. I understand that is a concern. But the fact also is that Kellogg’s has located in Belleville. We have made investments in that plant in Belleville, Mr. Speaker. Kellogg’s has invested several million dollars in packaging technology in Belleville—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, they’re not relocating from London to Belleville; they’re closing down.

Some 550 people are out of work, and you try this Bobby McFerrin spin, Don’t Worry, Be Happy. But all of us should worry, and those who have lost their jobs are far from happy. They want to see a leader with a plan to actually get people into good jobs again, to put entrepreneurs back in business, to balance the books. I’ve laid out that plan; my team and I have laid out that plan.

Nova Chemicals, another project at risk in Sarnia, Ontario, could bring a couple of hundred jobs—a polyethylene plant: They’re looking between the States and the province of Ontario. They’re seeing energy rates go through the roof.

I want those jobs here. I want to give hope. I don’t want to see any more Kelloggs, any more Cats; I don’t want to see any more John Deeres, CCLs or Faurecia in Bradford; I want to see jobs staying here.

We’ll give you an extra week. Will you please come up with a plan and stop the bleeding of manufacturing jobs in our province?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that Ontario is up 179% in job creation since the recession and the US is up 85%, so the premise of the Leader of the Opposition’s question is completely flawed.

We are recovering more quickly than US jurisdictions. The fact is that we are making investments in advanced manufacturing.

Let’s just be clear: The plan that the Leader of the Opposition is putting forward is one that would provoke a race to the bottom. When he talks about right-to-work, what he’s talking about is undermining the organized labour in this province—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, come on. These people should have right-to-work.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order. The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned. The Minister of Rural Affairs is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thunder Bay–Atikokan, come to order.

Complete, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The underpinning of what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about is undermining the gains in job protection that have been made over decades by organized labour. We’re not going there.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The problem is, Premier, your plan is for people to work for zero. The folks at Kellogg’s who had this disastrous news today are going to make zero. Those at Heinz are making zero. Those at Henniges in Welland are making zero. Those who worked at Xstrata in Timmins—now in Quebec—are making zero in the province of Ontario. I could go on for all question period.

Premier, my point is, we need to stop the bleeding. We need to restore hope to this province. We need to say to that young university graduate who’s got—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —that she has a future here in the province of Ontario.

We need to say to that young tradesman getting into being an electrician that they can find hope here in Ontario, not Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Michigan or Indiana. They are eating our lunch. It’s time for a new plan. It’s time to turn things around.

I cleared the deck so you could bring forward a plan, and you failed to do so. Will you bring forward a plan before Christmas? If not, steal our plan. We’ve got one; we can turn this around and get Ontario back on top again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the Leader of the Opposition is going to keep banging this drum, but the reality is that we are up 474,700 net new jobs since June 2009. That is just the reality. Since February, we’re up 59,200 net new jobs, and 179—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, come on.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton: last time. The member from Northumberland, you’re warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —and 179% recovery since the recession. These are not numbers that we’re making up; these are objective numbers. The fact is, there is a recovery.

I am very, very disappointed that the people at Kellogg’s in London are going through what they’re going through. But the fact is, we have to look at the whole picture. We are recovering jobs, and we’re going to continue to do that.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for Premier. After years of delay and discussion, the government has once again promised to take steps to rein in public sector CEO compensation. Can the Premier tell us what her CEO pay cap will be and when it may be in place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said in the House before, we are acting on our commitment to review and to put in place ranges, which would mean caps on executive compensation.

The fact is that the proposal that the leader of the third party put forward did not take benefits into account, did not take into account the full benefit package, the full compensation package. We believe we need to do that. That was a blunt instrument that they brought forward. We need a much more sophisticated and strategic approach, and that’s what we’re going to put in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People have heard promises from this government for years, but the same old policies and tired ideas stay in place.

In fact, as the gas plant scandal was heating up last September, the Liberals tried to change the channel and promised to implement a salary cap at twice the pay of the Premier. Instead of making it happen, they actually shut down the Legislature.

Last year, the CEO of Hydro One got a raise of $70,000. That pay hike alone is more than most families make in an entire year. Can the Premier tell us how many five- and six-figure pay hikes we’ll see next year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What we have said is that we will act on our commitment, which is to introduce legislation to directly control the compensation of senior executives across the broader public service, including hard caps.

But in doing that, we need to establish some frameworks, and we need to do the research that would allow us to bring in a piece of legislation that would actually deal with the issue and would not be a blunt instrument that would not take into account full compensation packages.

That is the work that we are going to do. We will introduce the legislation in early 2014. That was our commitment, and we will follow through on it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In 2010 and again, less than a month ago, Liberal MPPs voted against capping CEO salaries, but now they claim they’re ready to move forward. The record speaks for itself. In 2010, the Liberals voted against capping CEO salaries. In 2012, they promised to cap CEO salaries. In 2013, they voted against capping CEO salaries.

Now, with the Auditor General scheduled to release her annual report this afternoon, the Liberals are making another desperate ploy to try and change the channel once again.

Why should people believe the Liberals this time, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, we said we were going to do this, and we are following through on that.

I believe that, last week, when the leader of the third party was talking about her plan, it was very difficult for her to explain what exemptions she would have in place, Mr. Speaker.

To my point about having to have legislation that’s strategic and understands the sophistication of the issue and understands that we have to look at whole compensation packages and we have to look at a range of technical expertise that’s needed in various sectors—that’s why we need legislation that encompasses all of that and is not a blunt instrument. So it’s true that members of our government have voted against a blunt-instrument legislation that would not do that, would not accomplish what the leader of the third party is saying it would.

We are going to act to make sure that the legislation we introduce deals with the complexity and the concerns around those executive compensation packages—the whole packages. That’s the work that we’re going to do, Mr. Speaker.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. This Premier just doesn’t seem to get it. People can’t make ends meet, and at the same time, they’re watching high hydro rates drive jobs out of the province. We saw it in the Ring of Fire, the Heinz factory closing in Leamington or today’s jarring news out of London about the loss of more than 500 jobs at the Kellogg’s plant. People expect their government to take every step possible to curb high hydro bills. Instead, people are watching as CEOs and executives at their power companies get pay hikes that are higher than their annual paycheques.

Is the Premier ready to cap public sector CEO salaries and pass the savings on to the people who are paying the bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’ve already said that we’re going to introduce legislation to directly control the compensation of senior executives across the broader public sector, including hard caps, so the answer is yes. We’ve made a commitment to do that, and we have said we are going to introduce that legislation to do exactly that. But we are going to do it in such a way that is going to guarantee that we look at the whole compensation packages, that we look at the expertise that is needed in various sectors, and that we recognize the complexity of the issue.

To take a blunt instrument, as the leader of the third party has suggested—which she couldn’t even explain in terms of what the exemptions would be—does not make sense. That is not good public policy. That is why we did not support it.

We are going to introduce legislation that is actually going to put in effect those hard caps in a way that takes into account the full compensation packages.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If people work hard and play by the rules, they should be able to get ahead, but as the bills keep going up, people are working harder and harder just to make ends meet.

Nellie is retired. She wrote to us: “Hydro rate increases ... dramatically affect the lifestyle of seniors who are on fixed pension incomes. We just keep trying to trim back anywhere we can ... I try to have the ‘necessities,’ not luxury items. Even food is getting difficult with the rising prices.

“Who will be the ... one to put a stop to all these ongoing increases by people making exorbitant salaries that are more than one of us make over a lifetime?”

Does the Premier have an answer for seniors like Nellie?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the leader of the third party knows that we have put in place programs to support and give a break to exactly the kind of person that the leader is talking about, people who are on a low income and who are struggling. We recognize that they need a break on hydro rates and they need support on property taxes and so on, so we’ve put those programs in place.

In terms of the long-term energy plan, we also have worked to take costs out of the system, so the renegotiation of the Samsung deal, the reductions as a result of not going ahead with new nuclear—we have made those decisions because we recognize the importance of affordability.

The other issue is the focus on conservation and putting supports in place so that people can conserve, because that is the cheapest power, Mr. Speaker: power that is not used.

I would ask the leader of the third party, what is her plan in terms of energy costs going forward? How would she reduce costs?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people are finding it tougher to balance the household budget. The government is telling people to tighten their belts, but despite all the promises from this government, salaries for top CEOs keep going up.

We received an email that said, “My hubby’s ... salary is identical as in 2008. Meanwhile, the cost of hydro skyrockets. [And the hydro companies] run ads and pay execs huge salaries.”

Judy wrote, “I keep reading about enormous profits and equally high management salaries at hydro.... It’s no-win for the consumer and win-win for the companies and executives.”

Speaker, after 10 years of Liberal government, does this Premier really think that people believe her when she said she needs a little more time to study the problem of million-dollar salaries for public sector CEOs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The tone of the leader of the third party’s question notwithstanding, Mr. Speaker, we are introducing legislation in early 2014. We made a commitment. I think the leader of the third party knows that we believe that there needs to be very clear action taken with regard to executive compensation. We are going to do that, but we are going to do it in a way that takes into account the whole compensation, not just part of the compensation.

As I said, the leader of the third party’s plan did not countenance the whole compensation package. She could not explain, when asked, what the exemptions were and how to deal with technical expertise. Those are the issues that need to be addressed, because we want to put in place good public policy that’s going to guarantee that the work that is done is done in the best way possible, but that we have those hard caps in place. That’s what our legislation will do.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, we are again joined in the House today by Kimm Fletcher, with whom you are familiar. Ms. Fletcher is accompanied by Mike Box, who has plasmablastic non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and who, like Kimm, could not get OHIP coverage for his prescribed drug Velcade. With them also—Madi is not here, but she was here this morning; she’s too tired to come into the House. She has cystic fibrosis, and the drug Kalydeco dramatically increased her lung function. Others have joined them—

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Madi is here; she’s in the back row.

Minister, Kimm and her colleagues are here because Ontario’s health care system doesn’t work for them. You have said that health care is about patients first. Will you put these Ontario patients first, Minister? They rely on you to help them. What will you tell them today as their Minister of Health? Will you make it right for them today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Thank you.

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the people who we’re talking about today and their family members and loved ones here to the House.

I want you to know that we are very, very committed to getting people the drugs they need and the drugs that work for them, Speaker. We have tripled funding for cancer-fighting drugs. We have done that because we want people to have the very best shot.

We do have a process. We have taken the politics out of making decisions around what drugs are funded. We did that for a very good reason. We think that it is the experts who should give us advice on what drugs are effective, and that is what we do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Minister, on November 8, Roche, the manufacturer of Avastin, sent you and the Committee to Evaluate Drugs new information about a study from McGill University hospital using Avastin to treat brain cancer. The results of the study indicated that Avastin was efficacious in prolonging the lives of patients with glioblastoma multiforme, the cancer affecting Kimm Fletcher.

Roche has suggested that your government look at reimbursement under a conditional funding mechanism like the Evidence Building Program. Roche has also indicated the willingness to share the risk.

Minister, it’s now December 10, and you and the committee have had over a month to review this information, yet nothing has been done. I understand the committee has not even met. Time is clearly of the essence here.

Kimm Fletcher deserves an answer. When will she get one?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The work that is done by the Committee to Evaluate Drugs and subcommittees of that committee is founded on the best available evidence. They do review new evidence as it comes forward. In fact, the Ontario steering committee for cancer drug programs is reviewing the new evidence that Roche has put forward.

But I say again, we must rely on evidence to make decisions about what drugs work and for what patients.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Today, more than 500 people in London who work at Kellogg’s woke up to find that their workplace is shutting down. Families aren’t just going to be worried about getting their kids presents over the holidays; they’ll be wondering about how they’re going to pay the bills.

The Liberal government insisted that their plan of higher HST, higher hydro rates and no-strings-attached giveaways would create thousands of jobs. Is the Premier ready to admit to the hundreds of families in London that these same old, tired ideas simply aren’t working, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the leader of the third party, as I did to the Leader of the Opposition, that in fact we have had a 179% recovery of jobs since the recession. That’s 474,700 net new jobs; since February alone, we have 59,200 net new jobs. So in fact, jobs are coming to the province. We are recovering.

I am very, very disappointed, and I am concerned about the people at Kellogg’s in London, obviously. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities will be working with the community on the ground to make sure that those workers have the supports that they need.

But we have to look at the whole picture. We have to look at what’s happening across the province, and the fact is that we are recovering. There will be changes that will happen in particular parts of the province, but overall, we need to look at the jobs that—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the blows to southwestern Ontario keep coming under this Liberal government. If that’s the kind of changes the Premier is proud of, I don’t think many people agree with her.

Last month, it was hundreds of people losing their jobs at Heinz. Now it’s hundreds of people losing their jobs at Kellogg’s.

The Liberals have talked about the importance of food processing jobs, but that has been all talk and no action.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities will come to order—last time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have put forward real solutions that will work, like getting hydro rates under control or rewarding companies when they create jobs or rewarding companies when they actually invest in Ontario. Instead, families in southwestern Ontario get more studies, more conversation and more job loss.

Is the Premier going to admit that the Liberal status quo is another body blow to southwestern Ontario that is leaving 500 families in London wondering whether they’re going to be able to pay the bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the position of the leader of the third party, but I don’t know if she’s aware of the companies that are coming to the province. I went through a list of them: Natra in London, Ferrero in Brantford, Royal Canin in Puslinch, Puratos in Mississauga, Dr. Oetker in London. So there are businesses that are expanding and opening.

To the leader of the third party’s first point, about electricity prices, I would say to her once again: What is her plan to reduce electricity costs? What is her plan for the diversity of the mix in this province? What is her plan to deal with communities in the north that need to be connected? There is no plan. We have a plan—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

New question.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Last Friday, I had the opportunity to travel to Timmins, along with Premier Kathleen Wynne and eight of my colleagues, to attend the very first Northern Leaders’ Forum. This forum brought together northern, municipal, aboriginal and community leaders, as well as members from our government, to discuss ways in which we can continue to drive job creation and economic growth in northern Ontario. This truly was a historic forum, and I certainly look forward to travelling back to northern Ontario soon.

I’m wondering if the minister could please inform the House of how our government will continue to build on the positive momentum generated by the Northern Leaders’ Forum.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The member from Vaughan is absolutely right: This was an historic forum—and I was thrilled that so many members of our government were able to attend, including Premier Wynne.

Our government is absolutely committed to working with all of our partners across northern Ontario to help create a stronger, more diverse and sustainable northern economy. I think it’s fair to say that, as leaders in our communities, we all share responsibility for driving job creation and business growth across the north. With the support of Premier Wynne, our government is absolutely committed to growing the economy of northern Ontario. I was very pleased, as minister, to commit to holding quarterly meetings with the aboriginal leadership, NOMA, FONOM and NOLUM.

Moving forward, these meetings will help build on the success of this forum and ensure that northern Ontario remains on the right track towards prosperity and growth.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for that response. I can tell in particular that the minister’s announcement of the quarterly meetings was certainly well received by everyone in attendance at the forum.

At this particular forum, we did discuss a variety of issues. However, one common theme throughout the day was our Growth Plan for Northern Ontario. Our government is committed to working with northern leaders in order to advance this growth plan. In fact, this is yet another part of our government’s strategy to invest in people, to invest in modern infrastructure and to support a dynamic and innovative business climate.

Will the minister please provide an update to members of this House regarding how our government is working with northerners to implement the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Since the release of the Growth Plan for Northern Ontario, we have seen municipalities, organizations and aboriginal communities achieve some amazing things that reflect the strength and the resilience that all northerners share.

We’ve seen the creation of an independent not-for-profit northern policy institute, the opening of a new school of law at Lakehead University and a new school of architecture at Laurentian University, continued investments in programs like the Northern Ontario Heritage Fund Corp. creating jobs all across the north, our northern highways program—over $500 million to spend this year—the Northern Communities Investment Readiness Program preparing us for the economic opportunities in the north, and the introduction of a new, $100-million fund to improve infrastructure in small, rural and northern communities.

Speaker, there’s no question that northern Ontario has its own set of unique opportunities and challenges, and our government will continue to invest in people and invest in infrastructure and work to create a dynamic business climate that encourages further growth.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is also to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Yesterday, I had a meeting with a major southwestern Ontario employer in the agri-food sector. The owner and the investors indicated to me that if they don’t get their energy prices under control—as a result of your mismanagement in that sector—they’re going to have to leave Ontario. That’s 400 jobs.

Let me explain to you, Speaker, what the real issue is here for them. It’s not necessarily their outdated labour policies. It’s not necessarily some of their regulatory burdens that are excessive in the province. In this case, it is the global adjustment. In January last year, they paid $60,000 for their global adjustment, and by September, that went up to $183,000.

Does the Premier think it’s fair for a business in Ontario to be paying over $1 million to the global adjustment while they’re struggling to survive in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy will want to comment on the supplementary.

First of all, let me say once again that I am very disappointed at what has happened at Kellogg’s. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities will be working with the workers on the ground.

In terms of electricity costs, as I have said, our long-term energy plan takes costs out of the system and focuses on conservation. The Leader of the Opposition has acknowledged that he has no idea how he would lower costs. He has no idea what his plan would be to deal with electricity costs, he has no idea how he would get costs out of the system, and he has no idea what supply mix he would support, because the opposition party simply opposes everything that we’ve done on energy.

The reality is, we came into office in 2003. We’ve been cleaning up the energy mess that was left by that party since that day, and we will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, I just told her an Ontario company with 400 employees, which pays over $1 million on the global adjustment alone, may leave this province, with more people in this province being out of work because of her destructive policies. The question I put to the Premier was a serious one. What is she going to do in order to alleviate the concerns of this company? What is she going to do in order to make sure that the jobs stay in this province?

Tim Hudak not only has a plan on how to keep jobs in the province, he also has a plan on affordable energy. We’re happy to send it over to her so she can adopt it. We’ve asked for an extra week to sit here in the assembly to adopt those plans.

Will the Premier take these concerns seriously? Will she stand in her place? Will she commit to this party and the rest of the people in the province of Ontario that she will get back to work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Order, please.

Interjection: Double double.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wouldn’t double down.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

We offered the opposition party the opportunity to have night sittings this week if there was more that they would like to discuss, and they voted that down.

We have had a 179% recovery of jobs since the recession. We have a long-term energy plan that actually takes costs out of the system and puts in place a sustainable, predictable plan that the energy sector needs, and that people in this province need, in order to be able to know how their energy supply is going to work over the next number of years. So, in fact, we have a plan in place.

I am very disappointed at what’s happening at Kellogg’s. The reality is that we will work with those folks and make sure that they have all the supports they need.

At the same time, there are food processors coming to Ontario, and we are going to work to make sure that that trend continues.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre également. For weeks now, the Minister of Health has made up a number of excuses as to why she did not release the forensic audit of Ornge. Then, yesterday, she said her hands were tied in terms of releasing this information because of an ongoing OPP investigation. But the fact is, the OPP gave approval for the release of this audit back in May 2013, telling the Minister of Health that the audit’s release would not have an impact on the ongoing OPP investigation.

Will the Premier tell us which story she believes—the OPP or her Minister of Health?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to discuss this. I was the one in my ministry who called for that forensic audit to happen in the first place.

I did receive an interim report in February. Members of the committee have had that interim report for many, many months, Speaker. Contained in that interim report was information that, for me, indicated that there were serious allegations, and that was referred to the Ontario Provincial Police.

That was exactly what should have happened. That was what happened. The interim report, which the member opposite has and members of the committee have, contained information that led me to directly send that to the OPP. That was the right decision. It remains the right decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier, please. It is unbelievable that two years after learning of the scandal at Ornge and the minister’s lack of oversight, we are still uncovering shameful details. Time and time again, we see a pattern of the Minister of Health failing to do her job of oversight and then refusing to admit that she’s made mistakes.

Yesterday, she claimed, and continues to claim, that the OPP’s investigation tied her hands in the release of the audit. But the fact was that for the last six months, the OPP has been saying the exact opposite.

My question is simple. To the Premier: Does the Premier think that the Minister of Health’s handling of the Ornge file is appropriate, and at what point will the Premier say that enough is enough and demand accountability?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s really important to say again that members of the committee requested two million pages of documents, that they received. Contained in those documents was the forensic audit interim report. They received it not once, not twice, but three times.

It’s clear that members of the committee are requesting documents and they are not reading that information. Had they read that information, they would have known exactly why the OPP were called in to address that issue.

PAN AM GAMES

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. My colleagues opposite have expressed shock and concern over the fact that the Pan/ Parapan American Games’ athletes village is a separate investment from the operating budget for the games. As this was publicly announced with the original bid more than four years ago, their shock and concern seems, frankly, out of place. In fact, major newspapers reported this four years ago, and as recent as our 2013 budget states, it is not part of the organizing committee’s operating budget.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could he explain what the athletes’ village will bring as the legacy piece to the West Don Lands?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Scarborough–Guildwood for asking.

The village is part of a broader revitalization of the West Don Lands and the Toronto waterfront. Linking it with the Pan and Parapan American Games accelerates the pace of redevelopment by more than 10 years. It will also open up adjacent provincially owned land in the West Don Lands for future development.

Following the games, the development will become the hub of a new, sustainable, mixed-use pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly community that includes a new streetcar line, a new 82,000-square-foot YMCA, and market housing, affordable housing and social housing units.

All these wonderful benefits and legacies will become available when the games are over.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I am pleased to hear that our government is focused on building an infrastructure legacy that will serve Ontarians for generations to come.

As I heard at yesterday’s committee, this capability to build the athletes’ village is potentially exportable for other games, internationally. However, there is concern that despite significant investment in facilities such as the Goldring Centre and the former Ivor Wynne Stadium, we will still need to help Toronto’s vulnerable. And through our government’s investment of $600 million in affordable housing since 2003—there are still far too many Torontonians who are unsure of where they will sleep tonight.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he tell this House how our government and these games will ensure that Ontario’s most vulnerable have access to affordable housing?

Hon. Michael Chan: Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I want to thank the member for the question and her tireless advocacy for our most vulnerable. It gives me an opportunity to talk about the importance of the Pan Am Games and the legacy they’ll leave for Toronto.

After the 10,000 athletes and their team officials leave the province, the athletes’ village will bring new lives and opportunities to Toronto’s most vulnerable. This legacy project will bring forward affordable rental housing to 253 Toronto families. It will go towards making home ownership easier, with 100 new affordable ownership units. This redevelopment will also see the first-ever George Brown College residence being built, which will provide affordable housing for 500 students.

Our investment will create and support 5,200 jobs during construction. It will not only build housing, but it will transform the former west Don Valley industrial lands into a beautiful, sustainable, mixed-use neighbourhood.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. In response to the public accounts committee’s request for the forensic audit that the minister said she didn’t read, we received the reports yesterday.

Equally as disturbing as the results of the actual forensic report was the deputy minister’s covering letter, in which he goes out of his way to whitewash the minister’s contradictory statements about what she read and when.

First, the minister claimed she hadn’t read the report. Then, when she realized how incompetent that sounded, she told us she read an interim report. Now we find that there was never an interim report. What there was was this two-page briefing document that even the deputy minister referred to as an interim report.

The interim report has 106 pages; this has two. Why did the minister say she read an interim report when she knows full well—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Order.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Call it whatever you want. That was the interim report that I received from the forensic investigation team. The committee has had that for months and months.

What’s very important to know is that that forensic investigation interim report, that the member now agrees he has, laid out a very clear case for this whole matter to be referred to the OPP, and that’s exactly what happened. That was the right decision then, and if I had to make the decision again, I would make the very same decision. The interim report went to the OPP, as did the final report.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, this is beyond bizarre. An interim report: two pages. The minister wants us to believe—that we’ll simply accept that this is an interim report—106 pages was the final report. This minister was satisfied to not even look at that and be satisfied with a two-page briefing, for crying out loud.

Premier, are you going to accept this from your Minister of Health as competency and accountability and transparency? Well, we don’t. What is even worse is that the deputy minister, as well, is referring to this as an interim report.

Why is it that this Premier accepts this kind of cover-up from her minister and the deputy?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Frank Klees: I will withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite and members of the committee and others have that interim report. If he can honestly say, if he had been minister and read that two-page—albeit two-page—interim report and would not have referred it to the OPP—I will completely disagree with him. There is enough in that report to refer to the OPP. I was not going to wait until the final report. I thought the OPP should be notified immediately, and they were.

Mr. Frank Klees: If I was the minister, I would have read the final report as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will be seated. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I wish to point out to the member from Newmarket–Aurora that that was inappropriate.

New question.

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. After weeks of being in a legal strike position and after working without a contract since April, 4,500 Red Cross personal support workers will be on strike as of tomorrow morning.

This is not a decision that these dedicated workers take lightly. Their priority is to deliver the highest quality of care to their patients, and striking is the absolute last resort. But, Speaker, these PSWs have been left with no choice because of the terrible working conditions.

Will the minister finally stop ignoring the pleas of Ontario’s PSWs and fix the problems in home care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know the Minister of Labour will want to respond in the supplementary.

What I can say, Speaker, is that our PSWs are extraordinary people. They work very, very hard every day, bringing care to the people who need it the most. Our commitment to PSWs is very strong, Speaker. I spent a morning job-shadowing a PSW in Milton not very long ago, where I saw first-hand the extraordinary work and the extraordinary care that they bring with them every single day.

I urge both parties to get back to the table to find a settlement. But I can tell you that my respect and my admiration for PSWs is as strong as it could possibly be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Talk and photo ops come cheap, but high-quality home care needs continuity of care, and that means stepping up to finally end the poverty wages that these PSWs, these women, work under.

In the past two years, PSWs have seen a 7% loss in wages, while the CEO of the Red Cross saw a 9% raise. PSWs simply cannot afford to pay the price of the government’s wrong-headed choices. As of tomorrow morning, tens of thousands of seniors will also start to pay the price of those wrong-headed decisions. Enough is enough, Mr. Speaker.

Will the minister finally recognize that our home care system cannot function when workers cannot afford to work and do the work they love?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I want to welcome Sharleen Stewart, the president of SEIU Local 1, and Emanuel Carvalho, executive vice-president of SEIU Healthcare. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Speaker, we very much are aware of this situation, and I would encourage all parties to make every effort to conclude an agreement. I think we know that the best agreements are reached through collective bargaining around the bargaining table. Our Ministry of Labour mediator has been involved in the negotiation and has actually met with the parties nine different times in order to try to reach a deal, and there was a tentative deal, Speaker, as you may know. Our mediator remains available, able to assist at any time, so, Speaker, through you, I encourage all the parties to resume their conversation and reach an agreement through collective bargaining.

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. Our government has recently introduced the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act. This bill reinforces the importance of our government continuing to put an emphasis on infrastructure investments and build on the success of the last decade.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear about some of the innovative and new aspects this bill will bring to infrastructure planning in Ontario. Of interest to young workers in my riding of Ottawa South is a new provision in the legislation that would require the use of apprentices on publicly funded infrastructure projects.

Mr. Speaker, would the minister please update the House on the rationale of this particular aspect of the bill?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As you know, our annual infrastructure spend in Ontario has grown since 2003—and I want to thank my colleague Minister Chiarelli for his leadership on this—to about $14 billion when my colleague from Ottawa was the minister.

We are looking at building on that platform to require and develop partnerships with the private sector and labour to have registered apprenticeships attached to each of these projects.

The Premier mentioned that there will be 300,000 new jobs created by 2015, according to the Conference Board of Canada. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters actually went further and said there would be 800,000 skilled jobs available in Ontario by 2016.

We will now use our infrastructure spend to get the skills and education training to ensure the skilled workers are there to deal with this incredibly high rate of job creation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you to the minister. This bill will surely go a long way in helping young skilled workers receive great work experience. I’m particularly proud that our government has taken such a strong interest in helping more young skilled workers find employment.

Mr. Speaker, encouraging the use of apprentices in public projects will help get more young workers into the skilled trades and address our skills shortage.

However, there is some concern and criticism over the bill. Recently, the Toronto Star had a letter to the editor from the Consulting Engineers of Ontario, who had expressed their displeasure that the paper had an

article that characterized their profession as one that lacks design knowledge and has a propensity to construct ugly buildings.

While I know this view is not shared by our government, I was hoping that the minister could address the language in this bill that requires an architect to become involved in the design and construction of infrastructure projects.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Actually, I totally agree with my friend from Ottawa South. You’ve heard me give the example of the Prince Edward Viaduct, which we sometimes call the Bloor viaduct. That was a collaboration between, I would argue, one of Ontario’s greatest engineers, Thomas Taylor, and Edmund Burke, the Canadian architect, not the philosopher. We recognize that when you bring the best of engineering together with the best of architecture and design, you get the most efficient and high-design projects.

Engineers, who we cherish and value, are written into much of our legislation. We’re now going to be treating our design professionals the same to create those kinds of collaborations because we’re actually trying to stimulate more professional jobs for engineers and architects as part of our build.

The party opposite was talking about the American system and that we should adapt to their system. They’ve created a job creation rate 50% of Ontario’s—really pathetic. It was President Bush’s policies that plunged us into this, Mr. Speaker, so we take no lessons from the opposition—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We’re going to continue to build—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Be seated, please.

New question?

WASTE DIVERSION

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Premier. When the Auditor General reported on your reckless green energy policies two years ago, we learned that for every so-called green job that is created, four more jobs are lost elsewhere in the economy. In spite of the facts, you continue to propose reckless new economic policies. Now you’re ramming Bill 91 through the Legislature in an attempt to create up to half a billion dollars in new costs for retailers and manufacturers. You’re doing this even while major contributors to the province’s recycling programs, like Heinz and Kellogg’s, are leaving the province.

Premier, a simple question: Based on your analysis, how many jobs will be lost for every so-called green job, under Bill 91?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of the Environment.

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to convey to the member and his wonderful wife congratulations on the birth their new son, with the excellent choice of name, Lincoln Lloyd Harris. I also want to say that he weighed in at six pounds, five ounces. That’s the good news.

The bad news is the constant attack of his father on all good things in the environment, including Bill 91.

I want to say to the member that I want to admit some thievery. I actually stole a lot of the contents of Bill 91 from the paper produced by the member of the opposition. I want him to take credit rather than be critical of a very progressive—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Harris: I know Lincoln is actually watching this morning, and I know he’s pretty upset with that answer.

I’ll actually go back to the Premier because I’d like her, at the end of the day, to answer this question because she’ll be responsible for the negative impacts of Bill 91.

In fact, the letter Heinz sent your government in September should have acted as a wake-up call. They pleaded with you to study the economic consequences of Bill 91, but you failed to answer because you clearly haven’t conducted any economic analysis. Now, they’re leaving the province.

Premier, it’s time for you to be personally responsible for the actions of your government. Your environment minister is losing credibility on this file, not only with the stakeholders but members of your own caucus.

Premier, will you bail out the environment minister, pull Bill 91 off the order paper and conduct a proper economic analysis on Bill 91?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I don’t think there’s anyone in this House who actually believes any company out there is going to make that kind of decision when we’re at second reading on an enabling piece of legislation in a minority Parliament. You would recognize with any of these companies, whether the product is produced in another country or produced in Ontario, there’s still the same requirement that is required in terms of the responsibility for the ultimate recycling in those projects.

I encourage members to have these people come to committee, if we ever get to committee. I’ve encouraged everyone who has any comment at all on this piece of legislation to come to committee to make their representations, to propose any amendments that they deem appropriate, but I want to say that the heart of the legislation really should be given to my good friend the member for Kitchener–Conestoga.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. The Liberal government announced the sell-off of the ONTC without any consultation or regard for the north. Some 18 months later, due to northerners’ work and pressure, the government was forced to reconsider their plan. But in Timmins this past Friday, the Premier made it clear that the cancellation of the Northlander wasn’t an option for reconsideration.

At that same meeting, the Premier was issued a challenge to ride the bus from Cochrane to Toronto and see how hard it is for seniors and those who are seeking medical help to make it to Toronto by bus. I’ve had people—seniors, who helped build this province—who were forced to move from my riding because they couldn’t take the bus to Toronto. Is that the Premier’s version of one Ontario?

Will you consider reinstating passenger rail service for the people of northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Micha