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

May 3, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-May-03 (PDF)

L114 - Tue 3 May 2011 / Mar 3 mai 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 May 2011 Mardi 3 mai 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

WEARING OF BUTTONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

ENERGY POLICIES

LABOUR UNIONS

POLICE SERVICES

ENERGY POLICIES

NUCLEAR ENERGY

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

DISCRIMINATION

LONG-TERM CARE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

ENDANGERED SPECIES

ORGAN DONATION

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FEDERAL ELECTION

FEDERAL ELECTION

POPE JOHN PAUL II

LANDLORDS

GERRY ROSENQUIST

HUCK FINN YOUTH FISHING DAY

ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

PATRICK CHAN

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART

COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL

D’ART CANADIEN

IMITATION FIREARMS REGULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DES FAUSSES ARMES À FEU

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY

PETITIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

DOG OWNERSHIP

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

PHOTO IDENTIFICATION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUILDING FAMILIES AND SUPPORTING

YOUTH TO BE SUCCESSFUL ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

LA FONDATION DE FAMILLES

ET LA RÉUSSITE CHEZ LES JEUNES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 21, 2011, on the motion for allocation of time on Bill 151,

An Act to enact the Ontario Forest Tenure Modernization Act, 2011 and to amend the Crown Forest Sustainability Act, 1994 / Projet de loi 151, Loi édictant la Loi de 2011 sur la modernisation du régime de tenure forestière en Ontario et modifiant la Loi de 1994 sur la durabilité des forêts de la Couronne.

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

Mr. Phillips has moved government notice of motion number 55. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred to the conclusion of question period for deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

Mr. Sousa moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 / Projet de loi 181, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la prévention et la protection contre l’incendie.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’ll be sharing my time with the member from St. Catharines.

I’m happy to rise today to lead off on the second reading debate of the Fire Protection and Prevention Amendment Act, 2011, a bill to enact labour and employment amendments to

part IV of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

I’m also pleased to be joined in leading off today’s debate by my colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

I know everyone in this House will join Minister Bradley and me in expressing our deepest gratitude to the firefighters of this province, in saying thank you to Ontario’s firefighters for their hard work yesterday, today and tomorrow. It has been said that when someone becomes a firefighter, their greatest act of bravery has been accomplished. What they do after that is all in the line of work.

As Ontario’s Minister of Labour, my mission is to advance safe workplace practices that are essential to the well-being of Ontario’s workers, including those like our firefighters who put their lives on the line every day.

Our government is committed to working with our fire safety partners to keep our communities and our firefighters safe. It is this concern for safety that was at the centre of the consultations with fire sector partners undertaken by both the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ministry of Labour. This proposed legislation that resulted from these consultations will bring greater clarity and uniformity to the issue of mandatory retirement in the fire sector for the sake of firefighters, our fire services and the public they serve.

Speaker, you will know that prior to the introduction of Bill 181, a motion was passed in this House by unanimous consent on March 10, 2011. That motion, brought forward by our colleague the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, recognized the important role Ontario firefighters play every day in keeping our communities safe. The motion made mention of evidence of the increased health and safety risks to firefighters over the age of 60. It is also important to note that the motion reflects current practice and upholds a recent Human Rights Tribunal decision.

As I mentioned, that motion received all-party support in calling upon the Ontario government to introduce legislation to allow for the mandatory retirement of full-time firefighters who battle fires on the front lines. Today’s proposed legislation under Bill 181 is the result of consultations that were initiated by request of this Legislature following unanimous consent to proceed.

The proposed legislation we are discussing today actually addresses two issues of concern to the fire community. The first is mandatory retirement, and the second addresses duty of fair representation. I will speak to both this morning but will begin by addressing the proposed amendments around mandatory retirement for salaried firefighters regularly assigned to fire suppression duties.

In 2005, the Legislature eliminated mandatory retirement in Ontario for most employees with the passage of the Ending Mandatory Retirement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005. That legislation amended the definition of age in the Human Rights Code to remove the upper age limit of 65 as it applied to discrimination in employment.

However, the Ending Mandatory Retirement Statute Law Amendment Act did not change the bona fide occupational requirement exception to the prohibition against discrimination in employment. To be clear, what this means is that the Human Rights Code continues to allow for mandatory retirement where age can be shown to be a bona fide occupational requirement. Importantly for the amendment we are discussing today, mandatory retirement at age 60 for firefighters engaged in suppression activities has generally been found by the Human Rights Tribunal to be a bona fide occupational requirement.

Tribunals have reviewed extensive medical evidence and have generally found that age is a very significant contributor to the risk of cardiac events among firefighters. There is a significant increase of cardiac disease around the age of 60, and the safety consequences of such an event for a firefighter, the public, and his or her colleagues may be grave.

Since its introduction, Bill 181 has received the support of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, who are here today. It acknowledges their concern for increased health and safety risks with age and demonstrates our collective concern for the well-being of Ontario firefighters.

We are all aware that firefighters engaged in active firefighting work under unique conditions. Their work is extremely physical and unpredictable. They contend with hazards such as intense heat, thick smoke and dangerous chemicals. They perform their duties under the most demanding and stressful of conditions. These are the reasons our bill would permit a mandatory retirement age of 60 or over for firefighters who are regularly assigned to fire suppression duties.

The retirement may be stipulated, however, in a collective agreement. If there is no such provision, however, in a collective agreement, or the provision that is currently in place provides for a mandatory retirement age younger than 60, the agreement would be deemed to contain the provision of mandatory retirement at 60 years of age.

In order to ensure a smooth transition for all parties, this deemed provision would come into effect two years after royal assent. This two-year period will provide an opportunity to negotiate provisions into a collective agreement that provide for retirement at an age of 60 or greater if the parties choose to do so. It also allows time for planning both by the municipal employer and by individual firefighters, prior to any new provision of their collective agreement coming into effect.

I would like to stress that our proposed changes on mandatory retirement generally reflect current practice in most municipalities. There are approximately 11,000 full-time firefighters in Ontario. We understand that only 65 of the 1,254 firefighters who retired between 2005 and 2009 were over the age of 60. We have also learned through our discussions that the average age of retirement for salaried firefighters in Ontario is 57.

In total, there are approximately 80 collective agreements in Ontario that cover firefighters under

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. Of these 80 agreements, we know that about two thirds contain a mandatory retirement age. The vast majority of those already stipulate the age as 60. The amendment we are discussing today serves to reinforce what currently exists in the majority of firefighter collective agreements.

Also consistent with current practice is the recognition that salaried firefighters involved in fire suppression duties may continue to make a valuable contribution to their local fire service in other ways. To that end, suppression firefighters would not be compelled to retire if their employer could accommodate them by assigning them to other duties without causing the employer undue hardship. For example, front-line firefighters who have reached the retirement age of 60 might have the opportunity to be assigned to other duties in the fire service, like fire prevention, if such positions exist.

I would also like to take just a moment to speak to the important work done across our province by volunteer firefighters. First, I want to reiterate that this legislation does not impact volunteer firefighters. We are very aware of the crucial role that volunteer firefighters play, especially in smaller municipalities, and the necessary and vital contribution they make to the safety of those towns and villages. Our volunteer firefighters take time away from their families to keep us safe, and we rely on their selflessness and dedication.

Our consultations with the fire safety community included meetings with the representatives of volunteer firefighters. The information we received was of great value in developing the scope of this proposed legislation. Importantly, we were told that age restrictions for volunteers would have a significant negative impact on the quality of service in some of the volunteer-serviced communities. In some instances, age restrictions such as those contained in this bill may even shut down delivery of fire services in smaller communities.

We know that, roughly, only 11% of volunteer firefighters are over the age of 60, and that these individuals provide invaluable experience to their departments.

We are, of course, aware that some municipalities have composite fire services. These composite fire services are fortunate to have salaried and volunteer firefighters working alongside one another. The firefighters within these composite departments are already differentiated for labour relations purposes under

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997. A firefighter under

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, is defined as “a person regularly employed on a salaried basis in a fire department and assigned to fire protection services and includes technicians but does not include a volunteer firefighter.” Overall, retirement is a concept related to employment and being an employee and would not generally apply to a volunteer.

It’s with these considerations in mind that the decision was made to bring forward proposed legislation that addresses mandatory retirement for salaried firefighters, as defined in

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, who are regularly assigned to fire suppression activities.

I know that there has been some discussion since the introduction of this bill about its potential impact on pensions. To be clear, we do not anticipate an impact on pension systems as the bill generally reflects current practice and allows parties to agree on setting an age of 60 or higher in their collective agreement. By reflecting general practice and allowing for a negotiated age of over 60 to be set, we are providing local flexibility in those few instances where a firefighter’s pension planning is currently based on a retirement age of 65 rather than 60.

The second component of the bill that we are debating today concerns the duty of fair representation. The Ontario Labour Relations Act imposes a duty of fair representation on unions across this province. The duty of fair representation requires unions to represent employees fairly by not acting in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith.

This requirement provides most other unionized employees with a statutory right to fair representation. However, because the provision is not replicated in the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, firefighters do not have this privilege. Currently, firefighters in Ontario are denied access to the labour relations board for duty of fair representation issues. Because of this, they must go instead to the courts or to the Human Rights Tribunal.

We believe, as do our fire sector partners, that the labour relations board is the appropriate venue for these matters. In fact, in discussing this issue with the parties involved, it became clear that there is no good reason why unionized firefighters should not have access to the labour board in the same way as most other union employees do.

This amendment brings uniformity to the way that firefighters are treated, as compared to most other unionized employees, with respect to the duty of fair representation. Quite simply, giving firefighters access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in matters concerning the duty of fair representation is the right thing to do.

In order to ensure a smooth transition, we are proposing that this amendment on duty of fair representation would not come into effect until December 1, 2011.

In conclusion, Ontario’s firefighters keep our families and homes safe. They do so with great bravery and dedication, and deserve our utmost respect. We have listened to the firefighters of this province and to the key stakeholders in the fire sector.

I am pleased to be joined today by members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association and the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park. I am pleased that our government—

Applause.

Hon. Charles Sousa: By all means, give them a round of applause.

I am pleased that our government has introduced this legislation that recognizes the years of selfless service that firefighters give us. Our bill recognizes the importance of their health and safety as well as the hazardous nature of their work.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our firefighters—our firefighters’ commitment to the public, to the fire service and to the communities they serve. They continue to serve as an example for all of us. Our firefighters face risks that so many of us never have to. Our firefighters protect us, and so they deserve our protection and our thanks. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to all of you who do the job every day.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Go ahead.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker—in this case, Madam Speaker—welcome this morning. It is a privilege to stand in the House today and to demonstrate support for this legislation.

I think we all know that emergency responders are essential to keeping our families and our communities safe. Whenever and wherever Ontario’s families are in need, Ontario’s firefighters are there. Likewise, when those same firefighters are in need, we as a Legislature should be there.

The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the Ministry of Labour have an excellent history of working together with our fire sector and those fire sector partners to raise the bar for stronger workplace health and safety. We achieved this when the government introduced presumptive legislation to compensate firefighters for their fire-related illnesses. Presumptive legislation ensures that our firefighters and their families are shielded from personal and financial hardship should their ability to contribute to our safety be cut short by job-related disease or occupational hazard.

By introducing presumptive legislation when we did, Ontario became a North American leader in addressing disease and illness unique to firefighting.

The story is continuing, and today we are building our support for firefighters. If passed, our proposed amendments to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act would provide for a mandatory retirement age of 60 for full-time firefighters and establish a statutory duty of fair representation that would allow firefighters to take unfair representation complaints against their bargaining agents to the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

I will begin by discussing the amendment to set a minimum mandatory retirement age of 60 for full-time firefighters. When the provincial government passed the Ending Mandatory Retirement Statute Law Amendment Act, 2005, we did so to end age discrimination in the workplace by removing 65 as the mandatory age of retirement. Ontarians now have the opportunity to choose when they retire and not have that decision made for them by some arbitrary number pulled out of a hat 50 years ago.

At the same time, we recognize that with age come physical limitations that could be a barrier to fulfilling such a physically demanding job as fire suppression. For that reason, the government did not change the so-called bona fide occupational requirement that allows employers to set a good-faith mandatory retirement age because of the nature of the employment.

In the case of Ontario’s full-time firefighters, as defined under

part IX of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, more than 90% work under a collective agreement, under a fire protection agreement, that contains a mandatory retirement provision. For those municipalities that do not have a mandatory retirement age in the collective agreements, some have addressed the issue of mandatory retirement either through policy or bylaws.

Since the Human Rights Code was amended and mandatory retirement was eliminated in 2006, firefighters have been arguing that mandatory retirement policies should be permitted in their sector. It has come up in meetings that both my colleague the Minister of Labour and I have held with representatives of the firefighting community, and I’m sure with other members of the Legislature. It has been the subject of many letters we have received from members of this House.

Speaker, you will recall that last month, the member for Algoma–Manitoulin brought forward a motion calling on the government to introduce legislation allowing for mandatory retirement of firefighters involved in suppression activities. That motion was passed unanimously, demonstrating across-the-board support for action being taken on this important workplace issue.

If passed, the legislation will allow a mandatory retirement age no lower than 60 for front-line full-time firefighters but still permit the municipalities to set a mandatory retirement age above 60, provided that age is set out in a collective agreement. In cases where a collective agreement does not include a mandatory retirement age, these municipalities will have two years following proclamation to negotiate a new retirement provision before 60 becomes the age for mandatory retirement. Furthermore, firefighters would not be required to retire if the employer can accommodate them without undue hardship.

We believe that the best way to address the matter of mandatory retirement is through collective agreements, as they will codify what is already in practice in most cases. Indeed, our proposed legislation for mandatory retirement already reflects current practices. For example, the average age of retirement for firefighters in Ontario is 57. By the time they reach 60, most will have already been retired for three years. In short, the government is proposing to bring greater clarity on mandatory retirement for Ontario firefighters and drive consistency across the province.

It has also been designed to give the municipalities the transitional flexibility to sit down with firefighters to negotiate a retirement provision. It will spare municipalities and unions the burden of defending their mandatory retirement policies as a bona fide occupational requirement in the case of a potential human rights challenge. For example, London spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on a case before the Human Rights Tribunal. The tribunal ruled that there is a significant increase in health and safety concerns with firefighters over the age of 60.

The ruling stated that certain emergency duties were associated with a risk of death that was markedly higher than the risk associated with non-emergency duties. Fire suppression was associated with the highest risk: It was 10 to 100 times higher than for non-emergency duties.

At the same time, we have been asked: Why only firefighters? What about the 18,000 volunteer firefighters who are the backbone of fire halls across the province? The question is: This will affect full-time firefighters; why not part-time firefighters? In our consultation with the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, and others, indeed, we heard that there is a lack of support among the volunteer firefighter community for mandatory retirement. The mandatory retirement of volunteer firefighters could leave some fire services short-staffed and force others to close. The age of retirement for volunteer firefighters is more appropriately dealt with at the discretion of the municipality.

I would like to turn to the issue of the duty of fair representation for firefighters. As things stand today—the Minister of Labour made some reference to this—in cases where a firefighter believes his or her bargaining agent has acted in bad faith or contravened the duty of fair representation, that firefighter has few options for recourse. Unlike their friends and neighbours in most unionized jobs, firefighters do not have access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board for duty of fair representation complaints.

By sealing off access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, firefighters have had to take the fight to civilian courts, and in some cases to the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal. These routes are always more expensive and time-consuming than complaining to the Ontario Labour Relations Board, putting an unfair burden on the firefighter, the bargaining agent and the employer. And those routes do not always have the same legal and technical expertise in labour relations as does a labour relations board.

We believe that when the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, came into effect, it was an oversight not to have granted this provision to firefighters. Therefore, we are looking to rectify this in our proposed legislation.

As with mandatory retirement, duty of fair representation is an important workplace concern for Ontario firefighters. It has percolated up from the floor at the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association’s annual conventions—and I would like to note that Fred LeBlanc, president of the OPFFA, and Barry Quinn, secretary-treasurer, are with us in the gallery today. I know they’ve had many deliberations of this kind at their conventions and other venues. So this issue has been on the radar at meetings with both the Minister of Labour and with me, and again has been the subject of correspondence by members of this House requesting action.

By introducing a duty-of-fair representation amendment to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, we are correcting an imbalance and ensuring that our brave firefighters have the same access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board as most other unionized employees under the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

Specifically, the proposed legislation would do as follows: It would establish that a bargaining agent representing firefighters shall not act in a manner that is arbitrary, discriminatory or in bad faith in the representation of employees, and that a firefighter would have access to the Ontario Labour Relations Board in cases where he or she believes that a bargaining agent has contravened their duty of fair representation.

Fair and balanced labour relations are an important part of our government’s Open Ontario plan to strengthen our economy and create more jobs for our families.

In conclusion, I’d like to say that the government is committed to working closely with our partners in the fire sector to prevent fires, promote community safety and support firefighters in the dangerous job that they do. These are important issues, and we feel it is equally important to respond to our fire stakeholders as soon as possible.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank our fire safety partners, such as the Fire Fighters Association of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs, the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, AMO and the city of Toronto for taking the time to sit down with us and to discuss the issue.

I would also like to thank the Minister of Labour and his ministry, and staff at my ministry, for all the work that has gone into this bill. I think we recognize, as members of the Legislature, particularly when we’ve had the privilege of serving in government, that much of the work in actually crafting the legislation takes place under the auspices of the ministry officials, those who work on an ongoing basis in the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and, of course, in this case, where the lead happens to be, in the Ministry of Labour.

We’re asking for the support of the proposal because by working together, we will continue to make Ontario a leader in community and firefighter safety.

I know that all members of the Legislature, at one time or another, have dealt with this particular issue. I think you’ve had meetings with representatives who have put forward the case for this legislation and have made a compelling case. While I could never speak for any other political party in the House, I have noted publicly that there has been some support for a proposal of this kind.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I thought you were on all sides.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member for Kenora is out of his seat and interjecting from a place out of his seat, but because of his longevity, he’s allowed to do so.

I’m pleased to offer those remarks about this legislation. I’m pleased that the Minister of Labour has been able to indeed offer his particular comments on this legislation as well.

I anticipate that, as usual, we will have a debate of substance in this House, and if need be, there will be other opportunities to intervene in this. But I think the kind of representations we have all received on this and the kind of dialogue that we’ve engaged in have been helpful in terms of bringing the legislation to this particular period in this House.

I would lastly like to commend my colleague the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, who brought forward in private members’ hour a resolution dealing with this matter. I was pleased to note that there was, I think, if I’m correct, unanimity in supporting that particular resolution that was before the House. It was yet another example of how, on certain issues—there are always issues where there are significant divisions, and that’s part of the political process, but on this particular issue, I think there appeared to be a good deal of consensus.

The details always have to be worked out, the legislation has to be analyzed, and we will certainly endeavour to do that as the debate flows in this House.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m pleased to be able to add some comments to the speech from the Minister of Labour and also from the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services on Bill 181,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

One of the key things that this bill is doing is it’s going to bring in a mandatory retirement age of 60 for professional firefighters involved in fire suppression duties. I must admit, I’m a little bit conflicted about that. I’ll be looking forward to hearing from our critic; I believe he’s quite supportive of the bill.

I’m just speaking from a personal basis. Having had my wife start a physically active second career at age 45, I’m not sure whether she would necessarily want to be forced to retire at 60. However, I do note that most professional firefighters at this time retire at age—the average age of retirement is 57 years of age, so it’s not likely to affect too many people.

I guess I’m thinking about the situation of people who actually do want to keep being involved in an active duty—maybe not very many of them, but there will be some, I would assume. I would wonder, with those people who want to keep active and be actively involved in fire suppression, how this bill will affect them.

I’m also conflicted because, just in the last year or so, we passed legislation doing away with mandatory retirement, so this is kind of flying in the face of that.

I’m sure that, in debate, these issues will be dealt with. I look forward to hearing from our critic, the member from Simcoe North, who I know is extremely supportive of firefighters and the police.

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’ll be speaking to this bill in due course. I’m honoured to have the opportunity to do the lead for the New Democratic Party.

Some of my colleagues have already mentioned that the standing orders, of course, require this House not to sit on federal election days. Some have reflected on the fact that maybe it should not be required to sit on the day after federal elections, especially when the polls are closing at 9:30 in Ontario and 10 o’clock our time in BC.

But I do want to say this, and I’ve been struck since last night: I want to thank and congratulate Bob Rae for finally doing to the federal Liberal Party what he did to the Ontario New Democrats 20 years ago. He has my regard for that remarkable achievement. Somebody who could take out two political parties in the course of two decades truly has talents that haven’t been exploited fully yet.

I find it remarkable that the Minister of Community Safety, who, of course, I have the greatest regard for, refers to Ontarians being able to choose when they retire. Please, sir: There are members of this chamber who decline to retire because they don’t have full pensions.

There are all sorts of Ontarians who would love to retire. There are workers at the now-demised Atlas Steel in Welland who thought they had a pension and then discovered that they don’t. We know what happened in the auto sector. If my colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek were in the chamber today, he’d be reminding the minister of the now US Steel-owned Stelco plant in Hamilton.

I’m looking forward to speaking to the bill. One of the things is that this has got to go to committee, I suspect rather promptly, because we don’t want this bill to be killed by a prorogation.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I listened intently while the Minister of Community Safety spoke on this issue. I want to pick up where my colleague from Welland left off.

The reality in Ontario today is that fewer and fewer people can actually retire. In my part of the province, literally thousands upon thousands of workers who thought they had a pension plan discovered that, well, in fact, the pension plan was more than slightly underfunded, so they’re not able to retire—and many of them need to retire. They have worked long and hard for many, many years but they are not able to retire. So they watch the want-ad pages, looking from job to job: temporary jobs, part-time jobs—whatever they can put together.

We’re always happy to deal with legislation that addresses issues of retirement and pension. We just wish that this government would recognize the full breadth of the issues that need to be addressed here. We’re quite happy to deal with this legislation. We think it should go to committee. But we are wont to ask: Where is this government? Why has this government failed to address the issues of the millions of Ontarians who cannot retire now because they don’t have the pension that they thought they were going to have and that they were told they were going to have? Why is this government completely missing in action on that front?

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

Hon. Monique M. Smith: It’s my privilege today to get up to speak to this bill, the Fire Protection and Prevention Amendment Act, 2011.

I too would like to add my voice to those who have already spoken, in expressing our gratitude to those who serve us every day in our fire services across the province. I have a few great guys that I know on the force in North Bay, as, coming from a small community, you get to know your firefighters and you get to know your police service. Certainly, they do a great service for us in our community of North Bay, so hats off to the North Bay firefighters today. I know that some of them are watching and I know that they’re very interested in this legislation.

This legislation is about recognizing and respecting the unique physical and hazardous work firefighters do to keep our communities safe, and that’s what this is all about: keeping our communities safe. It’s about recognizing the significant increase in health and safety risks for firefighters over the age of 60 because of the hazardous and physically demanding nature of the job. We are so proud, as part of the McGuinty government, to introduce this legislation that would, if passed, allow mandatory retirement at the age of 60 for the province’s full-time firefighters.

My colleagues on the other side have taken the opportunity to talk about other aspects of retirement, mandatory retirement and pension legislation, which are not in fact in debate today. Today we’re talking about firefighters; we’re talking about fire prevention and protection, and we’re talking about our respect for our firefighters across the province.

Most municipalities, as you know, already include a mandatory retirement age for firefighters in their collective agreements. Our proposed legislation would, if passed, provide other municipalities with two years to negotiate a new retirement provision. The changes will only apply to full-time salaried firefighters who respond to emergency calls.

We’ve spent a lot of time talking with the firefighters across the province. We know that this is what they’re looking for, and we’re happy to be participating—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The Minister of Labour has two minutes to respond.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and thank you also to the members who have contributed to the debate.

Let’s be clear what it is we’re debating. I know that the members from the NDP went on about pension reform. By the way, it is our government that has enacted and has stimulated the discussion on pension reform in trying to encourage, across the way, their cousins in Ottawa to do the same.

But today we’re not talking about pension reform. In fact, this bill is in keeping with the existence of what already happens in practice. This is about finding ways to protect our brave men and women who are fighting fires on the front line. Medical evidence has indicated that, at a certain age, they’re susceptible to harm, and we have to try to safeguard their position as well.

What we are offering in this legislation is a deeming provision that indicates that if nothing is indicated, it’s deemed to be age 60, but the collective agreement still allows for firefighters and municipalities to negotiate the retirement age. Because of the duty of accommodation, should it be available, it enables them to protect pensions if necessary, but that is in existence. That’s the current practice in place now.

I’d like to take an opportunity to reinforce with the members opposite why this is here, why we’re discussing this. We’re discussing it because the members in the gallery have asked for it. They include Chris Varcoe, Ryan Coburn and Mark Train from the Mississauga professional firefighters. They include Fred LeBlanc and Barry Quinn from the Ontario professional firefighters. I’m also pleased that we have members from Guelph: Colin Hunter and Chris Dixon, who are here with us today. Guys, thank you so much for all you do. We’re here for you and we’ll do our best to try to protect you as well as you protect us.

Thank you.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I first ask unanimous consent to stand down our lead on this second reading.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has asked for unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you. Just following up from the Minister of Labour’s remarks, recognizing Fred LeBlanc and other members who dutifully protect our communities, I want to also recognize some of the leaders in fire prevention, fire protection and fire suppression in my riding. Certainly, the chief in Clarington, Gord Weir, is the fellow I know well. I know him to be a very respected citizen and a truly committed firefighter, professionally. As well, in Scugog, Richard Miller is the chief. For the most part, Scugog is serviced by a primarily volunteer brigade, but does comply with very high standards. In Uxbridge, there’s Chief Scott Richardson.

These are the three communities that I represent: Scugog, Uxbridge and Clarington, Clarington being the largest urban area, made up of many smaller municipalities and, of course, many volunteer firefighters as well.

In that respect, I want to recognize Ron Cordingley, who just retired from the Uxbridge brigade. Ron had 40 years of service and served his community well. In fact—I’m just reading a little part here—“Ron Cordingley paused on April 12 to admire the roses, a gift from his wife, Gayle Cordingley, to mark his recent retirement after 40 years of service with the Uxbridge Fire Department. April 12, 2011.”

Ron said: “When the pager goes off you never know what you’re going to get. You’ve got to have a lot of trust in your fellow firefighters because often your life is in their hands.”

That’s kind of the backdrop. I don’t think I’ve heard anything critical. Everything I’ve heard, even from our member who responded to the opening day, Mr. Hillier from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington—he was very supportive, as I would expect from other members of our caucus as well, in their short, brief time to be able to respond. I know I often hear, in caucus, comments from the member from Simcoe North, Mr. Dunlop, who’s also the chair of the committee that I was just on. He would speak very highly of Bill 181, the Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act. In fact, I think it was a member from our caucus who initiated the option of dealing with the retirement issue.

If I look at the bill, I actually am quite surprised, and I might say supportive, that the bill, if passed, allows mandatory retirement at age 60 for the province’s salaried firefighters. I guess the issue then becomes recognizing the unique, physical, hazardous work that firefighters do to keep communities safe. The proposed change to the Fire Protection and Prevention Act would standardize the retirement age across the province.

That standardization, in a climate where people are living longer, being fit longer and having choices, freedom of choice—in fact, this very government was the one that ended mandatory retirement at 65. So you look at the individual choice in the overall scheme of things.

When we look at the issue before us, I think it’s important to listen to and work with the association as well, and recognize that the work they do is physical, stressful and rather challenging in most regards. The average age of retired firefighters in Ontario is 57.

The proposed legislation would allow firefighters who believe their local association is not representing them fairly to take their complaints to the Ontario Labour Relations Board. So there is a provision for them to look for exemption.

Most municipalities today have a provision within their collective agreement to include mandatory retirement of firefighters. The proposed legislation would, if passed, give municipalities two years to negotiate new provisions to encourage mandatory retirement.

There’s also a provision, I suspect at the individual level, to go to the labour relations board or, for that matter, the human rights board. I suspect that would happen. Look at some of the goalies playing in the Stanley Cup semifinals who are now over 40 years of age and doing a fairly good job, I would suggest to some. But I really believe that local councils are also concerned with this.

I put it right back to the front-line personnel in the service, effectively defending our community. They work in a team, as Ron Cordingley stated. Now, if someone on that team is unable to do their share fairly, I think there are questions that remain there. I suspect that’s what this is about, ultimately: Is there a provision for physical ability to conduct the duties that you are charged to perform? Then you look at the differential tasks within firefighting.

There are command posts, where persons certainly wouldn’t be jumping up on roofs and jumping into the flames, I would hope—remember that fire last year in Toronto where the firefighter fell into the flames and was rescued, remarkably, off of the wall that was where they were charging the fire? So I think that group safety becomes an important part of it.

Then you look at what jobs people could do. Education and outreach is very important in fire prevention and education. I see it in my community. As I said, I recognize and commend the firefighters’ educational function. One of the real issues on municipal measurements of performance function is to cut back on the number of fires, false alarms and all these other things, and their education serves a very important part of it.

But mandatory retirement does become controversial. I suspect that at the end of the day—I would wait for our critic to make that final commitment, but everything I’ve heard is that we would be supportive of this legislation. I suspect that if there’s some need, we will hear from the association—Mr. LeBlanc and others are here—on what needs to be amended.

“The bill amends several amendments of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997.

“Section 46.1, which imposes a duty of fair representation on bargaining agents for firefighters”—which I mentioned—“and sections 46.2, 46.3, 46.4 and 46.5, which provide mechanisms for enforcing the duty, are added to the act. These provisions come into force on December 1, 2011.” That’s this year, obviously.

“Section 53.1, which deals with mandatory retirement for firefighters who are regularly assigned to fire suppression duties, is added to the act.” That’s what I was talking about, the differential duties. Someone who’s in fire education, fire inspections or stuff like that, I would suspect would want to stay working.

With all the experience they’ve accumulated and insights, working in the fire marshal’s office or something like that, I think, would be a first-class option for some of them. “A collective agreement may include a provision requiring such firefighters to retire”—so it’s “such firefighters,” those on suppression duties—“at a specified age of 60 or over. Such firefighters shall retire at the age specified in their collective agreement, unless their employers can accommodate them without undue hardship.”

That’s where it becomes kind of an issue. It depends on what class. If they’re a chief, a captain or some other position within the fire force, I would think that they would want to—I mean, I’m over 65 and I have no intention of retiring. Now, I’m not climbing up on roofs, ladders, or doing anything else, but I walk up from the GO train, I walk up from Union Station every morning and I would like to think that I could run a marathon with a week or two of training. I have run them in the past—I’ve done triathlons—and I think being active is extremely important.

Once you stop doing things—it’s important; at my age, I look at this—you never do them again. That’s a pretty serious fact when you look at it, and I’ve considered it. I say to my wife, “I haven’t skydived since I was about 22, and I think I have to do that again.” Mr. Miller here regularly flies his airplane, and he would certainly have to get medical tests to do that. Would you want somebody to tell you that you can’t fly your plane anymore? Mr. Shurman as well, I would suspect—with all due respect, I should mention their riding names. But they are both very qualified individuals.

It’s the same thing. Professional firefighters today train to a very high level, and this section,

section 53.1, clearly talks about those who are assigned to fire suppression duties. I don’t want to in any way not inform the public. That’s the real issue here: that those who are actually in front-line duties would be required to retire at 60.

As I’ve said before, the bill doesn’t do a lot of other things. There’s a two-year limit to get this thing fully enforced across the province. Now, if there’s a suggestion that somehow—the wording is very important legally: It’s the duty to accommodate. If this thing goes to the labour relations board, as suggested in some of my readings—considering that you haven’t been fairly represented, the firefighter may appeal to that board. But I would hope the Ontario Labour Relations Board or any kind of mediated solution here would respect the wishes of the force itself.

The people who are listening here today, in fact, should work with the profession. This is sort of like the armed forces. My oldest boy, of course, was in the armed forces. Years ago, there was a prohibition against women doing certain tasks within the armed forces. We’ve moved a long way in that world, and we need to make sure that individual rights are respected and that they have a process to resolve disputes that looks at individual conditions, not legislated conditions, i.e., some sort of magic age of 60.

I would suggest that will be dealt with, but the residual problem then becomes, for small towns like Uxbridge or Scugog, potentially even Clarington—for a time there has been plenty of pressure on municipalities to have full-time professional firefighters on duty all the time, which is the ideal goal. It’s all predicated on the health of the local economy, I suppose, to make that happen.

Training is very important in this, and the whole idea of who the volunteers are. Are they appropriately trained? Maybe there’s a role here for persons being deployed in a training role to make sure that volunteers have the tools and the skills to do the firefighting that’s necessary in the community. I don’t want to enter into the debate because, as I said before, there should be processes in place to resolve these disputes, certainly not me yammering on here in the brief time I’ve been allocated to speak to this bill.

I am interested—today is our caucus day, and I am certain that this will be caucused. I’m convinced. Our whip and I were just saying a few minutes ago that we are supportive of the bill, from everything I see and everything I feel and everything I’ve heard from my community. I mentioned the chiefs. I want to hear from members, and I’m telling the members here that I do meet with association representatives whenever I’m asked. I see them out at every event that I’m at in the community, whether it’s in parades or volunteering at other local events.

They are the shoulders of our community, and I want that to be the final impression I leave here today. I’m proud to stand for them, whether it’s the repatriation parades along the 401, through my riding. I’m usually there with the firefighters, standing on the bridge or bridges that I’ve attended, and they do that with the same sense of duty that they bring to the very profession they’re in. It’s a call to action.

It’s an interesting read when you listen to Ron Cordingley’s remarks, quite a lengthy report of his retirement. He was sad to leave. I don’t think he really wanted to leave, from everything I read in there. He felt that his team—after 40 years, he certainly was 60, I’m sure, without attributing any age to him. But I’m sure he felt that his team and his function as a volunteer was that he’d still be an admirer of the team, and that’s kind of how he left it.

I have heard comments from AMO on the firefighters’ mandatory retirement. This is “To the Immediate Attention of the Clerk and Council.” It says:

“(

i) impose a duty of fair representation on bargaining agents for firefighters and as such sets out that the process for enforcing the duty and enabling complaints is to be addressed through the labour relations board, rather than the court system.” I agree with that.

“(ii) authorize collective agreements to set age 60 or over as the mandatory retirement for firefighters who are regularly assigned to fire suppression duties and they shall retire at the age specified in their collective agreement, unless their employers can accommodate them without undue hardship.” This is the duty-to-accommodate language.

We’ve got to watch that one. “After two years from the date of royal assent ... collective agreements that do not contain a mandatory retirement provision or that provide for a mandatory retirement age under 60 ... will be deemed to contain a provision requiring retirement at ... 60. The bill’s provisions apply despite the Human Rights Code.” So there it is. “The legislation does not affect volunteer firefighters,” which is clear. But it will certainly set a mandatory trend if the association feels that’s the case.

“While the bill proposes that complaints about representation will be addressed through the labour relations board, rather than the court system, there are some unique elements about the process for firefighters. For example, if the labour board determines that the bargaining unit has violated their duty of fair representation, the employer can be ordered to reinstate the firefighter with compensation. It would seem that the municipality holds the liability if the fire association has broken the law.” This is a letter I’m reading from AMO to councils. I’m sure the association is aware of it. It’s dated April 19.

“The proposed legislation does not define fire suppression, but hinges on the phrase ‘regularly assigned to fire suppression duties.’ Does this include those who do fire suppression training? Does it include others? The bill, as constructed, means that this too is negotiated locally.” I think there need to be standards there, and I again call on the association to bring that to the minister’s attention. “It may become a patchwork of different ‘definitional’ approaches across Ontario.

“Setting aside the limited evidence that there is a health and safety risk due to the unique physical and hazardous work of suppression firefighters, the bill proposes that a municipal employer is to provide accommodation if they do not wish to retire. While the tests of undue hardship contained in the bill are those within the Human Rights Code, it appears that only the municipality has a role in the accommodation process and that the fire association and the individual firefighter do not.”

This is downloading, ultimately, the responsibility to accommodate. In a small town—I see the minister is here from northern Ontario—the duty to accommodate becomes an issue—not out of disrespect, but out of trying to put this on the table and have the legislation. I see that the minister is listening; perhaps taking notes. That should be clarified, and this is something that will come up through ROMA, the Rural Ontario Municipal Association, and Good Roads as well as AMO. I think it’s a reasonable request, because many municipalities are struggling.

I know that some local service realignment funding has been done recently in the budget. But I looked at the numbers on OMPF money, the Ontario municipal fund—this is a bit of an aside—and they were uploading some of the services delivered by the province, but there is still a gap. All the OMPF money wasn’t continued; it was pulled back to the province to offset some of the uploading that was done.

Municipalities aren’t flush with cash. Their only source of revenue is to increase the MPAC tax rate. When I’m talking about municipalities in my riding, most of them—Uxbridge is a perfect example; a classic example. It has been greenbelted; it has no place to grow. It’s like Toronto: Toronto can only grow by building up. It has filled up all the space, so now they buy a house, knock it down and build 50 houses on top of each other. Their source of revenue is very much a determinant of what your local taxes are, and that applies to small-town Ontario in a very profound way, because they have a problem with low industrial-commercial tax rates.

These are some considerations of the bill. Again, I just put them on the table. They are serious; they’re raised by municipal leaders. They need to be dealt with within the bill or in the context of hearings, and I would suggest that’s a good way to resolve it. The intent of the bill is quite idealistic and quite well supported. It is these little anomalies that need to be dealt with, and provisions to resolve issues other than an expensive legal route.

I say on behalf of our leader, Tim Hudak: This is a good bill. It protects the public. It protects professional firefighters. The duty to accommodate is the only little glaring example of how we need some fine-tuning before we make this a perfect solution to a group of individuals who defend and protect our communities. We completely thank them for the work they do on a daily basis in putting themselves at risk to save others. That’s a noble cause, and I can tell you that we’d be the first ones in line to be there for you. This bill—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: It appears that if I get around—nah, I’m not even going to get around to starting my lead this morning, so we’ll have to wait until next time.

New Democrats are going to support the bill on second reading, of course. We’ve agreed with firefighters over the course of years now, as they’ve come here on their lobby days and beyond those days, calling for a restoration of a retirement age for firefighters.

I’ve always been the beneficiary of good counsel from firefighters in my community. A dear friend and leader in the firefighting community, Mike Fowler, has always provided candid and capable advice on these sorts of matters, and for me, his say-so is good enough 99.9% of the time. Fred LeBlanc happens to join Mike Fowler; that simply reinforced the good judgment of Mike Fowler—or his predecessor, Henry Labenski. Andrea Horwath and I were down in Welland with Malcolm Allen, who of course got elected yesterday. We were down at the King Street fire hall, and who was there?

Several firefighters, but Henry Labenski—the guy’s retired, for Pete’s sake, and he’s still hanging around the fire hall. Trust me, steelworkers don’t go back to the mill after they’re retired to hang around the furnace. When they’re fortunate enough to be retired, they say, “Enough is enough.”

The bill has got to go to committee. I’m worried about this government proroguing before June 2 and this bill then dying. That would be a real setback, because the Liberals are scurrying right now. Make no mistake about it. After last night’s federal election results, there are some very nervous people in the strategy rooms—if they have them anymore—of the Ontario Liberal Party.

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words, and I’m pleased to see that there does seem to be strong support amongst all three parties for supporting this legislation. Ultimately, the legislation is about respecting and recognizing the unique physical and hazardous circumstances of professional firefighters to keep their communities safe. It also recognizes the significant increase in the health and safety risks to firefighters over the age of 60 as a result of the challenging work that they do.

Like almost everyone in the Legislature, I work very closely with the professional firefighters in my community—that’s Thunder Bay—and I welcome all the firefighters who are here in the assembly today. Certainly, over the last number of years, the issues that are important to professional firefighters have been made well known to me and others. I’ve enjoyed the work that we’ve done and the fact that our government has been able to be so supportive of a number of pieces of legislation that are so important to them.

In Thunder Bay, I worked closely with Eric Nordlund and Les Newman. I do want to send best wishes out to the past president of the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association, Guido Nadin, who has some health challenges these days, but as all those who know Guido know, he is fighting back strongly and vigorously and is a remarkable fellow.

This is important legislation, and again, I am grateful that the Minister of Labour has brought this forth. Again, I think it does truly recognize the very unique circumstances that professional firefighters are dealing with. We often say that we cannot find the right words to thank them for the extraordinary level of dedication that they show towards all of us, but I want to say that it’s appreciated by all of us here in the Legislature and across the province.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I was interested in the comments of my friend from Durham, very particularly on what I’ll call his “if you don’t use it, you’ll lose it” approach to the question of age, what kind of physical demands might be made on you and what you are capable of doing, and this in the context of a bill that pertains to firefighters.

I’ve had representations from firefighters in the municipalities that I represent in the riding of Thornhill. Those are two: one is Vaughan and one is Markham. These are not communities—I recognize that there are differences recognized in the bill, in fact, between communities that depend on volunteers and communities that depend on full-time, paid firefighters, which both Markham and Vaughan do. As a matter of fact, I ran into one of the representatives from the Vaughan firefighters, who is here to watch some of this debate today, outside the Legislature this morning. They have spoken to me over the past number of years about it, and in general terms I’m supportive.

What’s interesting about this bill, and what will garner some public scrutiny and debate, is the issue of the 60-year benchmark for retirement that deviates so much from the norm, where we’ve come to believe in our society that a mandatory retirement age, regardless of what that age may be, is probably not such a good idea because, if you take a look, there are people who can’t lift 10 pounds without huffing and puffing when they’re 40 and there are other people who are doing cross-country skiing when they’re 90.

That having been said, in the world of firefighting, which deals with public security, you do need a line of demarcation. I would like to think that there would be some aspect of the bill that addressed physical fitness, but if it’s to be 60, I think we can agree with 60.

There is the issue of what happens—and it is also addressed in the bill and will need some debate—to somebody who wants to work but can’t climb a ladder anymore after 60. That will be aired in due course, I’m sure.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions? The member for Durham has two minutes to respond.

Mr. John O’Toole: May I have the other time? The other two minutes?

I’d like to thank the member from Welland as well as the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry and my good friend from Thornhill. I really believe that we’ve discussed this to the point where members understand it. We support it. We think there are a few tweaks that need to be committed to.

But I want to take the time and thank those also who serve our community, and more particularly, federally. I’d like to congratulate Chris Alexander from Ajax-Pickering; Bev Oda from my riding of Durham, who was successful last night, federally; the member from Oshawa, Colin Carrie; as well as the Minister of Finance for Canada, Jim Flaherty. So, Tory blue in Durham.

That being said, those are the municipalities—it’s a growth area for the province of Ontario. It’s an area that—Whitby, I believe, has all full-time and, I think, professional firefighters. I believe Oshawa has full-time, professional firefighters. I think Clarington has mostly full-time, professional firefighters. And certainly Uxbridge and Scugog have a large contingent. They have some full-time, mostly at the captain and chief level.

The issue that I felt was most salient to the discussion was being clear that volunteers are not impacted by this legislation, but I think it will set a certain tone that is applicable: meaning, perhaps, that there’s a time and a place for even members serving the public to look to doing other things in their lives.

But when I looked at Ron Cordingley’s remarks, it was clear that he took great pride in it, and it was representative, I think, of all firefighters. He said that he remembered that, one New Year’s Eve, he and his wife were at a celebration in the community and his plectron or his pager went off. He was called out on duty to a vehicle accident, and she had to get home alone. So they do serve—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

WEARING OF BUTTONS

Hon. James J. Bradley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear buttons in recognition of Ontario Provincial Police Association day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to recognize the following in our gallery: Jim Christie, interim president of the OPPA; Karl Walsh, CAO; and the executive and members of the OPPA.

Mr. Frank Klees: I would like to welcome Lise and Jean-Luc Cinq-Mars, their mother, Charmaine Cinq-Mars, and their friend, Taryn MacDonald.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce Irina Demitcheva, mother of page Amira, in the visitors’ gallery.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’d like to welcome Cay and Jim Shedden from Community Living Toronto, who are here for Appetite for Awareness and will be distributing boxed lunches to all MPPs after question period in room 212A. I invite all the MPPs to join me in thanking Community Living Toronto for all their work and I also invite MPPs to participate in this year’s Appetite for Awareness.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I want to introduce the father of page Jonathan Hampton, who is sitting here in his seat representing Kenora–Rainy River.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce some firefighters to our Legislative Assembly today: from the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association, Chris Varcoe, Ryan Coburn and Mark Train; and from the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Fred LeBlanc and Barry Quinn.

Mr. Jim Brownell: I would like to introduce a former student of mine and now an OPP officer in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry: Greg Smith, sitting up in the gallery.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I would like to introduce, in absentia, a new member of our PC family, Jack Jason Paul Flippance, born April 23 to proud big sister Olivia, mother Natasha and dad Josh.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further introductions?

I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a number of guests of mine from the riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London today seated in the Speaker’s gallery: Edith Auckland, Karen Auckland, Alex Fife, Micheala Fife, Megan Fife, Margaret Lackey, Ron Lackey, Stephanie Lackey, Diane Macpherson, Don Macpherson, Brenda McArthur, Jamie McArthur, Eric McArthur, Janice Fisher, Randy Fisher, Thomas Fisher, Adam Fisher, Meredith Fisher, Geoff Auckland, Leanne Lackey, and a former teacher of mine, Lloyd Auckland. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, Ontario families are being squeezed financially. Last night’s election shows that families were voting for a Prime Minister and a party who will give them relief, will give them a break. But Premier, it’s a lesson that you just don’t get. You refuse to learn that families are at a breaking point. At a time when Ontario families feel that they are a bill or two away from making it, you raised hydro bills yet again yesterday morning.

Premier, why do you keep raising costs for families? Why are you jacking up hydro rates when Ontario families clearly are looking for relief?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m grateful for the question. I want to say a couple of things at the outset, if I might.

First of all, I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Prime Minister Harper on the re-election of his government and to say on behalf of all of us here, I’m sure, that we look forward to working with Prime Minister Harper.

I also want to take the opportunity to thank each and every Canadian who chose, as

an act of faith and commitment, to put their name on a sign and their reputation on the line—not an easy thing to do. I thank them all, of whatever political stripe, for strengthening our democracy.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you may have seen the results last night, but you just didn’t understand the reason why. Ontario families are getting squeezed. You’ve increased hydro bills through the roof, your HST tax grab, the eco tax—the list goes on and on. You have raised hydro bills eight times already, and we know you will raise them again—as sure as Premier McGuinty will raise taxes again on hard-working Ontario families. You do this because of the contracts you signed for 20 times the market price of power in your expensive energy experiments. You raised hydro rates to pay for subsidies for families in Quebec and New York while Ontario families get dinged.

Premier, why are you hitting Ontario families when they’re coming and going?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this very important issue. I would encourage my honourable colleague to refer to a document put out by the Ontario Energy Board. It’s a sample bill comparison, comparing bills in May 2010 to May 2011. For a typical household where there is no smart meter, the bill last year was $107.82; the bill this year is $107.74—it’s a reduction. For a household equipped with a smart meter, last year the bill was $109.01; this year it’s $109.35.

They’re essentially flatlined. That is the result of our clean energy benefit, which reduces electricity bills by 10%—a provision, by the way, which the honourable colleague does not support.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, the Premier must live in the only house in Ontario where hydro bills are going down. How out of touch have you become that you say hydro bills are coming down across this province? It is the complete opposite, Premier. Hydro bill rates are up 84% during your time in office; if you have a smart meter tax machine, 150%. Families cannot afford it.

Last night, they voted for relief. They voted for a break. They want a chance to make ends meet, and all you’re going to do is jack up their hydro bills and increase their taxes once again. Families want change, Premier. Why don’t you get it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I thank my honourable colleague for his intervention in this, but I can’t agree with his creative

interpretation of what’s happened to electricity bills.

I would refer all Ontarians to an independent authority, a third party source: the Ontario Energy Board. I will remind my honourable colleague that in addition to ensuring that we have reliable electricity, they tell us that it’s the most reliable system we’ve had in place for the last 10 years. We’re also delivering cleaner air: Coal use in Ontario is down 90%. That’s not a matter of concern to my colleagues opposite, but I think reducing the amount of coal our children are breathing is very important to families.

Beyond that, we are building an exciting new clean energy industry in Ontario. So far, we have more than 20,000 new jobs benefiting our families.

That’s more than just rebuilding the system; we’re cleaning up our air and creating thousands of new jobs.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, I don’t know what channel you were watching last night, but families in Ontario clearly voted for relief, and high-taxing, runaway-spending Liberal candidates were shown the door. October 6 is next.

Yesterday, you increased hydro bills once again. In your seven years in office, you’ve jacked up hydro rates eight consecutive times. You threw the HST tax grab on top of that. You brought in this billion-dollar smart meter tax machine experiment that is driving up the bills, and you’re subsidizing power users in New York and Quebec to the tune of $1 billion to take Ontario power.

Premier, why is it that the only way you can get a break in Ontario is to move to New York or Quebec, where the bills are lower?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I congratulate my colleague opposite on his fanciful

interpretation and the creativity that he brings to the facts. But I think that we should focus on the facts, because I think that’s what families want us to focus on.

I’d ask my honourable colleague: Why is it that, for example, when we moved ahead with the clean energy benefit to reduce the impact of our electricity changes on families, they voted against that? Why is it that when we put in place a new tax provision that’s reducing income taxes on our families by $355 this year and every year going forward, my honourable colleague voted against that? Why is it that when it came to particularly needy families and we put in place the Ontario child benefit, benefiting some 1.2 million children, $1,200 a year, my honourable colleague voted against that? Each and every time we put in provisions to benefit families, they vote against them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Clearly, the Premier must have turned his TV off last night to save on his skyrocketing hydro bill. You just don’t get it, Premier. Families need relief. They need life to be more affordable. Premier, the first rule when you’re in a hole is, you stop digging, but you’re digging families—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Energy will withdraw the comment he just made.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The first rule, Premier: When you’re in a hole, you stop digging. But Premier McGuinty is doing the exact opposite. Premier, you keep digging deeper and deeper. You’re raising hydro bills. You slapped down the HST. You’re blowing $7 billion on a sweetheart Samsung deal. Waste, bloat and salaries at the OPA are through the roof, and contracts for power are at 80 cents a kilowatt hour when the price of power is four cents in the marketplace.

Premier, how out of touch have you become that you don’t get the lesson that Ontario families need relief? Life needs to be more affordable for average Ontario families.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I certainly hear my honourable colleague, but I can’t agree with his own particular

interpretation of the federal election results yesterday.

I think Ontarians have an interest in some of the things and they offer some support for some of the things that we’ve done on their behalf, and I’ll just list a few of those things. The fact is that now Ontario is first in Canada and second in North America in attracting new job-creating investments. Our schools are now among the best in the world. We are first in North America in college and university attendance. We are first in Canada when it comes to having the shortest wait times. We are first in the world to replace polluting coal-burning electricity with cleaner electricity.

We admit that there is more to do. We are not going to do what my honourable colleague would advocate, which is to turn sharply to the right and depart from the distinct path of progress that we’re on.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, the Premier continues to demonstrate just how out of touch he is with what is happening in Ontario homes and at kitchen tables. There’s no doubt that’s why the Premier has increased hydro bills eight times in his seven years in office.

We would take a different path. An Ontario PC government would give Ontario families the relief they need, the relief they deserve. We will bring change to the province of Ontario. We will pull the plug on your mandatory smart meter tax machines and give every family a choice in our province. And we will sign contracts—no more 80-cent power, Premier—that are affordable to the actual families who have to pay the bills.

Premier, why don’t you get it? An Ontario PC government will give the relief that Ontario families deserve.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As they say, everybody is entitled to their own opinion but not their own facts. The facts are the facts. Again, I’d refer my honourable colleague to the Ontario Energy Board information about what has in fact happened to electricity bills.

Here are a few other facts. When my honourable colleague was in government, there was no investment in new generation or new transmission, and that led to an unreliable system with electricity shortages and blackouts. From 1996 to 2003, generation capacity in the province of Ontario fell by 6%. At the same time, demand grew by 8.5%. Dirty, coal-fired generation increased 127% from 1995 to 2003, and we were importing electricity like crazy.

We have turned all of that around. We have a reliable system, we have clean air and we’re creating thousands of new jobs. That’s exactly what our families want us to do.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Ontario families desperately need a break, especially from sky-high utility bills, bills that are eating up more and more and more of their household budget. I hear of their struggles everywhere I go in Ontario.

Why is this Premier stubbornly refusing to give families the break they so desperately need?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question from my honourable colleague. A couple of things that I want to say: First of all, I would ask my honourable colleague to stand and support the change that was recently made, so that if you are enjoying the benefit of time-of-use rates in the province of Ontario, the discount period no longer begins at 9 o’clock in the evening; it now begins at 7 o’clock in the evening. That’s 10 more discount hours every week. That’s in combination with the full discount period throughout the entire weekend. The discount period is now from 7 in the evening to 7 in the morning.

I would also remind my honourable colleague that when we move ahead with our clean energy benefit, which reduces the bill by 10%, my colleague had been asking that we reduce it by 8%. We took it two points higher than that. Again, I would ask of her that she lend her support to an important provision which is helping Ontario families right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The fact is that the Premier just doesn’t seem to get it. He remains out of touch, and he ignores the realities that are being faced by struggling Ontario families on a daily basis. When can those families expect the Premier to finally understand exactly what it is that they’re struggling through?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We feel that we have a heavy responsibility to ensure that when Ontarians, whether in their homes, in their schools, in their hospitals, in their factories, in their office towers or in their barns—when they flick that switch, we’d darned well better make sure that the electricity is there and that the lights are coming on.

The first thing that we’re doing is, we are rebuilding 80% of our electricity system over the course of the next 20 years. It turns out that those wooden hydro poles don’t last forever; every once in a while, you’ve got to rebuild those things. That’s exactly what we’re doing. It turns out that our nuclear plants don’t last forever, and to keep them safe, we’ve got to invest billions of dollars to ensure that we retrofit those in an appropriate and responsible way. Those are the kinds of things that we are doing.

There is a cost associated with this. My friend says that she can do all of this and there will be no costs associated with that whatsoever. That’s magic. We don’t have magic here; we just have a sense of responsibility. We’re doing the right thing for Ontarians.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families are sick and tired of a government that just doesn’t seem to listen to them. They’re sick and tired of a government that continues to make the wrong choices, a government that has made life more and more expensive.

What will it finally take for this government and this Premier to realize that Ontario families need help?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I guess maybe it’s in terms of how we interpret the kinds of help that families want.

I think the first thing they want us to do is to make sure we have enough electricity not only to power our homes but also to power the growth in our economy. The fact of the matter is, we are coming out of this recession much stronger than many other parts of the world.

Secondly, they want to ensure that we can find a way to invest in electricity that both cleans up our air and leaves a foundation for an exciting new industry. That’s what we are doing. I thought I would have my honourable colleague’s support when it came to shutting down coal-fired generation in Ontario. It’s not an easy thing to do, but we think it’s a very important thing to do for our families, especially our children and our seniors.

I thought as well that we would have her support when it came to building an exciting new clean energy industry with wind turbines, solar panels and the like. I thought that we would have her support in this regard, but we don’t. Again, she has an opportunity to reconsider; we would love to have that support.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is again to the Premier, and it’s about helping Ontario families make ends meet. They’ve seen good, well-paying jobs simply disappear, and they’re seeing the costs of just about everything go up.

The Premier can continue to bury his head in the sand, or he can finally do something to ease the burden faced by families. Which is it going to be?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would remind my honourable colleague of some good news that is out there. She may not enjoy it, but it’s there nonetheless.

For example, we’ve learned that in 2010—that’s before, by the way, we put the HST in pace—economists predicted the economy would grow by only 1.2% to 1.4% for 2010. We just got the number. The actual economic growth for Ontario’s GDP for 2010 is 3.3%.

We now know as well that, for the latest quarter, GDP has grown 3.8%, which is higher than the Canadian average. We’ve recovered, so far, 93% of the jobs that we lost during the recession, which is significantly more than the US, which is 15%; the UK, 44%; or Germany, 35%.

Always more work to do, and we look forward to keeping doing it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats have been very clear: We’re on the side of Ontario families. We’d take the unfair HST off of hydro permanently and off of heating. That’s precisely the kind of break that Ontario families need and deserve. Why won’t the Premier support that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ve had the opportunity to speak to this before, and it’s something that continues to puzzle me. My honourable colleague stood in her place on several occasions and repeatedly asked that we reduce the cost of electricity by 8%. We have reduced it by 10%. I’m hoping that at some point in time, my honourable colleague will acknowledge that we’ve in fact trumped her, but more importantly, we’ve done what is right for the people of Ontario. We’re reducing their bills by 10% over the course of five years as a clean energy benefit, and the net consequence of that has been that we have effectively flatlined electricity bills, according to the Ontario Energy Board.

Again, I would ask my honourable colleague to acknowledge that at some point in time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier’s temporary rebate scheme doesn’t fool anybody, and that’s the fact. He likes to pretend that everything is still okay, but outside of his bubble things are far from okay. Ontario families are looking for solutions, solutions that are going to help them make life more affordable.

New Democrats are offering those very solutions, and that is exactly what we want to see more of, but the Premier and his government unfortunately refuse to support the kinds of solutions we’re bringing forward. Why won’t the Premier just take a moment to listen to Ontario families instead of pretending that everything remains A-okay in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, with respect to energy, we just introduced a new measure which will increase the discount period by two hours every day. That’s 10 more hours a week, in addition to the full discount period available on weekends.

My honourable colleague says that she’s concerned about some of the economic burdens borne by families, especially as they struggle to emerge from a very difficult recession, and I understand that. So again, I’ve got to ask myself: Why does she not support our Ontario child benefit, which is benefiting 1.3 million Ontario children? Why didn’t she support the 215 new drugs that we’ve added to the public drug plan? Why doesn’t she support our reduction in income tax for the average Ontario family by $355? Again, why does she not support our measure to reduce electricity bills by 10%?

Each and every time we extend an opportunity to my honourable colleague to support a measure that benefits families, she turns us down, and she effectively turns down Ontario families when she does that.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Premier. The lesson from last night’s election and the municipal elections last fall is that Ontario families are voting for a Prime Minister and mayors who will give them relief. It’s a lesson that appears to be lost on Premier McGuinty. He’s gotten so out of touch that last week, he defended his policy of selling power to New York and Quebec at a financial loss. He told the media that we’ve netted $300 million from power sales to New York and Quebec, but the C.D. Howe Institute says that’s not right. Your power exports have cost $1 billion since 2006.

What made you think you could get away with making Ontario families pay 80 cents for power that you sell for two cents and then you claim that you made money on the sale?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Sometimes telling a very small part of a very large story can be very challenging for people to understand when it’s put like that.

The facts are that now that our energy system is actually in a positive surplus situation, energy consumers here in this province have benefited to the tune of $1.5 billion since 2006. We can compare that to their approach, where energy consumers lost through their nose just about a billion dollars in their last two years in office alone because they couldn’t produce enough power to meet the demand and they had to rely on expensive imports just to provide power to Ontario families and businesses.

I look forward to the supplementary because I want—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Ontario families know that only a change to a PC government will give them the relief they need on hydro bills. Premier McGuinty is so out of touch, he thinks that hydro bills have flatlined. He is so out of touch, he keeps signing contracts that pay 80 cents for power that costs four cents in the marketplace. He’s so out of touch with Ontario families, he thinks they can afford to pay billions for expensive energy experiments even when they don’t need it and won’t use it. He says that they prefer to pay the hydro bills of New York and Quebec residents.

How soon before you hit Ontario families with the next hydro increase which you will spend on more expensive energy experiments in the mess that you’ve created?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s go back to the days when a member of this House, a member of the opposition, was sitting as Minister of Energy. The member for Simcoe–Grey said this in those days: “If we can make money on surplus power in the United States, we’re damn well going to do that.” Well, they couldn’t do that because they weren’t producing enough power to be able to export power, because they weren’t producing enough power to meet our needs.

He went on and said, “This summer when we didn’t have enough electricity”—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: We used to make money, Brad.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of the Environment, member from Ancaster.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Community Safety, member from Nepean, government House leader, member from Leeds, member from Thornhill, member from Nepean for the second time.

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let’s go back to what they were saying back then, because I think it’s very telling. The member for Simcoe–Grey said in this very Legislature, “This summer when we didn’t have enough electricity in this province because we hit peak high temperatures and all the air conditioners were running, we had to buy power.... I had to pay $7 million one day to keep the air conditioners on in our hospitals. That was highway robbery.”

That was your system. Our system has surplus power; our system is—

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

LABOUR UNIONS

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Why does the Premier persist in denying farm workers the right to join a union and bargain collectively?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I believe the member opposite is addressing the Supreme Court of Canada decision, which, after careful deliberations to the matter, has reaffirmed that the agricultural act we have in place allows for our farmers to be represented. The Supreme Court of Canada says the Agricultural Employees Protection Act provides “farm workers in Ontario … meaningful processes by which they can pursue workplace goals.”

This decision protects farm workers with the constitutional right to free association. The right guarantees that the farm workers can form free associations to collectively represent and communicate their interests to their employers. Employers, by the way, are also obliged to address the farm workers.

Our government, the Supreme Court—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: The ball is in the government’s court. It’s now up to the government to ensure that agricultural workers in this province have the same rights as any other worker. Why does this Liberal government persist in denying agricultural workers the same rights that other workers have in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Our government and the Supreme Court of Canada are satisfied that the act that now exists provides the industry with the best means to resolve issues. But let me say, more importantly, we appreciate the work of our family farms and recognize that the short planting season and harvest season would in this case be controversial. We appreciate the harmonious relationship we have with our work farmers and between employers and employees.

Laughter.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m surprised they’re laughing, because when that party was in power and the other party was in power, we had the worst of our work relationships in this province. We now have harmonious relationships. We value our relationships with our employees. We will continue to support them. We don’t have the worst options. We are proud of our record, and, more importantly, our act supports—

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

POLICE SERVICES

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The Ontario Provincial Police is an exceptional police force. The women and men of the Ontario Provincial Police serve their communities with distinction. Every day, they face difficult and dangerous situations in order to keep Ontario families safe.

Just recently, OPP Constable Dell Mercey received international recognition for his work with the Ontario Provincial Police when he was named trooper of the year by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. OPP Constable Mercey was the first Canadian to ever earn this distinction.

Can the minister explain what the Ontario government is doing to support the Ontario Provincial Police and their remarkable officers, such as Constable Mercey, in their work to protect Ontarians?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s an excellent question, I must say as well. We’ve invested in Ontario’s police services and developed a strong working relationship with Commissioner Lewis as well as the Ontario Provincial Police Association, Jim Christie and Karl Walsh.

We’ve invested to ensure that our police partners have the resources they need to keep our streets safe. Here’s what we’ve done: put 2,300 additional police officers on the street across the province; increased the budget of the Ontario Provincial Police by more than 50%; and stood as the only Canadian province to dedicate every penny from the federal police officer recruitment fund to front-line policing, including 125 new front-line OPP officers. We’ve also invested over $90 million to construct approximately 30 new OPP detachments, communications centres and forensic identification centres—

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Not surprisingly, the ability to live and raise a family in a safe community is a top priority for my constituents. In the wake of the global economic recession, Ontarians are slowly but surely getting back on their feet and putting their finances in order. Similarly, municipalities in the province are working to balance their budgets. My constituents are concerned that the province’s and municipalities’ focus on eliminating their deficits will reduce their commitment to public safety.

Can the minister explain what the Ontario government is doing to ensure the continued safety of my constituents?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I can assure the member, first of all, that deficit reduction will not be at the expense of public safety in this province. We have made significant investments in Ontario police services since 2003 to ensure our police partners have the resources they need to keep our streets safe.

As a result of our investments in policing, the Ontario Provincial Police is one of North America’s largest police services, with more than 6,100 uniformed officers, 2,700 civilian employees and 850 auxiliary officers. The OPP work is to ensure that communities across the province are safe. Currently, more than 300 Ontario municipalities have chosen to have the OPP deliver their local police services.

Your constituents in Algoma–Manitoulin are benefiting directly from our investment. As of February 26, the request from the municipality of Wawa, for instance, has been complied with, and—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, as of yesterday, nearly 1,000 people in my riding were still without power as a result of damage from last Thursday’s windstorm. They spent the weekend in the dark, not only because their lights went out but because they couldn’t get important information from Hydro One about what was being done to resolve the problem. When they did get through to a real person, they were given updates that later proved to be inaccurate. Municipal officials had the same experience, hampering their ability to help residents.

Minister, we all applaud the Hydro One crews working around the clock to fix the damage, but now I want to know what you’re going to do to fix the obvious communications breakdown.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s always regrettable when circumstances happen, in particular bad weather, bad winds and things like that, that sometimes will impact the flow of electricity. That’s something that, indeed, at times is beyond our control. We count on Hydro One and all of our energy partners to get the power back on as soon as possible.

Critical to getting that power back on is investing in a modern infrastructure system, something that that party has fought us on every step of the way.

One thing I can tell you: As we bring in the modernization of our energy system and smart meters, our local distribution companies can get right to those power outages as quickly as possible. It’s a great advantage to energy consumers, something we support by making those important investments, something that they’ve rejected every step of the way.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, forget your spin that everything worked as planned. The people who needed information couldn’t get it. That’s what you need to know. This is just one more proof that this government doesn’t have its priorities right. Instead of investing in maintenance to prevent these power outages in the first place, you wasted billions on your smart meter tax machines and your other failed energy experiments.

Minister, this is Emergency Preparedness Week but clearly your ministry isn’t prepared. Will you commit to review maintenance and communications programs to prevent a repeat the next time a storm rolls through Leeds–Grenville?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Maybe the member should think about this the next time he votes against the investments we’re making in building stronger infrastructure in this province, in modernizing our infrastructure, in moving towards a smart grid, in bringing forward 4.5 million smart meters, all of which are critical in our efforts to get power back on when things like bad storms occur.

That’s the difference between our time in office and yours. In your time, power was going out because you weren’t producing enough of it to provide to Ontario families. We have enough power in the system now. We have a reliable system. When storms happen, we do our utmost to get the power back on.

We’ll always look to improve that service. We’ll continue to work with Hydro One to provide better and better service. But it’s a heck of a lot better today than it was in those dark days of blackouts and brownouts when they were in power.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier: The Ontario government plans to build a new nuclear power plant at Darlington. It has a responsibility to ensure that Ontarians are fully aware of the risks and dangers of nuclear power. Why, then, is the Ontario government allowing Ontario Power Generation to withhold information about health and environmental dangers of accidental radiation releases at the Darlington and Pickering nuclear plants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m mildly surprised that the NDP would be raising this issue. Our nuclear safety experts have clearly stated that releasing this information that Greenpeace has indeed requested would pose a threat to the safety of our nuclear facilities. I really find it surprising that the member wouldn’t be aware of that. I think, frankly, it’s a bit ironic that Greenpeace and the NDP would be requesting information under the guise of public safety when the information they want would actually put our citizens at risk.

The NDP and Greenpeace: We know they don’t support nuclear power. However, one would expect that the NDP and Greenpeace would understand the importance of putting the safety of nuclear facilities ahead of politics. Apparently not.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Interesting response, Minister. As you probably knew before you stood up to answer that question, in March a senior adjudicator from Ontario’s Information and Privacy Office urged OPG to release information on potential radiation releases should an accident occur at the Pickering or Darlington nuclear plant. I actually don’t have any control over them. You should be aware of that. The adjudicator said that “events now unfolding in Japan ... underline the vital necessity for informed public debate about nuclear safety issues”—not our party, not any environmental group; the Ontario information and privacy office.

When will the Ontario government, as sole shareholder of OPG, order OPG to stop hiding information about the risks of nuclear plant radiation?

Hon. Brad Duguid: All issues surrounding radiation are on the websites of federal agencies, 24 hours a day, that residents of Ontario can refer to at all times. That information is available.

But I believe what the member is asking for is a request for information that Greenpeace has made to Ontario Power Generation. They’ve been advised that that information would present a public safety issue with regard to ensuring that our citizens are protected. In light of what’s gone on around the world on the weekend alone, one would think that the member would understand that these public security issues are important to respect.

I’m going to ask the member again: Give some thought to where your priorities lie. Do they lie with public safety or do they lie with trying to play politics with a very important issue?

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. College students and university students are finishing up their exams right now, and they’re embarking on the next

chapter in their lives: finding a career. Ontario’s economy has recovered 93% of its jobs. It continues to turn the corner. The province as a whole is in a good position to offer students and graduates summer and long-term employment as they start their lifelong work careers.

Minister, what is our government offering the newest members of Ontario’s workforce so they can start their career journeys confidently and successfully?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to answer this question, because it is important for us to be able to turn to our young people and say, “You have a future here in Ontario and we want to help you, even while you’re in school and finishing your education.”

We heard, in the last budget, about $22.5 million being set aside for summer employment programs; three that my ministry is managing. One is called Summer Company, a terrific program that allows grants up to $3,000 for young people to actually start a business. And I have to say that those companies that end up staying as companies, where the student goes back again the next summer and picks it up again, are really tremendous. The success rate there is terrific.

Another great program: the global entrepreneurship program. We actually organize young people to go and have mentorship programs in other countries and bring that experience back to Ontario.

We want everyone to go to ontario.ca and—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Young graduates in your riding and in my riding of Willowdale—indeed, right across Ontario—have a great future as they complete their studies. It’s all based on the strong economic infrastructure here in Ontario. In particular, the Ontario summer jobs strategy will help graduates prepare for their future careers in a whole lot of different sectors here in Ontario.

But what about today? What about tomorrow? What do these graduates who are completing their studies, as we speak in this chamber—what are they going to do tomorrow? What are they going to do today? Where are the jobs coming from once they are no longer eligible for the summer jobs strategy programs?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I know so many people were heartened to see that Ontario ranked tied with California a couple of weeks ago in garnering the most foreign direct investment of any other jurisdiction in North America. They scored jurisdictions by how many jobs come into those jurisdictions with that foreign direct investment.

But here on the home front, just as a budget initiative alone, pouring millions of dollars into our own economy, our businesses are creating jobs in partnership with the Ontario community and the Ontario government. Let me give you a couple of examples: Silfab, a solar-based company creating jobs here in the greater Toronto area; Digital Extremes, in the information, communication and technology hub, creating jobs right here in London, Ontario. Great examples in different sectors, but huge opportunities for young people to stay in Ontario—

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

DISCRIMINATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship. Mayor Rob Ford showed strong leadership recently when he took a principled stand against discrimination. He took a clear stand against city resources being used to fund the activities of Queers Against Israeli Apartheid in any way. In contrast to the strong leadership and clear stand of Mayor Ford, the McGuinty government turned its back on the Jewish community. Your government handed out $400,000 of Ontario taxpayers’ money—no strings attached, no conditions, no assurance that the money would not be used to fund the hateful and hurtful activities of this group.

How do you justify Premier McGuinty’s shameful and weak leadership on a matter of such importance to the Jewish community?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for asking this question, but I have to respectfully disagree with his characterization.

I’m aware that Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has decided quite certainly not to march in this year’s Pride Toronto parade. Instead, they will be moving in a different direction. I think this is a positive development for Toronto, for Pride and for the Ontario community.

We recognize the efforts of Pride Toronto to also actively fight discrimination and create a comprehensive process which will avoid any type of conflict, and I want to reiterate that Ontario is absolutely committed to fighting all forms of discrimination, including anti-Semitism.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Not marching doesn’t mean they’re not represented. This House was clear in its view on the use of the word “apartheid” being applied to Israel. The resolution I brought 15 months ago, condemning the insulting and hateful use of “apartheid,” was debated and it was unanimously adopted. But in the face of a clear statement and the will of this House, the McGuinty government did its own thing. You increased funding for activities that include Queers Against Israeli Apartheid by $100,000, and that’s the same amount the city of Toronto may withhold if this group is supported in any way.

How dare you go around the principled stand taken by this House and Mayor Ford by handing out money with no assurances that my resolution and the Jewish community will be respected?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Again, I respectfully and emphatically disagree with the characterization provided by the member opposite. Queers Against Israeli Apartheid has stated clearly that they have decided not to march in this year’s Pride Toronto parade. Ontario is absolutely committed to fighting all forms of discrimination.

I agree with the member opposite on this respect: that last year this Legislature unanimously condemned the term “Israeli apartheid.” This term is disgusting and divisive, and does nothing to encourage constructive dialogue.

I should add that we expect all individuals and organizations in Ontario to fight all forms of discrimination and hate, including, in particular, anti-Semitism. The McGuinty government stands with Ontario’s Jewish community and all diverse communities in fighting all forms of discrimination and hate.

LONG-TERM CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Niagara region families are reeling from the latest news of what this government is planning for local health care. The Niagara Health System is looking to slash anywhere from 75 to 120 long-term-care beds. Will the Premier tell us exactly how many long-term-care beds his government plans to cut in Welland?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me just say to my honourable colleague that I think she has a good understanding of where we’ve been coming from on the matter of health care for the last seven-plus years, now.

She will know that we have increased operating dollars by close to 50%. I think she’s aware that we’ve hired some 11,000 more nurses and some 2,900 more doctors. We started from zero; we now have 200 family health teams treating some three million patients. We’re going to have 25 nurse practitioner-led clinics, the first of their kind in North America, I think treating some 30,000 or 40,000 patients. Some—what is it?—94% of Ontarians now have a family doctor; that’s 1.2 million more than before. We’ve done a lot by any objective assessment. There’s always more to be done. Again, I could add that we now have the shortest wait times in the country; we didn’t even measure them before.

So, again, there’s real, objective, measurable progress, but there’s always more to be done. I certainly acknowledge that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, one of the things the Premier needs to do is fulfill his own promises about things he plans to do in places like Welland. Right before the last provincial election, the McGuinty Liberals announced the construction of a new long-term-care home in Welland. It hasn’t materialized. They promised the community would see about 100 new beds, but now, not only did that not materialize, but there are plans to cut long-term-care beds despite the fact that at least 500 seniors are on long-term-care home waiting lists.

For months, local municipalities have called for an independent investigation of the Niagara Health System. Why has this Premier ignored these pleas from the community, and why has he now decided to put much-needed long-term-care beds on the chopping block?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to restate something that has been said several times before by myself and my honourable colleague the Minister of Health, and that is, we’re not cutting health care. We keep finding ways to invest more dollars in health care, and we keep finding more ways to do it in as efficient and as effective a way as possible.

One of the things that we want to take up with the new federal government is a new 10-year health accord. I’d ask my honourable colleague to join us in that regard. We think we can complete that new deal by the end of 2012 rather than by the end of 2014, as originally was planned. We’re convinced that we can get it done in a way that secures medicare for the future.

The issue, to my mind, is not where we’re going to cut; it’s what are we going to do smarter and better than ever before as we invest new dollars to ensure that we get the best possible results for the people of Ontario?

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, there’s been a great deal of interest in green energy and, in particular, microFIT programs in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock. Many farmers in the riding have installed solar systems and are participating in our government’s green energy plan. It has been a tremendous success, and I’m told by my rural caucus colleagues that this enthusiastic participation is happening across rural Ontario.

Could the minister provide this House with a status update on the number of microFIT projects providing clean energy into the grid, as well as on any economic benefits that have been created as a result of this program?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m happy to do that, and I want to thank the member for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes for his question.

Our microFIT program has indeed been a tremendous success, and I’m pleased to hear that so many of his constituents are taking an active role in helping to grow Ontario’s clean energy economy and build a clean and healthier future for our kids at the same time.

I can tell the member right now that over 5,000 small renewable energy projects are feeding clean energy into the Ontario grid. An additional 5,000 projects have been green-lighted for connection as soon as their installations are ready. These projects are earning local farmers up to $10,000 a year. Not only are these projects creating additional income for farmers, they’re helping to create thousands of jobs across the province as part of our clean energy economy.

We’re going to continue to stand up for clean energy, we’re going to continue to stand up for Ontario farmers, we’re going to continue to stand up for a healthier future for our kids and we’re going to—

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

Mr. Rick Johnson: Minister, I’m encouraged by the level of interest and the success of the microFIT program. I know it’s creating good-paying jobs in my riding.

Minister, I know that some members in this House do not believe in this important government policy and they do not support the clean energy economy that it is creating. My constituents fear that the lack of support for the microFIT program will lead to instability in our new clean energy economy and will kill countless jobs in my riding and in the province.

Can the minister please tell me, my constituents and microFIT participants in rural Ontario: What are the impacts of ending such an important provincial policy?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Indeed, this is a critically important program for our economy, and ending the microFIT program would have a devastating effect on Ontario’s clean energy economy. Thousands of Ontario jobs would be lost and it would send a hugely embarrassing message to the world that now that Ontario has become top in the world and we’re a global-leading clean energy economy, we no longer want to take leadership in this area. It would be devastating to your community and communities across the province.

But candidates from the PC Party continue to say that they want to rip up these contracts. I want to quote one: “We will shut down all of the planned expansion of that unaffordable, unworkable microFIT plan. There will be no new contracts.” That’s the candidate from the member’s riding, Laurie Scott, who said that. The Conservative Party continues to show disrespect for Ontario farmers and for Ontario families, and—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: On behalf of Tim Hudak and our caucus, we’d like to welcome the OPPA here today to the Legislature.

My question is to the Attorney General. The Minister of Community Safety said that the reason that he and Premier McGuinty are refusing to apologize for passing the secret G20 law is because there are a number of ongoing court cases out there at the present time.

The minister sits right in front of you. Why don’t you just lean forward and tell him about the Apology Act you passed in 2009 so that apologies aren’t taken as an admission of liability in legal proceedings?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: It may well be that my colleague wishes to comment on the supplementary. We would like to thank former Chief Justice McMurtry for his advice and his recommendations with respect to the PWPA. My colleague the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services will be speaking to this matter more in the future. He has already indicated the government’s intention.

My friend opposite knows full well that it’s just one of the characteristics of Attorneys General that whenever there’s an ongoing court case, we don’t comment. We just sort of treat it as something that we don’t comment on. That’s to protect all parties to the court case, to ensure the fairness of proceedings. We just don’t do it because what the AG says can be used in different—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: You don’t comment and you don’t answer questions. It’s a sign of just how out of touch and out of gas the Premier and his McGuinty Liberals have become.

You insulted Ontario families by passing the G20 law in secret. The OPP opposed your secret G20 law as well, but you did it anyways. You insult them further when you try to blame others for the law you and a bunch of your other McGuinty Liberals decided to pass. Then you outdo yourself by refusing to be held accountable using phony excuses: that it would affect legal cases when it won’t. You won’t take accountability, so every man and woman in uniform gets blamed.

How many more ways will you insult Ontario families just because you refuse to admit the colossal mistakes you’ve made as a government?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank my friend very much for the supplementary that had been written before he actually heard the answer.

But we do want to thank again former Chief Justice McMurtry for his very important advice and recommendations. My colleague the Minister of Community Safety is committed to this.

It’s just one of those characteristics of Attorneys General that we always, regardless of how tempting it might be to intervene, to make comments, to respond to the temptations—and there are many—stand back and accept the slings and arrows. We say, “You know, we’re going to protect the process. We’re going to protect rights to fair trial. We’re just not going to engage in the back and forth, and we won’t comment on ongoing proceedings.”

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. My constituent Monsieur Michel Chevrier has been referred by his physician and accepted at a bariatric centre of excellence in southern Ontario, since we don’t have one in northeastern Ontario yet. Since last fall, he has had to travel to Guelph for numerous appointments, but the northern travel grant program has refused to cover his costs. Why is it that people in northern Ontario do not get equitable access to health care services?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What I can say is that we’ve built 15 new hospitals. I think there are three more on the go. I think four of those new hospitals are in northern Ontario. We’re very proud of that. That was an area of the province which went underserved by any objective definition, so we’ve made those investments.

I know that they have new nurses in northern Ontario. We have a new medical school in northern Ontario which is designed to ensure that we draw more young people from the north into medicine so that they can return to the north and practise there. We’ve made some real steps forward. There’s always more that we can do.

I know that we have made some changes to the northern health travel grant to ensure that it is broader in terms of its scope and provides more relief to Ontario families. I look forward to hearing more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Well, we don’t have a bariatric regional assessment and treatment centre in Sudbury yet. We are talking very few people, for a limited period of time, just until such time as Sudbury Regional Hospital is ready to go. It is on the way; it’s just not there yet. But for those people, those few people, it is a huge financial strain.

I would hope that you would do the right thing and cover the travel expenses for northern Ontarians, the few of them who qualify, travelling to southern Ontario to get health care services that are not available in northern Ontario.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to say a couple of things on this. First of all, we have improved the northern health travel grant. I know that. My colleague—I get the sense she’s raising something here which might serve as interim support until something is finally in place. What I’m prepared to do is to undertake to review this, in keeping with the request put forward by my colleague, and to see if this is something that is sensible for us to do. We don’t want to leave people in the lurch as we’re trying to complete progress on a program that would meet their needs there, so I will give this very careful consideration.

ENDANGERED SPECIES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I realize that the protection of threatened and endangered species in our province is an important endeavour, but I am concerned that the Endangered Species Act places too many restrictions on businesses. I’m worried that these restrictions may discourage bus