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

December 3, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Dec-03 (PDF)

L094 - Tue 3 Dec 2013 / Mar 3 déc 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 3 December 2013 Mardi 3 décembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

YOUTH ARTS PROGRAM

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ENERGY POLICIES

CHRIS MAZZA

CHRIS MAZZA

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

LAND USE PLANNING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

DEFERRED VOTES

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JOHN ZIVCIC

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

VOLUNTEERS

MOE RACINE

TIBETAN IMMIGRANTS

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

ST. CLAIR WEST

SERVICES FOR SENIORS

AUTO GUYS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD CARE

MODERNIZATION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DES SERVICES DE GARDE D’ENFANTS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(EXTENSION OF TIMELINES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(PROROGATION DE DÉLAIS)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT

ACT (HELMET EXEMPTION

FOR SIKH MOTORCYCLISTS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(EXEMPTION DE L’OBLIGATION

DE PORT DU CASQUE

POUR LES MOTOCYCLISTES SIKHS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO AWARD FOR LEADERSHIP

IN IMMIGRANT EMPLOYMENT

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO AWARD FOR LEADERSHIP

IN IMMIGRANT EMPLOYMENT

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO AWARD FOR LEADERSHIP

IN IMMIGRANT EMPLOYMENT

PETITIONS

PERSONAL SUPPORT WORKERS

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

FISHING REGULATIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

DISTRACTED DRIVING

AIR QUALITY

DISTRACTED DRIVING

ASTHMA

DISTRACTED DRIVING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

DISTRACTED DRIVING

AIR QUALITY

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(LEAVES TO HELP FAMILIES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES NORMES D’EMPLOI

(CONGÉS POUR AIDER LES FAMILLES)

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

PROPERTY TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MODERNIZING REGULATION

OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA RÉGLEMENTATION

DE LA PROFESSION JURIDIQUE

Mr. Gerretsen moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 111,

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

Loi sur le Barreau et la

Loi sur les procureurs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Debate.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, I’m very pleased to rise in the House this morning for the second reading of the proposed Modernizing Regulation of the Legal Profession Act. The bill reflects the law society’s commitment to supporting the public interest by ensuring that the people of Ontario are served by lawyers and paralegals who meet the highest standards of professional conduct.

I want to thank Tom Conway, the treasurer of the law society, and its governing body, which is known as Convocation, for outstanding leadership that continues to enhance the reputation of more than 44,000 lawyers in Ontario and almost 5,500 paralegals in this province.

Let me just remind my honourable colleagues here of the five proposed changes that Bill 111 would implement. First of all, it would establish a tribunal which would oversee the law society’s current hearing and appeals panels, and provide for the appointment of a full-time non-bencher lawyer chair.

Secondly, it would authorize the law society to suspend a lawyer or paralegal’s licence for failure to pay legal costs related to a discipline hearing in those cases where legal costs have been ordered against the individual involved.

Third, it would clarify that the law society can receive solicitor-client privileged information from any person, such as a client, and introduce such information in proceedings while protecting that privilege.

Next, it would increase the number of paralegal members of the law society’s governing body from two to five, to provide for a fair representation of paralegals.

Finally, it would align legislation with the current practice by providing that paralegals may charge for providing legal services.

We as a government can take great pride in the changes that we’ve made to help promote a dynamic and innovative paralegal profession. Speaker, you may recall, that when the Access to Justice Act came into force in 2007, one of the most significant achievements was to make Ontario the first jurisdiction in North America to prescribe the regulation of paralegals. In our province, back in 2007, this important task was carried out by the Law Society of Upper Canada—the law society of Ontario, as such. Now we stand at the point where the paralegal profession is more mature and is deserving of greater recognition within the legal community and the province as a whole.

One of the changes would increase the number of paralegal directors on the board of directors, commonly known as Convocation—and they would be known as paralegal benchers of the law society’s governing body—from two to five. Now, as I’m sure that all the members of the House, and certainly the two critics in the other two parties, are aware, it is important that this bill be dealt with promptly so that the number of paralegals can be increased at Convocation in March 2014.

Elections of both the paralegal directors and of the lawyers as benchers only happens every four years, and that happens to be early next year. So in order to have more benchers in place for the next term, we need to move forward with this amendment as soon as possible and be finalized before the end of this year.

Now, two other amendments contained in Bill 111 would impact on paralegals. One is a proposal to authorize the law society to suspend the licence of a lawyer or paralegal through a simple administrative process for failure to pay legal costs that have been awarded against them as related to a discipline proceeding.

Interjections.

Hon. John Gerretsen: You know, it’s very interesting, Speaker, how the members opposite are so talkative this morning. I hope that they will fully support this bill, because it’s for the betterment of the people of Ontario, so that they get the best possible legal service. I’m sure that they will do that; I’m absolutely convinced of that.

One is a proposal to authorize the law society to suspend the licence of a paralegal or a lawyer through a simple administrative process for failure to pay legal costs related to a discipline proceeding—I think I’ve already stated that. The law society currently allows for a suspension of a licence when the licensee has failed to comply with such a cost order. However, the process involves an application to the law society’s hearing panel, which increases case load and results in time delays. Basically what we’re saying is that if costs are awarded against an individual, then the order can be made immediately. That’s a change we want to make in the bill.

The other amendment that would affect paralegals is a simple housekeeping change that would bring the legislation in line with current practice. This change would amend the Solicitors Act to set out that paralegals can charge for providing legal services. Currently, even though they’re providing those services and they’re obviously getting paid for them, the Solicitors Act, technically speaking, prevents that from happening.

These amendments are important in order to support our government’s economic plan to continue building a dynamic and innovative business climate with which I’m sure we all agree.

We also need to support the law society to ensure that they can continue to provide effective regulation for all of the professionals under its jurisdictions. It’s interesting, Speaker, that back in 2007, when the paralegals were first licensed and brought under the Law Society of Upper Canada, there were about 2,200 in the province of Ontario. That has increased to over 5,000 currently licensed paralegals who provide a tremendously good service in many of the administrative tribunals and many of the other functions in which their scope of practice allows them to operate.

Over the past 30 years, in Canadian common law the concept of solicitor-client privilege has grown and is now considered a quasi-judicial right. Generally, privilege may be seen as coming into force when communications from a client to a professional legal advisor are made in confidence. These communications cannot be disclosed unless the client gives up the right to that privilege. However, the concept has grown to include, for example, information offered in closed hearings.

The current legislation says that the law society can use information received from a lawyer or paralegal in a hearing and that such information remains protected. But the law, as it currently stands, is silent about information received from others, such as clients, and this information may be vital in conducting investigations and proceedings. The proposed amendment would allow for privileged information to be received from clients, and other people, and introduced in proceedings without loss of privilege.

Finally, the establishment of a tribunal, a hearings tribunal: How the law society treats cases of potential misconduct is a matter of vital concern to the general public, as well as to its members and to all who have dealings with our legal system. Since 1999, the operational structure for the law society’s hearing process has been divided into two parts: a hearing panel to adjudicate allegations of professional misconduct, and an appeal panel to hear appeals of the hearing panel’s decisions or orders.

This system met the needs of the day, but now the law society needs a more effective structure and to improve quality assurance. By giving legislative authority for a new internal tribunal that would oversee the law society’s current hearing and appeals panels, we can ensure that it’s both independent and effective, with a full-time lawyer who’s not a bencher as a chair.

Speaker, all of these changes are contained in Bill 111 and would help modernize the regulation of the legal profession in Ontario. Lawyers play an extremely important

part in our legal system, and so do paralegals. They have been recognized in this province since 2007; the numbers of them have grown. The people of Ontario have benefited from that, and we want to modernize the system. That’s what this bill is all about. At the end of the day, the result would be more efficient, effective, accountable and accessible services, both for the public and for the professionals regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

I once again want to thank Tom Conway, the treasurer of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and its governing body, Convocation, for their exemplary leadership in helping to ensure that the fine reputation of Ontario’s legal profession remains second to none. I also want to thank Cathy Corsetti and the law society’s paralegal standing committee for helping our government invigorate Ontario’s economy by continuing to promote the development of a dynamic paralegal profession.

I know, Speaker, that when all is said and done, all of the members of this House will support this legislation and make sure that it has quick passage so that to it can be put into effect by the end of the year, and so that when elections take place early next year—which only happen every four years—the paralegals can be increased on Convocation from their current status of having two members as part of the bencher community to five.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m surprised this bill was brought up this morning. It’s a very technical bill, and the way the Attorney General spoke this morning, he seems to be in a bit of a bind. This needs to be done, and the question was raised, just in the period of the debate, of why they haven’t brought this forward earlier. They’ve talked about more complicated things like tanning parlors, smoking on balconies and things like that. I’m surprised.

This is so important—to modernize our justice system and specifically working in co-operation with the newly developing careers of paralegals, along with the legal community, the lawyers, who pretty well have control of it—that why wouldn’t he have brought this forward?

I would wonder, in his response to the two minutes, if there has been a paper developed by them that preceded Bill 111, maybe you could mention that. And what were the primary things outside of the modernization and the

section dealing with the ability for paralegals to legally charge fees for providing a service? I understand that’s kind of a housekeeping issue. But you mentioned the word “modernize.” There are a couple more panels, I understand, if you look at the section. They’re hearing panels. They now have to appear before a tribunal before they go to the hearing panels. These are things that the lay people here need to understand. Is modernizing providing more bureaucracy? It sort of sounds like that. I know they’re going to have to work on a panel.

The new bencher group are going to be mixed with paralegals, I gather, and I’m anxious to hear a bit more.

I’m surprised the Attorney General—I have great respect for him, I might say, as a lawyer; I always like to think of him as the former mayor of Kingston. But in this role, I would have thought that maybe, though, you would have told us a bit more, used the hour. You had a whole hour to educate us in the lay community that need to be bought into the modernization that you referred to.

Thank you very much for the opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions or comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I’m happy to be able to join in the debate. I noticed earlier, and wanted to recognize, a number of people. Sheena Weir was in the public gallery. I wanted to recognize her for her great work and—oh, there she is. She has been doing a little bit of moving. I want to welcome Sheena to the House and thank her for her hard work on bringing this bill forward and assisting to make sure it gets passed in a timely manner. I also want to thank Tom Conway and all the benchers at Convocation for their great work.

The bill basically is just a step forward in terms of modernizing some of the practices that govern lawyers and paralegals in the province of Ontario. The law society now has a mandate to regulate paralegals, which brings paralegals into a regulated field. There are two areas. One is with respect to the way lawyers are sanctioned or the way lawyers are dealt with. One step forward is to ensure that for tribunals that hear any sort of complaints or the complaint process, having an independent and permanent chair would create a more efficient manner in which we deal with any complaints that come forward.

I agree with the Attorney General in terms that it would strengthen both the way the law society deals with its own members, but also increase the public confidence in lawyers as well.

Similarly, given the fact that we have now included paralegals within the law society, there’s also a recognition that to grow their profession and to increase, moving forward, the effectiveness of policies, incorporating paralegals and giving them a voice in terms of how the direction of the profession goes is also quite important.

I’ll speak more about this when my time comes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: I listened with interest to the Attorney General’s comments and to those of the opposition who were speaking with questions and comments. I think it’s very important, Mr. Speaker, that we recognize two things: first of all, the importance of this piece of legislation to the legal profession, the law society, but that we also recognize that these are technical, administrative changes. I’m going to find it very hard, in the course of debate, to find anyone in this Legislature that would oppose them. They’re well thought out, they’re based upon a great deal of consultation and, as the Attorney General pointed out in his speech, they are time-sensitive.

There’s a reason to respond to my colleague opposite as to why the Attorney General only spoke for 10 minutes. It’s because there is some urgency to this piece of legislation. We do not see it as a partisan piece of legislation or one that’s controversial. By speaking for only 10 minutes, he would allow other members to participate in this leadoff debate, and hopefully we can come to an agreement between the three parties to move this through quickly because, as I say, there’s nothing controversial here; there’s nothing partisan.

Unfortunately, over the past number of weeks we have seen a lot of game-playing, particularly on the part of the official opposition. The other night I was quite frankly appalled that a ceremony to give medals of bravery to our service personnel was delayed for 20 minutes because they called a meaningless motion to adjourn debate at 10 minutes to 6, meaning the whole item was delayed.

Mr. Speaker, we were sent here with a minority mandate. That, in fact, has been put through, has been reinforced through the recent by-election results. As a minority government and opposition in a minority situation, we have to work together at times to put politics beside us. A good piece of legislation like this: Move it through with proper debate but in a quick way, which is in the best interest of the legal profession.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: A couple of things: I’m going to agree with you on a few items and then I’m going to vehemently disagree with you on a couple of items, government House leader, and I underline the word “government.”

First of all, absolutely, Bill 111 is a non-partisan process bill that the law society needs to modernize and update their processes—great idea. However, this bill was introduced on October 1. We have not once, since October 1, had this bill before us to debate.

For the benefit of the people who are listening to this debate, there is only one person in this chamber who decides what we debate. That is the government House leader. I’m sure he does it in consultation with his ministers. However, he does not do it in consultation with the PC and the NDP House leaders. It is not a debatable item. So the only time that we get to debate Bill 111, or anything else for that matter, is when the government House leader chooses to bring it forward.

I find it very frustrating that from October 1 until December 4 it sat on the docket and was not called a single time. We had many opportunities to debate lots of things. I would question your priorities about what you did bring forward for debate. However, the point is, the government House leader is who chooses and who decides what we debate in this chamber. Bill 111 is coming forward today for the first time since its October 1 introduction, and I don’t want to leave the impression that we in opposition are the ones who have been stalling this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The Attorney General has two minutes to respond.

Hon. John Gerretsen: First of all, I, too, want to welcome Sheena Weir, who is a friend to all of us here. I know she spent the last couple of days in my hometown of Kingston, taking courses at Queen’s University, and I didn’t realize she was going to be here today. She certainly feels very strongly about this bill and I know she has spoken to the critics and all three parties that this bill get passed as quickly as possible.

Speaker, we’ve already had an acknowledgement that this is a non-partisan bill, that this will be to the benefit of the people of Ontario, particularly those individuals who cannot afford a lawyer and are now requiring the services of a paralegal. At one time paralegals weren’t that highly regarded in our society, but that all changed back in 2007 when a licensing regime came into place etc. It has worked well. The numbers have increased substantially, and we want to make sure that that is represented on the board of governors of the Law Society of Upper Canada by increasing that number from two to five, amongst the other changes that have been made here.

I am not going to get into a debate about whether or not you have the right to speak on a bill for as long as you want. I believe in democracy, and if you want to spend the next 25 hours for each and every member of the opposition to speak on this bill, for the length of time that you can, you can do that; you have a right to do that. But just remember, if you do that, you are basically doing it to the detriment of the people of Ontario, because they will not be able to benefit from the meaningful changes that everybody agrees on that are contained in this bill.

Let’s put our partisan differences aside for a moment and let us truly do what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario, and that is to give this bill speedy passage. I know that former municipal people are here; they know how to do this stuff. Remember when you were on municipal council? A good idea came along and it was passed. Let’s do the same thing here. Let’s get this done.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I would certainly want to begin with the indication by the Attorney General; he referred to a quick passage. As my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon has said, it’s pretty hard to have quick passage when it takes two months from the time of the introduction of the bill to begin debate on it.

I want to say, first of all, that in responding to the government’s bill to modernize regulation of the legal profession, Bill 111, I’m pleased to indicate that certainly we will support this bill, but I want to take some time to outline the reasons our caucus supports this bill. During the opportunity that I have today, I want to make clear that I want to provide some background context. To illustrate my support for the bill, I will be incorporating multiple examples from various sources during my speech on such a technically necessary bill.

This bill, as I said, responds to and reflects the changes requested by the Law Society of Upper Canada. The law society regulates lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. Created by

an act of the Legislative Assembly in 1797, the Law Society of Upper Canada governs Ontario’s lawyers and paralegals in the public interest by ensuring that the people of Ontario are served by lawyers and paralegals who meet the high standards of learning, competence and professional conduct. The law society has a duty to protect the public interest; to maintain and advance the cause of justice and the rule of law; to facilitate access to justice for the people of Ontario; and to act in a timely, open and efficient manner.

The law society regulates, licences and disciplines Ontario’s more than 46,000 lawyers and over 5,000 licensed paralegals pursuant to the Law Society Act and the law society’s rules, regulations and guidelines. Like many professionals in Ontario, lawyers and paralegals in Ontario are self-governing. This means that lawyers and paralegals oversee their own regulation through the law society in accordance with the Law Society Act and regulations passed by the Ontario government.

The law society is funded through lawyer and paralegal licensing fees. To maintain the privilege of self-governance, the public interest must always be of paramount concern to the law society. The law society offers public services such as:

—the complaints service, which receives and responds to complaints about lawyers and paralegals;

—a comprehensive online directory with lawyer and paralegal contact information;

—the law society referral service, which provides you with the name of a lawyer or a paralegal who will provide free consultation of up to 30 minutes to help determine your rights and options;

—a directory of lawyers who are certified specialists in specific areas of law; and

—the compensation fund, which helps clients who have lost money because of the dishonesty of a lawyer or a paralegal.

To promote access to legal services, the law society supports programs such as Pro Bono Law Ontario, Ontario Justice Education Network and the Law Commission of Ontario. The law society’s equity initiatives department seeks to ensure that law, the practice of law and the provision of legal services are reflective of all people in Ontario by actively participating with aboriginal, francophone and equity-seeking groups through consultations, meetings and public education activities.

The magnitude of the Law Society of Upper Canada’s contribution to how Ontario and Canada were built is immeasurable. This is a broad overview of who is behind the creation of the law we are debating today. The society requested the necessary legislation that resulted in Bill 111.

The Modernizing Regulation of the Legal Profession Act, Bill 111, focuses on five key changes. First, the bill proposes to strengthen the hearing and appeals process governing lawyers and paralegals in Ontario. This process addresses allegations of misconduct brought against lawyers and paralegals. Changes in this bill would establish a new internal tribunal that would oversee the law society’s current hearing and appeals panels.

Second, this bill would also allow for a more cost-effective and timely process for recovering legal costs from lawyers and paralegals. It proposes to authorize the law society to suspend a professional’s licence for failure to pay legal costs relating to a discipline proceeding that has been awarded against that professional.

Third, Bill 111 would clarify that the law society can receive information that is solicitor-client privileged from any person in a hearing, including a client. Solicitor-client privilege is a person’s right to refuse to disclose communications made to or received from his or her legal adviser, such as a lawyer or paralegal. While the current legislation says that the law society can use information received from a lawyer or a paralegal in a hearing and that such information remains protected, it is silent about information received from others at such a hearing, such as, for example, the clients that may have been involved in that particular subject matter.

Fourth, this bill would increase the number of paralegals on the law society’s governing body, Convocation, from two to five paralegals. This is obviously a good change.

And last, the fifth legislative proposal found in this bill would provide a housekeeping amendment to specify that paralegals may receive payment for representing an individual in a legal proceeding, which is the current practice, as you might imagine. I can’t begin to understand why the government hasn’t addressed this issue. The government has let this fester, because the paralegals have been requesting this for six years now.

A paralegal is a legal service provider regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada who complies with the society’s licensing requirements. Paralegals are legal professionals, much like lawyers, but with a smaller scope of practice. Paralegals are there for you because you don’t always need a lawyer.

For many years, paralegals helped Ontarians with everyday legal problems: traffic offences, small claims, landlord and tenant matters. Though paralegals still provide most of the same service, today’s paralegals are licensed and regulated to be legal.

So what do they do? They provide legal advice. They draft or help draft documents for use in a proceeding. They negotiate in a proceeding on another’s behalf. They provide the services of a licensed commissioner.

To be licensed to practise, paralegals must complete an approved college degree, complete a field placement facilitated by their college, pass the law society examination for paralegals, be of good character, carry professional liability insurance and contribute to a compensation fund. Paralegals work in the Small Claims Court, the Ontario Court of Justice, the Landlord and Tenant Board, administrative tribunals and many matters in the Criminal Code.

Paralegals in Ontario began as a result of a legal process in 1985, and this was the judgment of the Ontario Court of Justice delivered in Regina v. Lawrie. The court ruled that a paralegal does not break the law by appearing on behalf of clients in provincial offences, and mainly traffic tickets. In 1986, a higher appeal court supported the decision, and in 1999 the Ontario Court of Appeal issued judgment in Regina v. Romanowicz. The court ruled that a paralegal can represent a client in criminal

summary conviction matters, subject to some conditions.

In May 2000, the Honourable Peter Cory delivers a report to the Attorney General, setting out a framework for regulating paralegal practice in Ontario. The report contains recommendations on the scope of practice, a governance model for regulation and educational and other requirements. In 2007, the Law Society of Upper Canada becomes responsible for regulating the paralegal profession in Ontario by Bill 14, an amendment to the Access to Justice Act. In October 2007, anyone providing legal services in Ontario as a paralegal must be licensed, and in 2008, the first group of paralegals writes the first licensing examination.

So on May 1, 2007, the Law Society of Upper Canada became responsible for regulating the paralegal profession as a result of amendments to the Law Society Act.

The regulatory framework for the profession was successfully established by the 13-member paralegal standing committee, which is made up of five paralegals and eight members of the law society’s governing board, known as Convocation. Five paralegals were elected to the committee in a province-wide election in March 2010. The committee initiated and instituted the Paralegal Rules of Conduct as well as a set of criteria and an application process for paralegals already in practice and for students already studying legal services. The law society issued the first paralegal licences in early 2007 to approved applicants who passed the licensing examination.

Anyone in Ontario providing legal services requires a licence unless the group or individual is not captured by the Law Society Act or is exempt by a law society bylaw. The Law Society Act enables the law society to make exemptions through bylaws.

Legislation passed by the government of Ontario, primarily the Law Society Act and regulations made under the act, authorize the law society to educate and license Ontario’s paralegals and regulate their conduct. Law society bylaws and the Paralegal Rules of Conduct, both based in the Law Society Act, set out professional and ethical obligations. Paralegals failing to meet these obligations are subject to the society’s complaints and discipline process.

Anyone in Ontario providing legal services requires a licence, unless the group or individual is not captured by the Law Society Act or is exempt by a law society bylaw. The Law Society Act enables the law society to make exemptions through bylaws. The law society will review exemption categories in two years, prior to May 2009.

Groups or individuals not captured by the Law Society Act and who do not require a licence are:

—a person who is acting in the normal course of carrying on a profession or occupation governed by another act of the Legislature or

an act of Parliament that regulates specifically the activities of persons engaged in that profession or occupation;

—an employee or officer of a corporation who selects, drafts, completes or revises a document for the use of the corporation or to which the corporation is a party;

—an individual who is acting on his or her own behalf, whether in relation to a document, a proceeding, or otherwise;

—an employee or a volunteer representative of a trade union who is acting on behalf of the union or a member of the union in connection with a grievance, a labour negotiation, an arbitration proceeding or a proceeding before an administrative tribunal;

—a person or a member of a class of persons prescribed by the bylaws in the circumstances provided by the bylaws.

Groups or individuals who do not require a licence are:

—individuals employed by a single employer;

—persons who are not in the business of providing legal services and occasionally provide assistance to a friend or relative for no fee;

—articling students;

—employees of legal clinics funded by Legal Aid Ontario;

—employees of organizations similar to legal clinics that provide free services to low-income clients, provided they meet certain criteria as to their non-profit status and funding;

—aboriginal court workers;

—staff of the Office of the Worker Adviser;

—staff of the Office of the Employer Adviser;

—constituency assistants working in MPP offices;

—law students working in student legal aid services societies, provided they are supervised by a lawyer and covered by the lawyer’s insurance;

—Injured Worker Outreach Services;

—Ontario Federation of Labour staff and consultants representing union members in workers’ compensation matters under the Occupational Disability Response Team, including their work in representing families of deceased workers;

—trade union representatives acting on behalf of retired persons who were formerly members of the trade union and while providing services to another local of the same union;

—union representatives assisting families of deceased workers at coroners’ inquests;

—members of the following listed voluntary standard-setting associations, subject to certain restrictions: the Human Resources Professionals of Ontario, the Ontario Professional Planners Institute, the Board of Canadian Registered Safety Professionals and the Appraisal Institute of Canada.

Paralegals who provide legal services to the public must carry professional liability insurance. The minimum requirements are $1 million per claim, and $2 million in the aggregate. The coverage must specify the provision of legal services by a paralegal. Individual paralegals must be named as an “insured” on the policy. A minimum, non-optional 90-day extended reporting period is required. The law society should, for the purposes of reporting and cancellation, be added as an “additional insured.” Cancellation notice of 60 days is required.

And licensees must provide written proof of their compliance with this requirement to carry mandatory insurance before they begin providing legal services, as well as on an annual basis.

Unbelievably, paralegals are still somewhat controversial. The need for this bill is exemplified by the situations outlined in a recent legal profession publication asking the question, Are Paralegals Officers of the Court?

“The recent decision of Justice Fuerst in R v. Lippa has the controversy over the standing of paralegals raging again.... The decision relates to whether judicial officers have the discretion over which legal professionals will sit in the courtroom, and the order of cases which will be called.

“In deciding that paralegals can be treated differently within the court system, Justice Fuerst made some interesting comments. She states at para. 18,

“‘S. 29 of the Law Society Act provides that every person who is licensed to practise law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor is an officer of every court of record in Ontario. Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th ed., defines “officer of the court” as “A person who is charged with upholding the law and administrating the judicial system.” Licensed paralegals are not included in

section 29.’

“The

section in the act, which was last amended in 2006, states,

“‘29. Every person who is licensed to practise law in Ontario as a barrister and solicitor is an officer of every court....’

“Normally the expressio unius maxim would hold, as Justice Fuerst indicates, that the absence of paralegals from this

section means they are not in fact officers of the court. But from at least April 2008, when paralegal licences were first issued in Ontario, paralegals have commonly referred to themselves as such.

“Paul Calarco describes the development of this concept in the 2007 paper presented at the LSUC, NOT IN MY COURT YOU DON’T!! The Right of Audience and the Enforcement of Ethical Conduct,

“‘In England the origins of the defence bar have been lost in time. Prior to CE 1200 there is no indication of a professional body of people who acted as lawyers. However, under the expansion of the common law rules in the era of Henry III and the legislation of Edward I, it became clear that people not skilled in the law could not hope to represent any other person.

“‘As well, as pointed out by Professor Ogilvie, procedure was becoming more technical. In the first part of the 13th century, a group of what we would now call barristers was developing. By the end of the 13th century, it appears that lawyers were well established as part of the King’s courts. They were regarded as officers of the court.’

“An officer of the court has a duty, as part of their profession, to promote justice and the effective operation of the justice system. However, barristers and solicitors are not the only officers of the court described in Canadian legislation.

“The Supreme Court Act refers to several court support staff as officers, all of whom are necessary for the proper functioning of the court. Although the registrar of the Supreme Court and deputy registrar are both described in s. 12 as ‘barristers or advocates,’ there are other officers, such as the sheriff of the county ... who clearly are not. The act enumerates in s. 24 a lengthy list of officers ... ‘All persons who may practise as barristers, advocates, counsel, attorneys, solicitors or proctors in the court are officers of the court.’

“But the Supreme Court is a statutory court. Calarco notes that determining the right of appearance are part of the discretionary powers of courts with inherent jurisdiction.

“Section 800 of the Criminal Code allows an accused to appear on

summary conviction personally or by an agent, which can include friends, relatives or interpreters. The responsibility placed on these agents was described by Justice Wein in R. v. Lemonides, [1997] ... as follows:

“‘79. All agents should expect to be in a position to satisfy the court that the defendant has been advised of the agent’s status, and it should be clear on the record that the client waives their right to counsel and understands the significance of appearing without a lawyer. All agents should be aware that they will be expected by the court to act as officers of the court, that is in an ethical and competent manner.’

“In other words, when non-licensees act as agents they are also required to act as officers of the court (even if they may not actually be officers ... but note this is the context of being an unlicensed agent). To suggest that a licensee acting in the same capacity in Ontario is not also acting as an officer of the court simply does not follow.

“The in pari materia maxim of statutory

interpretation, looking at other statutes in Canada, would suggest that an expansive definition is provided to officers of the court throughout our judicial system. The title denotes more of a responsibility to the court system than any proffered right, such as appearing before the bar.

Interpretation and use of the term by courts also suggests a broad and liberal meaning.

“Justice Green of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador referred to the Adult Corrections Act ... to indicate that probation officers had a right to strike, but were obligated as officers of the court to continue to perform duties lawfully required of them….

“Justice Garson of the Supreme Court of British Columbia considered the admissibility of a court monitor’s report and the compellability of a monitor as an expert witness...,

“‘As an officer of the court, the monitor has been found not to be compellable to give evidence in a proceeding, although the monitor reports to the court on a regular basis. The monitor’s reports have been found to be “not evidence” and hence not generally subject to cross-examination; rather, as an officer of the court, the monitor is to act “lawfully, fairly and honourably.” In Ontario, the court has held that insolvency officers will not generally be subject to cross-examination of their reports, while acknowledging that these court-appointed officers do occasionally make themselves available for examination in the spirit of co-operation and common sense.’

“Similar comments can be found by Justice Farley of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the commercial list case of Bell Canada International Inc., Re.

“Perhaps the most expansive comments on this topic recently would be by Justice Himel in Page (Trustee of), where she considers whether persons who accept appointments as a trustee in bankruptcy or a receiver is an officer of a court, and therefore exempt from jury duty under the Juries Act. Justice Himel provides a comprehensive review of case law of various positions and titles which are included as officers of the court, even where they are not explicitly stated as such by legislation. She also refers to Black’s Law Dictionary ... cites the Courts of Justice Act and Public Service Act, and provides several maxims of statutory

interpretation.

“Justice Himel concludes trustees in bankruptcy and receivers are officers of a court of justice, but her analysis in Page doesn’t resolve the issue entirely. Her

interpretation of the Juries Act is largely based on the language ... of the act, which states, ‘The following persons are ineligible to serve as jurors....

“‘6. Every person engaged in the enforcement of law including, without restricting the generality of the foregoing, sheriffs, wardens of any penitentiary, superintendents, jailers or keepers of prisons, correctional institutions or lockups, sheriff’s officers, police officers, firefighters who are regularly employed by a fire department for the purposes of subsection 41(1) of the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, and officers of a court of justice....’

“This specific wording would prevent any application of expressio unius or ejusdem generis (both of which can be applied to lists) to the Juries Act, and no such expansive language can be found in the Law Society Act.

“We could assume the ...

interpretation that paralegals in Ontario are officers of the court for the purposes of being excluded from juries, but not for the purposes of actually operating within the court system. But the ... maxim of

interpretation may be of assistance in looking elsewhere in the Law Society Act....

“The 2006 amendments to the Law Society Act created the paralegal standing committee, which in turn led to the changes that created paralegal licensing in 2007. The paralegal standing committee, created in s. 25.1 of the act, is also responsible for creating the bylaws for paralegal regulation. Subsection 25.1(10) of the act also confers quite a bit of discretionary power to the committee as follows:

“‘Delegation of powers to committee or referee or both

“‘

(10) Convocation may delegate any of the powers conferred upon it by this

section to a committee of Convocation and, whether or not Convocation has made any such delegation, it may appoint any licensee as a referee and delegate to the licensee any of the powers conferred upon it by this

section that are not delegated to a committee....’

“The committee was specifically responsible for and instituted the Paralegal Rules of Conduct. Rule 3.04(1) discusses personal interests and how to deal with conflicts of interests which may arise from personal relationships, and states:

“‘Whether such a relationship may interfere with the paralegal’s fiduciary obligations to the client, including his or her ability to exercise independent professional judgment and his or her ability to fulfill obligations owed as an officer of the court and to the administration of justice.’”

To not recognize “paralegals as officers of the court is to disregard the ethical obligations they owe to the court. Ensuring that paralegals are officers of the court benefits the public interest and the entire judicial system, because it indicates they have a broader duty and professional responsibility to the law,” which is good for society in itself.

“Calarco points out the close relationship between the right of appearance as officers of the court and enforcement of ethical conduct. When appearance is denied, the purpose is not necessarily punishment, but rather promotion of the proper administration of justice.

“Without the possibility of discipline, there is little ability by the legal system to address unethical conduct of licensees. Courts also have their own ability to enact discipline against officers of the court.”

In Elliott:

“‘The power of a superior court to cite a person for contempt of court is a very important power, but it is to be used with restraint. It is a serious matter to threaten anyone, let alone an officer of the court, with contempt of court....’

“Although the Law Society Act may not explicitly identify paralegals under s. 29, this should not be taken as an exhaustive list, especially since these amendments occurred before paralegals were officially licensed. As we’ve seen, there are many other officers of the court within the judicial system.

“This

section in the Law Society Act could not have envisioned or foreseen the prospective developments of the paralegal standing committee, and the intent of the statute could not reasonably be construed as binding their authority to define and regulate the new local profession which was being contemplated in Ontario at the time.

“The same act used by Justice Fuerst also provides broad discretion under s. 25.1 to the paralegal standing committee, which has seen it fit to refer to paralegals as officers of the court in at least one instance. Conferring this status does not necessarily change the decision of Justice Fuerst about the order in which cases are called, which is based in law in the Barristers Act and the inherent jurisdiction of superior courts, but it does have some significance.

“One final thought can be derived from a small footnote in a 2006 decision by Master MacLeod in Iroquois Falls Power Corp. v. Jacobs Canada Inc., where he discusses the role of the court and the law society in governing the conduct of lawyers,

“‘Whatever historical differences may have existed between the roles of barrister and solicitor no longer apply under Ontario law s. 29 of the Law Society Act provides that every “member” is an officer of every court of record in Ontario and

section 28 provides that a person who is qualified and is called to the bar and enrolled and admitted as a solicitor “are members and entitled to practise law in Ontario as barristers and solicitors.”‘

“Similarly, whatever historical differences may have existed between the roles of lawyers and paralegals no longer apply in Ontario as it relates to their status as officers of the court, despite differences in scope of practice. As ‘licensees,’ paralegals are just as responsible to the law society for their license as lawyers are, and are just as answerable to the court as its officers.

“Ensuring this duty exists for all licensed agents working within our court system for the courts that they work in can only be a good thing for other licensees, the judicial system as a whole, and the public.”

When we step back from the legal profession and observe the other professions, too, we notice the trend to divide the scope of labour between two professionals, like a lawyer and a paralegal. It has become more and more common. Some duties of a professional require more intense lengthy schooling; other duties can be handled after a more general study. Thus the ability to allow a practitioner or technician to offer their services is of great benefit to a client.

There are many examples. For instance, if you think of a registered nurse, a registered nurse practitioner, a veterinary or veterinary technician—today the trend, which has been building for certainly the last half century, is not new. On the other hand, to the law society, the institutionalization of paralegals as a profession represents major change. We should not forget the positive contributions made by paralegals in support of the delivery of justice in Ontario. They are monumental.

In part of the 2006 legislation that enables paralegals to operate in Ontario, there is to be a review of the legislation. There are to be two reports produced: one completed by the law society and one completed by the Ministry of the Attorney General. As far as I can find out, the ministry has not complied with the requirement of the legislation to do a five-year review of how regulation of paralegals by the law society is going. Are the results of the new legislation positive? I’d like to know, but apparently we don’t have the report to be provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General.

So today we have only the report provided by the law society itself. I think it certainly behooves this government to comply with the intent of the legislation. I think it’s important for us.

In 2012, in a report by David Morris for the society: “In the interest of striking some measure of balance between enhancing public access to justice and ensuring protection for those receiving legal aid from non-lawyers, on May 1, 2007, persons providing paralegal services in Ontario joined the province’s lawyers under regulation of the Law Society of Upper Canada.

“Amendments to the Law Society Act that introduced paralegal regulation included the requirement that two reviews be conducted following its fifth anniversary, one by the law society and the other by … the Attorney General…. Each review was to consider the manner in which paralegals were regulated during the first five years, and the effect of regulation on paralegals and on members of the public.”

The law society delivered its report on June 28, 2012, on its findings of the introduction of their regulation. I think it’s really important to have this kind of obligation: to make sure it’s fulfilling what its objectives were. As a result of the law society’s report, it was able to indicate that satisfaction levels are generally high among members of the public. “The law society acknowledges that, despite its efforts to date, awareness in the general, non-consuming public has not kept pace with changes in the legal services market. In fact, in a submission to this review, a veteran lawyer described his challenges in determining the permissible scope of paralegal practice.”

In September 2012, there were 4,000 active paralegal licensees in the province. Remarkably, all of the licences issued have been issued since January 2011.

As I close off, I want to come back to the urgency that has been made clear to us by the law society. The opportunity to be able to increase paralegal representation in the Convocation is time-sensitive. As we have pointed out on this side of the House, it is the opportunity only provided by the government House leader as to when things are debated, and we just want to make clear to all those who are affected that it is in the power of the government House leader to call a bill and allow for debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you to the member for adding her voice to the debate and sharing her concerns. It’s important to do so.

I want to make one thing clear. While the Attorney General indicated that this is a non-partisan bill and something we should all support—that’s fair—I have to say, though, that the government’s priorities are questionable, when we’ve known about this bill and known about this concern for a significant time. The law society has done their job to let us know about the necessity and the requirement to bring this bill forward in a timely manner, but the government has not prioritized this bill. In terms of the bills they’re bringing forward, it’s not clear what their goals are.

They’ve quickly rammed through bills like the EllisDon bill, but they’re taking their time when it comes to something that’s as important as this. I question this government’s sincerity when it comes to whether or not they want to bring this bill forward when they had ample opportunity.

The government House leader has full opportunity and authority to choose the bills that are going to come forward and when they come forward. So I ask this government again, why not prioritize the appropriate bills? I asked the same thing when it came to Bill 83, a bill to protect public participation, which is essential for our democracy. This bill is also a priority bill. It doesn’t cost the government anything and it’s something we need to do to modernize the profession and to assist the law society in doing their job, so why wasn’t this bill brought forward earlier?

Why is it being brought when we only have left now six or seven sitting days in the House before the year ends? That shows this government’s lack of seriousness when it comes to bringing this bill forward and making sure it gets passed in a timely manner. I again ask the government to re-evaluate their priorities.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, let’s focus everybody on what the bill is intended to do. Bill 111 will amend the Law Society Act and the Solicitors Act to modernize the regulation of the legal profession. The proposed legislative amendments have been requested by the Law Society of Upper Canada and have been made public in their Convocation, which is the governing body of the law society, or in its mandated five-year review of the paralegal profession.

The law society is a self-regulating body. It regulates the lawyers and paralegals in the public interest. The law society’s governing body is composed of 40 elected lawyers, two elected paralegals and eight laypeople who are non-legal, who are public appointees. These individuals are called benchers. There are approximately 44,000 lawyers and 4,200 paralegals who are governed by the law society.

In 2007, the Access to Justice Act came into force. It prescribed the regulation of paralegals. The legislation mandated two five-year reviews of paralegal regulation: one review to be completed by the law society, and a second review to be completed by a non-lawyer, non-paralegal appointee of the Attorney General.

The proposed amendment to increase the number of paralegal benchers is in fact time-sensitive, and it needs to be in effect by December 31, 2013, to be in place in advance of the next four-year election cycle that commences in March 2014. So we are depending upon the co-operation of our opponents opposite in the Progressive Conservative and the NDP caucuses to make sure this thing, which is requested by the law society, gets passed before Christmas. That’s all they’ve asked us to do: make their profession better by getting this bill passed before Christmas.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I very much enjoyed listening to my seatmate, the member from York–Simcoe and the new Attorney General critic for the Progressive Conservative caucus. I think she did an excellent job laying out not only the history of the law society but, quite frankly, the transition that has occurred as we incorporate paralegals into our legal profession. Clearly, this is a bill that would endorse that and modernize it. Considering it is a relatively dry legal process bill, I thought she did an excellent job laying out the value of what it was and why we needed it. Moving forward, I look forward to hearing further discussion on Bill 111.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that we’re not opposed to what this bill is trying to do. It’s pretty straightforward and, as such, it’s not a bill that we want to spend a lot of time on, but there needs to be at least some time for our critic to be able to say what our caucus’s views are on this particular bill.

But I’ve got to say, and it’s been said by a few people in the House, as the New Democratic House leader, that normally what happens when a government wants particular bills to pass is, they come to us in the fall or they come to us in the early spring and they say, “Here are the things that we would like to have passed by a certain date.” And then the government and the opposition House leaders are able to figure out, all right, what do we feel strongly about, what are we prepared to let go, and what’s going to be the trade-off? That’s how the Legislature works.

Every legislative body in the world is about everybody putting a little bit of water into their wine, government getting some things—maybe not as much as they want—and the opposition getting some stuff in return.

Where was the government in setting out its priorities back in the early fall? What I saw them do was make a deal with the Conservatives on time allocation to pass a number of private members’ bills, and then, in exchange, they got some bills that we could all agree to. Why was this bill not put in that agreement? That’s the first question I have. Did the government, all of a sudden, say, “No, this is not something we’re prepared to put forward?” Was it the Conservatives who didn’t want to allow it to go forward? I’m not sure.

But at the very least, if it wasn’t part of that time allocation motion that they put in place with the Conservatives, why is it that they didn’t bring it to House leaders a little bit earlier?

Instead, here we are with less than two weeks left in the fall sitting, and the government comes to us and says, “Oh, my God, the end of this session is coming. Oh, we have to pass all this legislation”—and somehow or other we’re responsible for that? I’m sorry. The government has a responsibility to order how this House is going to deal with business, and when the government doesn’t set forward clearly what it wants as priorities, they can’t, all of a sudden, accuse the opposition of being the ones to hold it up.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our time for questions and comments, and we return to the member for York–Simcoe for her reply.

Mrs. Julia Munro: Thank you very much to the members who spoke: Bramalea–Gore–Malton, Mississauga–Streetsville, Dufferin–Caledon and Timmins–James Bay.

First of all, I want to echo the comments of several of the people in referencing the priority that this government had and where it put it in the order of bills to be debated.

Secondly, the notion that we in any way have held this up—quite the opposite. I’ve had informal comments with the Attorney General, and we both recognize that it’s the House leader’s responsibility to be able to put the bills forward.

I’m surprised because of the fact that you would think that the government, when this has all-party agreement and when we are in a minority government, would look at the bills in the way that the member for Timmins–James Bay said—come together with a group of bills—and that this government in its minority situation would like to come forward with some quick wins. That could have been done back in October. Now we’re looking at a very short time frame. If this bill was to go to committee—many of the committees are very busy. It’s something that they control entirely, and the fact that, as everyone has said around the table here, it’s a non-partisan bill—yes, but you’re the managers.

The member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton suggested you needed to re-evaluate your priorities. I couldn’t agree more. This is an easy win for you, and you have made it difficult for them.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): This House stands in recess.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to introduce the family of page William Randall from Don Valley West: his mother, Sue Gray; father, Steve Randall; sister Becca Randall; grandmother Betty Randall; and grandfather Joe Owen Gray. I think they’re all here. Welcome.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It’s a pleasure to introduce Brian Goodman to the Legislature today. Brian is the director of government relations and policy for the Canadian Media Production Association. Welcome.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m really excited today to be able to introduce to the Legislature five incredible young people. These five young people gave up their jobs—their lives were all affected by men’s health issues—and they cycled for the Movember campaign, the Moustache Ride Across Canada, from Vancouver to Toronto. They raised $121,000 for prostate cancer, as I said, giving up their jobs, averaging about 130 kilometres a day from Vancouver to Toronto in what is inclement weather, as I’m sure all people can appreciate.

First, Jordan Gildersleeve, Ben Frisby and Kevin Shaw: the three cyclists. I’d like them to stand. They’re sitting in the east gallery, along with their driver, Erin Quinn—all from Vancouver. The fifth person on the tour was Robert Bickford. Robert is formerly from Thunder Bay—he was the videographer on the trip—now residing in Toronto. I want to thank them all very much for what they did.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s great to stand up here and introduce a former member from the great riding of Northumberland–Quinte West: Mr. Lou Rinaldi is here in the east gallery. Thank you very much, Lou, for coming to Queen’s Park today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to thank the member for stealing my thunder. I appreciate it.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: It is my pleasure to introduce Dr. Satish Verma, director of youth welfare from Punjabi University in Patiala, India, who is here to attend the World Punjabi Conference, and my husband, Dr. Jaswant Singh Mangat. They are in the east members’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s with great honour that I welcome to this world Lincoln Lloyd Harris, the newest tiny Tory born to the member for Kitchener–Conestoga. I want to congratulate him and his wife, Sarah, as well as brothers Murphy and Brayden.

Mr. Speaker, that’s three tiny Tories born to PC MPPs this year, and we’re proud to have them.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think we’ve hit a new level for heckling during introductions. I think that’s good.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s counting your chickens as they’re hatched.

The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: It is a great pleasure for me to introduce Léo Therrien, le directeur général de la Maison Vale Hospice, qui est ici en l’honneur de soins palliatifs. Ça m’a fait bien plaisir de le rencontrer, M. Léo Therrien.

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m honoured to welcome the parents of page captain Marina St. Marseille. Her parents, John and Margaret St. Marseille, are in the gallery. They’re from Cornwall. John works for the city of Cornwall. I’m just happy to have them around today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s a great pleasure for me to introduce some guests in the members’ east gallery today. I’ll start with the former member for Northumberland–Quinte West, Lou Rinaldi, and Victoria Parker and Chelsie Weir, in the members’ east gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you for stealing my thunder.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I need to correct my record, because I introduced people incorrectly. The grandmother of William Randall is actually Betty Gray, who is here, and Becca and Emma Randall, his sisters, are both here.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted to introduce Susan Kawa from Silver Creek Pre-School in Etobicoke, and Janet MacDougall from Yes I Can! nursery school in North York. They are both here for the International Day of Persons with Disabilities.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Joining us today—and it gives me great pleasure to introduce them—is a delegation from Figueira da Foz, a city in Portugal, led by the mayor of Figueira da Foz, João Ataíde, and his wife, Maria Silvia Vaz Serra Ataíde. Also joining them are Tiago Castelo Branco, chief of staff from the city of Figueira da Foz, and Bárbara Sofia Ferreira, director of tourism from Figueira da Foz—and hosted by Maria Oliveira from Able Translations. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Remarks in Portuguese.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As is the custom—and having been stepped on by two members—it’s my pleasure to introduce, from the 38th Parliament and the 39th Parliament, from Northumberland–Quinte West, Mr. Lou Rinaldi. Welcome.

YOUTH ARTS PROGRAM

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do want to draw the attention of all of the members to the Legislative Assembly’s youth arts program, a program put on by PPPR—and I thank them for their wonderful work—being showcased here in the building.

This program celebrates the incredible artistic talents of our young Ontarians aged 14 to 18. Works of art will be on display on the main floor rotunda leading into both the hallways and to the library, and works of art will also be on display on the fourth floor, from now until March 2014.

I hope you will take some time to view these amazing exhibits. I think you will be impressed, very impressed, with the high calibre of the works on display. I thank all the schools, the teachers, and especially the students for sharing their wonderful art with us. Wonderful work.

Last night, I was able to share with some of the artists who were here for Lights Across Canada. Some of their principals and teachers were here, and they were very, very thankful that we’re displaying Ontario artists at a young age. I thank all of you for participating and sharing.

Watch for some of the artwork within your own ridings, and I would recommend and ask that you maybe make contact.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, my question to the Premier, a very simple question of basic economics: Does the Premier believe that there is a direct causal relationship between rapidly increasing energy prices in Ontario and the hollowing out of our manufacturing sector, the 324,000 lost manufacturing jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I know is that there are companies that are coming to Ontario, Mr. Speaker. There are jobs being created in Ontario.

The reality is that our energy prices are competitive with our neighbouring jurisdictions, and we’ve made sure that that is the case. We’ve put in place programs to deal with particular sectors, like northern industrial.

As I said, we believe that the plan that we have in place, which is investing in people and in infrastructure that’s needed by communities, and creating that business environment that is competitive, is working, which is why businesses are coming to the province.

Is there more that needs to be done? Absolutely, and we are going to continue to play to our strengths and put those conditions in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s almost like the Premier is inferring that higher energy prices are attracting jobs in the province of Ontario. It’s entirely bizarre. That fails a basic test of economics. Premier, I can’t believe that you actually believe that. I can’t believe that you’ve been so insulated from what’s happening in towns across our province and cities. I can’t believe you’re that out of touch.

When you double hydro rates in the province of Ontario, when Ontario has gone from having the most competitive hydro rates to among the most expensive for business in the province, there’s a cost for that. Sadly, the cost is that the bills are going up by about $500 for an average family in our province, and they’re driving manufacturing jobs out of the province of Ontario.

So let me ask a very simple question of the Premier, again, because I think she gave me the opposite answer of what’s a basic rule of economics: Does the Premier believe there is a direct causal relationship between skyrocketing hydro rates and the hollowing out of our middle class and the loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario. Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock.

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would reply to the Leader of the Opposition: Does he believe, simplistically, that there is only one condition that creates opportunity for business? Does the Leader of the Opposition believe that it was not necessary to invest in transmission, to invest in the upgrade of our grid, to invest in generating capacity? The fact is, when we came into office there was not a stable supply of electricity in this province; there was not a predictability that businesses could count on. So we made those investments.

The reality is that there’s a full range of conditions that need to be in place, including making sure people have the right skills so that they can fill the jobs that are necessary, making sure that there are roads and bridges and transit in place, that infrastructure that’s so necessary. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Leader of the Opposition, does he believe that those things are important? Because those are the things that we have been putting in place.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I believe one thing is most important above all else, and that’s the creation of good, steady jobs that actually pay an income you can survive on and that grow our economy.

Look, you asked me, do I think energy is the only cause? Well, no. It’s the increase in taxes in the province of Ontario. It’s the growing, growing red tape. It’s the record deficits and record debt in our province. It’s the giveaways to the public sector unions. It’s a government that has no clue about economics.

Is there one rule for this? No, there are plenty, Premier. I can go on and on if you want me to. The bottom line, though, is when you’re in a hole, you stop digging. Your rule is, you dig a little slower and get the hole deeper.

Why in the world do you want to continue with Dalton McGuinty’s failed green energy subsidies, putting wind turbines across the province like giant pins on a pincushion? It’s economic madness. It’s costing us jobs. Why in the world are you continuing down Dalton McGuinty’s failed path that’s costing us jobs?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, let’s hear from some other voices, like Ian Howcroft, Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters: “The LTEP review responds to a key priority for CME by providing greater clarity and certainty for manufacturers with respect to electricity rates going forward. CME also supports new initiatives to enable manufacturers to better manage their energy and the associated costs. Importantly, LTEP will reduce overall system costs, which ultimately translates into more competitive forward rates for businesses.”

Mr. Speaker, there are some other voices that I will bring later on in subsequent questions.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Again, I do hope the Premier responds to these questions. Premier, I’m going to be very plain about this. You can’t substitute in Bob Chiarelli when you’re before the justice committee today to answer questions by Lisa MacLeod—

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

Two things. First, I need it directed to the person. You just carried on a conversation. Direct your new question. And we use only titles and we only use ridings, please. Thank you.

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s a question to the Premier, Speaker.

Premier, with respect, you can’t substitute in the energy minister when you’re before the justice committee today to answer basic questions about why you misled the assembly and misled MPPs about what you knew about the gas plant scandal and when you knew it. No substitutions; no time-outs. This afternoon you’re going to have to tell the truth.

Let me ask you a basic question here too; a very basic question. Yesterday in the Legislature, you said that Ontario’s energy rates for business were lower than bordering states and provinces. Premier, you know that is not a fact. Can you please tell me the source where Ontario’s energy bills are lower for business than competing states and provinces?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been clear that we are competitive with neighbouring jurisdictions. I also acknowledge that where there is inexpensive hydro, in Quebec and Manitoba, those costs are less; I’ve been clear about that.

The Leader of the Opposition is part of a party that neglected the electricity system. When we came into office, we needed to make those investments. We have made those investments. What the Leader of the Opposition would like to do now, what stands for a plan from his side, is that he wants to invest in new nuclear that has been determined is not necessary. That $15-billion cost that is not necessary—he would like to go forward and make those investments.

Our contention is that there are a number of conditions that need to be in place in order for business to thrive: investment in people, infrastructure and a business climate. That’s what—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier’s reliance on 10-year-old briefing notes—blow the dust off them—when the biggest issue of our times, a loss of jobs in our province, is truly frightening. I want to say to you, Premier, the shaky grip of this government on basic economics—the fact that higher hydro prices cost us jobs—is truly frightening when we consider that that’s going to cause more damage to the province of Ontario. I have no understanding of why you think the right decision, when we’re hemorrhaging jobs—3,000 manufacturing jobs a month, Premier, under your leadership alone—why you would double down on Dalton McGuinty’s failed policies of subsidizing wind and solar.

There is a business I visited recently. They can create jobs in Ontario or the state of Texas. They have plants in both places. They’re an Ontario company. They’re dedicated to the province, but they say, “Tim, when hydro rates are 70% cheaper in Texas for business than the province of Ontario, where are you going to put the jobs?”

Premier, how can you answer that question when your very policies are driving hydro rates through the roof and costing us jobs?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I know that previously, in some kind of a white paper, the Leader of the Opposition said that he was going to eliminate renewables from the system and use that to subsidize the industrial rates. Wind and solar represent roughly less than 4% of the total generation. His numbers don’t add up. He couldn’t come close to subsidizing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex will come to order, the member from Huron–Bruce will come to order and the member for Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Again, his numbers don’t add up. He’s going to get rid of them out of the energy mix and he’s going to use the money saved to subsidize industrial prices. We’ve done the calculations, we’ve looked at it, and it doesn’t work; it doesn’t add up. It’s like your budget and everything else you’re talking about: The numbers just don’t add up.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to, Premier, directly to you, just express my sincere disappointment that on basic questions around the biggest issue in our province—jobs and the economy—you shove them off and hand them off to a minister. I worry that it’s either weak leadership or you don’t understand the basic economics that are at stake here. You have made deliberate decisions over 10 years to drive up our hydro rates. Our hydro rates have more than doubled.

What we saw yesterday was nothing more than a short-term plan for Liberal re-election interests. The problem is, it has a long-term, lasting impact on our competitiveness and jobs for families across Ontario. Your plan has been an abject failure. Hydro rates are going through the roof. It’s costing us jobs on a daily basis. You’re eroding the middle class. You’re taking away hope from those who actually want to work in the province of Ontario and create jobs.

We have a plan to make energy affordable, to lower taxes, to cut the red tape, to make Ontario rise again, to make us a beacon for investment and job creation. If you can’t handle this job, step aside—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The same graphs that he was looking at in the long-term energy plan will disclose the following: For an industrial consumer with a demand of five megawatts per month, our 2010 plan had projected that in 2014, next year, they would be paying $109 per megawatt hour. Under this plan, and the graphs that are in the plan, the 2013 long-term energy plan projects that would only be $87 per megawatt hour. This is an unbelievable improvement for the industrial sector.

He is only reading part of the plan; he’s not reading the whole plan. He should be properly briefed himself.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The leader of the third party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I want to give the member an opportunity to put her question properly. Order, please.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The question is to the Premier. Ontario families and businesses are already paying the highest electricity rates in Canada, and yesterday the government confirmed their plan to send them even higher. Ontarians expect or at least hope that the people that they elect to represent them will actually protect their interests when it comes to electricity rates. As a member of cabinet, the Premier signed off on a plan that added millions to the government’s private power deal in Oakville. Why did she do that, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party knows, I have agreed to appear before the committee again today to answer the questions that will be asked of me and to repeat the information that I have given to this House and to the committee previously. I’m happy to continue to answer those questions, Mr. Speaker.

But what the leader of the third party also knows is that we have put a plan for energy in place—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The answer is being provided by your Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The long-term energy plan was just released yesterday. I have no idea what the plan of the third party is. They do not agree with us on green energy; they don’t agree with us on nuclear refurbishment. They don’t agree on any of the investments that we have made. So I don’t know what their plan is, but what I do know is that we have to have a long-term, stable plan. That’s what we have; we’ve put that in place. That will give some predictability to industry and residents in the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The auditor made it clear that the agreement the Premier signed was part of a political strategy to ensure that the public didn’t hear about the cancellation as the province was heading into an election.

In her testimony at hearings into the gas plant scandal, the Premier claimed that she simply signed off on a plan that was put in front of her and didn’t ask any questions as to how it might affect the people stuck with the bill. Is that the Premier’s defence for this decision, that she was just being a team player for the Liberal campaign?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, we’ve been over this ground many times, and I will go over it again in answer to questions in the committee this afternoon. But the leader of the third party knows that there was a decision that was made to cancel and relocate gas plants. That was a decision that was agreed, by all the parties, was the right thing to do.

I was part of the cabinet that made that decision. There was a negotiation process that was being engaged, and I did not have the details of what was going to happen at that table. So I’ve been over that ground. I will go over it again at committee, Mr. Speaker, but I think the leader of the third party knows that the decision that was made is one that was supported by everyone.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, one thing I think the Premier needs to know is that the people of Ontario know that just because the Liberals say it doesn’t mean it’s true.

As the Liberal campaign co-chair in the 2011 election campaign, the Premier heard about her party’s commitment to cancel a gas plant in Mississauga, and, given her role in the Oakville negotiations, she must have been pretty aware that this too would hit ratepayers hard. Did she place any calls or raise any concerns with the campaign team or did she decide once again to make her priority helping the Liberal campaign?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member from Toronto–Danforth, a member of this leader’s caucus, understands, and what he said on April 11 was, “I don’t see it as a smoking gun. We knew that the cabinet was approving this process. So this does not surprise me.”

Mr. Speaker, it was part of a process. It’s a process that I have outlined many times and will no doubt have a chance to outline again this afternoon at committee. The reality is that I have taken responsibility. I have said that there were decisions made that should have been made in a better way. What is very important is that we have in place a process that will mean that this will not happen again, that the community will be engaged in a different way so that this kind of decision will not be made again. The leader of the third party knows that I’ve taken responsibility for that.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. People hear the Premier talking about doing things differently, but all they see are the same cynical approaches and tired ideas that got us where we are. People feel like they’ve been abandoned, Speaker.

Karen wrote us to say this: “My last hydro bill I had to ask my daughter to cover for me … and she could barely help as she has major student loans to pay back. I am tired of working and not getting ahead…. When will this end?” What does the Premier have to say to women like Karen, who expect their Premier to have their backs when it comes to their electricity bills?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I sympathize with people who are struggling, Mr. Speaker. It’s why we have put a number of supports in place, whether it’s a tuition rebate, whether it’s support for young families with children—

Hon. Charles Sousa: Child care benefit.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —the Ontario Child Benefit, whether it’s a reduction on the electricity bills, the clean energy benefit. We have put those in place.

But, Mr. Speaker, Karen and all of the residents of Ontario need to have a reliable energy source. They need to know that when they go to turn the lights on, the lights are going to come on. In order for that to be the case, the government must have a plan. The leader of the third party does not have a plan. No one knows how she would keep the lights on in this province, Mr. Speaker. Everyone knows that we have a predictable and stable plan. That plan was released yesterday, and I would have thought that she would have supported the conservation—at least—aspect of that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the Premier’s sympathy is not going to help Karen pay her hydro bill.

The scandal with the gas plants, unfortunately, is not an isolated—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order.

Leader.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The scandal with the gas plants is not an isolated incident, unfortunately. To many people, it has become a symbol of the government’s absolute indifference to people struggling to make ends meet and to hold onto good jobs.

Wayne works with a large manufacturer, and he writes, “Our jobs may be on the line due to rising hydro rates. To have a middle class you must have manufacturing; that’s a fact the world over. Maybe those in charge do not want a middle class….” What does the Premier have to say to Wayne and thousands like him who think the government’s hydro policy may cost them their jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would want to make sure that people who are concerned about industrial rates understand that we have put programs in place because we acknowledge that there are concerns.

The industrial electricity incentive: As of 2013, eligible companies qualify for electricity rates that are among the lowest in North America, in exchange for creating new jobs. So we’ve made that connection. The industrial conservation initiative helps large consumers save on costs by incenting them to shift their hours of use. The Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program puts in place a reduction for northern industrial consumers. It reduces their costs by 25%.

So it’s very important that people understand that we do acknowledge that there are concerns in the industrial sector. The Minister of Energy has just noted some quotes from yesterday that manufacturers and industries understand that predictability is important and that we have these programs in place. So I would hope that they understand that that’s the case, Mr. Speaker.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people worried about keeping good jobs and making ends meet feel that this government simply doesn’t care about their challenges, and the mess in the electricity system proves it. People are tired of paying the price for the government that just doesn’t seem to get it. Instead of offering real change, we see the government scrambling to hide the damage that they’ve done.

Does the Premier have anything to offer people who are feeling the squeeze like never before, or does she agree with her minister that the mess this government has made in our electricity system is simply a fact of life?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Actually, what we have done since we came into office is we’ve been cleaning up the mess that was left by the previous two governments.

We have made investments that were necessary. We have made sure that the grid has been upgraded. We’re dealing with communities that need support, that need energy, and we’re working on building that infrastructure so that they will have the energy supply that’s necessary.

We recognize that cleaning the air is not a priority for either of the opposition parties, which is surprising, actually, because I would have thought that green energy, at least for the NDP, would have been a priority. Apparently, it’s not.

Creating jobs in the green energy sector, cleaning up the air, making sure we have a stable energy supply: Those are our priorities, and we’ve been working on that, cleaning up the mess that was left by the previous two governments.

Interjections.

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

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is also to the Premier. Your energy plan will cost Ontario families anywhere between 30% to 50% more. That is, on average, $400 per family. Your energy policy is also going to lower the standard of living in Ontario. As Ontario families decide they need to lower their energy bills, they’re going to have to shut off the lights, shut off the heat, shut off their appliances.

I think you owe it to the constituents across this province to tell them exactly how much of this rate increase is due to your catastrophic energy policy as well as to those cancelled gas plants. We’d really like to know, because the only party with a plan, at the present moment, to make those more affordable is our party, under PC leader Tim Hudak.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member should know by now that the costs of relocating those gas plants are not even in the system yet. It will be three or four years before they’re in, and by that time, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Actually, start the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: We’ve taken $20 billion out of the cost base, including $15 billion for new nuclear. That is going to push rates down as we move forward. The—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —will be an average of 2.8%.

Mr. Speaker, again, they look at the graphs in the plan and they will pick out a couple of years where there is excessive pressure on prices. They will not look at the overall plan that will show that the reduction over 20 years is 2.8% per year.

Mr. Speaker, there’s no way to avoid electricity cost increases. Neither leader on the other side has given a commitment to—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m astonished. His short-term energy plan, in the long run, is going to cost at least $1 billion more on the rate base. What else are they hiding from the public from this long-term energy plan? That actually confirms our suspicion that you released that report yesterday solely to distract the public from the Premier attending the gas plant hearings today.

Speaker, I want to go back to this jobs issue. It’s not only families and seniors who are suffering as a result of these rate hikes. We have lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs across the province. She’s making Bob Rae blush by sending so many jobs south.

We are now the only jurisdiction in the world that relies on losing jobs as a conservation plan. We have received letters from a number of organizations, including businesses, who tell us that the average industrial electricity price in Ontario is double the average of Manitoba, Quebec and Michigan. It’s not just homeowners who are suffering; it is the business community. Why are you sending our jobs south?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oxford, come to order. The Minister of the Environment, come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Eglinton–Lawrence, come to order. Thank you.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’ll be happy to speak for the Minister of Finance on jobs, Mr. Speaker. The minister and the Premier have stood up on a regular basis and indicated that throughout the recession period and coming—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order. That’s the second time.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —created more than 460,000 net new jobs coming out of the recession, between the recession and now—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and I will say that 31,000 of those jobs are in the clean energy sector—

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —in wind, solar and biomass. There is a huge industry here in Ontario, which we have created. Part of those 460,000 jobs is coming right out of the energy sector.

They need to look the people in the eye who are creating those jobs, creating those new companies, and tell them that they are going to make it stop, Mr. Speaker.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. The Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters have said that electricity costs can be a “deal breaker,” but the energy minister has called skyrocketing costs “a fact of life.”

Ten years of Liberal government has put the unemployment rate in Ontario higher than the national average. It’s time to get our hydro bills under control so that we can grow and create jobs. Why is the Liberal government more interested in their political fortunes than getting hydro rates under control so we can create jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m happy to talk about jobs in this province. I want to talk about Roger Martin’s prosperity task force. His report was released last week. This is a quotation from their report: “Few comparable regions outside of North America have an economy that is as competitive and prosperous as Ontario’s....

Ontario’s GDP per capita is higher than the median of the 12 international peer regions identified by the task force, thanks in part to a highly skilled workforce, stable economy and diverse mix of productive industries.” He goes on to say, “The Ontario government’s 2013 fall economic statement is commendable for its focus on infrastructure, possible tax reforms and investments in human capital.” He says that “Ontario’s tax system is now one of the most business-friendly in the OECD.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Business leaders in Niagara have identified lower hydro rates as being one of their top priorities when it comes to attracting manufacturing investment and creating jobs. Alternatively, high hydro prices are the biggest issue facing new development and expansion, as Mayor Bradley of Sarnia has said about Nova Chemicals’ expansion plans.

Companies that are already seeing costs as deal breakers can expect a 40% increase over the next five years. Is the Premier going to get hydro rates under control so that businesses can grow and create jobs, or is high unemployment, just like skyrocketing hydro costs, just another Liberal fact of life?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I want to say that, of course, electricity prices are a factor in business decisions and investment decisions in this province. But I think it’s important that all of us pause for a moment and recognize just—the opposition parties, I think, are getting close to a line, because if investors from other countries are looking at us today and at this moment, and they hear how the official opposition is talking down manufacturing and saying, “Don’t come here because it’s too expensive,” and now we have this party as well, talking down our manufacturers and the hard efforts of our employers and the importance of investing here—I think we all have a responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, 40% of the manufacturing in this country is located here in this province. Nearly a million people are employed in this sector. We work hard for them every day. We’ve created nearly 500,000 jobs since the bottom of the recession. We’ve created the eastern economic development fund and the southwestern Ontario.

We’re going to continue to work hard for our manufacturers and for all of our employers and businesses around the province.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Speaker, yesterday the minister introduced Ontario’s new long-term energy plan. The plan set out the province’s priorities and initiatives for meeting the energy needs of Ontarians for the next 20 years.

We all know the energy policy has been a topic of discussion in Ontario these days, and for good reasons. It is an issue that affects every Ontarian directly. In my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, I frequently hear concerns from the constituents, wondering how they can lower their electricity bills. Given that electricity is an important issue for Ontarians, the release of this plan is very timely.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please tell the House what are some of the highlights from the new long-term energy plan?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for her question. The new plan is a balanced approach to meeting energy needs today and for generations to come.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew will come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The plan is based on what we heard from First Nations and Métis communities, stakeholders, municipalities and consumers from across Ontario.

This plan is built around five key principles: cost effectiveness, reliability, clean energy, community engagement and putting conservation first.

The member’s constituents will be happy to know that we have taken several very significant steps to reduce the rate of increases to their hydro bills. Compared to the previous long-term energy plan, an average consumer can expect to pay about $520 less over the next five years, and about $3,800 less to 2030.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Minister, for that response. It is certainly a significant amount of real savings for families and small businesses.

One element of the new plan that I find particularly interesting is the introduction of the new financing tools for home energy renovations. I know that conservation is the best way for families to lower their energy bills. I also understand that the new long-term energy plan includes a commitment to foster a culture of conservation in Ontario by encouraging and empowering consumers to reduce their consumption.

Minister, you also spoke about energy literacy as one way that we can educate and empower consumers to make choices about how reduce their consumption. It sounds like the on-bill financing has the potential to be another powerful tool for consumers to look at for lowering their energy bills.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please inform the House about the details on the on-bill financing and clarify how it might reduce the costs for consumers using this program?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: On-bill financing for home energy retrofits is another step towards empowering consumers to control their electricity consumption. Specifically, it helps consumers finance energy-efficient projects in their home and business, which will save them money in the long run.

Similar programs in neighbouring jurisdictions like Manitoba and New York have been very successful in allowing people to make upgrades to their homes with no upfront costs and a convenient, low-interest repayment model.

Over the long run, savings on energy bills can surpass the cost of the renovations, achieving a net savings for consumers while helping to protect the environment and lower system costs to the province.

On-bill financing is one more way the new long-term energy plan is empowering consumers to lower their energy bills.

CHRIS MAZZA

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health explained why she could claim ignorance about the latest revelations about Chris Mazza’s multi-million dollar salaries. She confirmed that she received the forensic audit report that was conducted by the government in December 2011, which gave the details of those salaries, but she confirmed for us that neither she nor her deputy bothered to even open the envelope. It was sent directly to the OPP, she said.

Speaker, this was a forensic audit of the operations and financial dealings of an organization embroiled in scandal under her watch, and this minister tells us that she didn’t even bother to open the envelope. I ask the Premier, after displaying such gross incompetency, why is this minister still in your cabinet?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because she’s an excellent health minister and she is transforming the health care system so it will be sustainable for generations to come. That’s why she’s still in office.

I know that the Minister of Health is going to want to speak to the specifics of this question in the supplementary but I want the member opposite to remember that this is the Minister of Health who ordered the forensic audit in the first place. This is the Minister of Health who, based on the findings of the report, brought in the OPP to investigate. This Minister of Health has made sure that her reactions to the situation were immediate and appropriate. I know that the member opposite actually knows that.

He also knows that if we don’t transform the health care system in the ways that the minister is doing it, it will not be sustainable over time. That’s why she is doing the job and doing it in a very good way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The best way to transform the health care system is to get rid of this minister.

There are two issues here: One is that the minister ordered a forensic audit and then didn’t bother to look at it to see exactly what the details were. The second is that the minister was in contempt of Parliament because she knows full well that the Standing Committee on Public Accounts asked for every piece of correspondence and information that related to the financials of Ornge and especially that all of the payments made to Mazza be tabled with that committee. She had the information. She may not have looked at it but she knew it was there. The committee on public accounts was denied that information.

I say this to the Premier: Her excellent Minister of Health has failed the people of this province. She held the committee in contempt. I ask her once again, why does she continue to hold the portfolio that she does? She’s not worthy of the title.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think the member opposite needs to do his homework because if he did his homework, he would know that a government member, the member from Guelph, asked Ornge at committee for all payments made to Dr. Mazza from all Ornge entities. That information was tabled with the committee a year ago. It was publicly released in January of this year—all but that personal information that could not be released. That information has been at committee for a year. To suggest that we are hiding anything is absolutely bogus, when it is absolutely true it was tabled and released publicly.

CHRIS MAZZA

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Minister of Health ordered a forensic audit of Ornge when she realized that there were some serious problems going on. But when the audit team delivered their findings, the minister did not bother to read the findings.

At the same time, despite the fact that we were studying this issue in a legislative committee, despite the fact that there were ongoing investigations and despite the fact that there was legislation tabled in this House, can the minister explain to Ontarians why she was not interested in what the audit team had to find?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the opportunity to provide some clarity. There was a request from a member of the government side to release all payments made to Mazza. That information was released a year ago to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. In addition—separate issue—I ordered a forensic audit. The forensic investigation team from the Ministry of Finance went in and did that forensic audit. I received an interim report in February. There was enough in that interim report for me to refer the matter to the Ontario Provincial Police. They are doing that investigation. The interim report concerned me enough that I referred it to the OPP.

When, in July 2012, the final report came in, it was provided to the deputy and he returned the envelope unopened with the following explanation: “For clarity, as the report is being provided to the OPP, I have not read, copied or otherwise accessed the report that FIT provided to my office so as not to”—

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Minister of Health has indicated that she was far too trusting of Dr. Mazza, but it seems, again, that the Minister of Health has missed the point. The Minister of Health of the province of Ontario—it’s not her job to be trusting; it’s her job to provide oversight of all the services provided.

This government has failed in its oversight of Ornge. It was this government that was fully aware of questions asked by the NDP long before Ornge made headlines in the newspapers. It was this government that failed to address whistle-blowers who raised issues and concerns about Ornge. It was this government that allowed Ornge to fall off the sunshine list. It was this government that failed to provide oversight.

Will this minister admit that she did not do her job?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me repeat: On December 22, 2011, I ordered a forensic audit. The audit team was there the next day. By February, they issued an interim report. I read that interim report. The interim report was troubling enough that I referred the matter to the OPP. We, on this side, let the police do the job of policing.

When the final report was delivered in July, the deputy minister—and I’m going to take the opportunity to finish this—“For clarity, as the report is being provided to the OPP, I have not read, copied or otherwise accessed the report ... provided to my office so as not to inadvertently impact the ongoing OPP investigation, and in the interests of transparency, I am returning the single hard copy of the report that was received.” This is appropriate protocol, followed appropriately.

Interjections.

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

New question.

ASSISTANCE TO THE DISABLED

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour le ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires, l’honourable Ted McMeekin. All of us in our constituency work are inspired by individuals who are looking out for their families, striving to put bread on the table and enter Ontario’s labour market. This struggle to integrate or to reintegrate into the workforce is especially telling and poignant in persons with disabilities. Though Ontario has led the country in job creation since the recession, with numbers cited during this question period, persons with disabilities can, of course, find this quite challenging.

Can the minister please inform this chamber what our government is doing en route to creating a more just and prosperous society to help people with a disability enter or re-enter the job market?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the member for his question and his commitment. As a government, we are focused more on people’s abilities than the alleged disability, and that is in large part why the budget spoke about the partnership table that we’re creating to work with employers to employ folks with developmental challenges.

We’re interested in creating jobs for everyone, regardless of their age, their ability, their sexual orientation or ethnicity. We’re doing a pretty good job of that, to be frank. The employment supports component of the ODSP provides employment assistance for people with disabilities who are interested in preparing for employment. In fact, this program has had 4,537 clients enter the program and receive supports, and some 2,264 have actually found employment.

Now, I want to compliment the federal government here. They’ve been helpful in terms of providing funding. The contract is winding up. We hope it can be renegotiated.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thank you, Minister, for the update on the ODSP and labour issues. I know, of course, first-hand that folks with disabilities in my own riding are having some measure of success through these funding opportunities. I think they would also be encouraged to learn that negotiations between the governments of Canada and Ontario are proceeding, I understand, in a positive, collaborative and salutary direction.

This, of course, will affect many, many residents in my own riding of Etobicoke North, and I think it’s important that we build on the past successes. I believe it’s part of the mandate and responsibility of all governments to stand up for these people, to ensure that they get the supports that they need and deserve.

Speaker, would the minister please share with this House what might be the impacts of a reconfigured labour market agreement?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The labour market agreement for persons with disabilities serves a very important role in providing support for persons with disabilities, trying to break down the barriers to employment.

The federal government has announced its intentions to introduce a new generation of this agreement but has not yet put a proposal on the table. Speaker, it is so critical that these changes build on the success of the existing agreement and the programs currently supported.

It’s my hope that the federal government will consider the successes of this agreement when they make these changes. Unfortunately, their approach to the labour market agreement, which funds our most vulnerable workers, would suggest otherwise. That approach, right now, has the federal government cutting 60% of funding for these very important programs that serve our most vulnerable population. We hope they take a different approach with this new agreement that serves our people with disabilities in this province.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, I’ve asked you this question before, and you didn’t give me an answer, so I’m going to ask you again. With your 15% auto insurance reduction effort, all of the province’s non-standard auto insurance companies have been called in by FSCO and directed to reduce their rates. Of course, non-standard companies insure the worst drivers on the road. They insure people with poor driving records, multiple speeding tickets and, worst of all, those with drunk-driving offences. Are you pleased with rewarding Ontario’s worst drivers?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. The member opposite makes reference to the non-standard auto insurance that, in fact, does provide a system of last resort for those individuals with bad driving records. The fact of the matter is, they represent about 1.5% to 3% of the market, and they are not the ones that we’re targeting. We’re targeting safe drivers; we’re targeting and protecting consumers.

The member opposite should be supporting our initiatives to lower premiums for all the consumers in this province who are suffering because of the high costs of claims. An auto fraud task force that has been commissioned by our government over the last number of years is helping us reduce those costs of claims, and that is what we are doing to try to protect consumers in our marketplace.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, you’ve missed the target. You’ve hit Ontario’s worst drivers with rate reductions.

This morning, Mothers Against Drunk Driving issued a press release drawing attention to your irresponsible policy. They rightfully say that the biggest benefits in terms of dollars will go to the most dangerous drivers on the roads.

Minister, in your rush to appease the NDP and cling desperately to power, you’ve implemented a policy clearly without thinking about the consequences. It seems the message you want to send to drunk drivers is, “Don’t worry about your high premiums. If we need to pander to the NDP’s demands to stay in power, you’ll be first in line to get your lower rates.”

Now that MADD has come out and exposed the dangers of your price-fixing scheme, will you finally admit that you have not thought through the policy, correct your mistake and implement our four-point plan to reduce rates for good drivers in this province?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite talks about a plan that they don’t have and they’ve just sort of done on the fly. We have been at this for a number of years to try and support the nine million consumers—

Mr. Jeff Yurek: You’re lying. You’re lying.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London will withdraw.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Withdraw.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, our commitment that we’ve been doing on this side of the House is to bring down rates to Ontario’s nine million drivers. The member opposite is spinning, talking about drunk drivers and those who have bad records. They’re not the ones who are going to benefit from these initiatives, because they are the worst drivers. There’s going to always have to be an insurer of last resort to accommodate them, but they’re not benefiting from this.

The ones who are going to benefit are safe drivers, the ones who institute a number of initiatives to bring down their rates. We are going to work with them and the other nine million drivers to bring those rates down for consumers. The member opposite should stand with us on this, and they should support consumers in our province.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Minister, last Friday in Sudbury, quite unfortunately, we had a number of fatalities as a result of accidents on highways in and around Sudbury. We had two people who died as a result of a three-vehicle crash on Highway 17, west of Webbwood, and then we had another person die as a result of a single-vehicle accident on Highway 6 just between Little Current and Espanola.

Considering that you reported to this House, and you reported to myself and other northern members, that you’ve increased the number of equipment that is on highways, why is it that highways are still being closed in northern Ontario where we never used to see that in the past?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, first of all, my heart—and I know that of my colleagues here in the House—goes out to the people who have lost loved ones in a very tragic accident. I think for all of us who live in northern climates with icy winter roads and who have lived in parts of this country where it gets very cold, this is a reality that is all too often and all too tragically part of life. So my prayers and heartfelt thoughts go to the families.

We, as a government, have added 50 different crews in northeastern and northwestern Ontario. It is the largest expansion in the history of Ontario in snow removal and winter maintenance. We have also required now that those companies have to replace all of their equipment at the rate of 10% per year, so that over every decade all equipment will be new. MTO staff are working on stronger reviews and working with municipal leaders.

We have the safest roads and highways in North America with low fatality rates. These investments will, over this winter, reduce those accident rates, and I have worked with the member opposite and will continue to identify these obstacles and solve them.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, I’m shocked that you would say it’s a reality that people have to die while driving on roads in northern Ontario. That, quite frankly, is not acceptable as an answer.

But I’m going to ask you again. We in northern Ontario want to let you into a little secret: It’s been snowing for centuries and for millennia, and for years when we had MTO take care of our highways, we never had conditions of roads as we see them today. Last Friday, we had three fatalities just in the Sudbury area. There was another fatality on Highway 69. The question is, why is it that we’re having the amount of road closures and the amount of accidents as compared to before?

So I ask you again, despite the increase of equipment that you announced yet but a few weeks ago, why is it that we are still having some of the worst road conditions as a result of your highway maintenance?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, what I said is that icy roads and driving conditions in a northern climate are the reality. I have lost friends in traffic fatalities. I read every single police report that comes forward and I look at the names of everyone who’s lost—and I, as a minister, will tell you that safety, for me, for the Premier and for this government, is our single biggest priority.

We have fewer fatalities and accidents and the safest roads in North America. It’s better than dry, warm places like Kansas and California, which is quite remarkable. We take every fatality, which means we have maintained the same standards—

Interjection.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I think this is serious. I did not interrupt the member opposite. We’re talking about people’s lives here, and this government takes this quite seriously. For us, it’s not politics.

I will be monitoring how those 50 new crews are deployed. I will continue to work with Minister Meilleur to monitor the policing and enforcement, and we will continue to look at every cause and solve every obstacle there is to public safety.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, the minister was recently in Ottawa holding a land use planning workshop at Carleton University with environmental groups, developers and municipalities, including Ottawa, North Dundas, Renfrew, South Glengarry and Russell, from my own riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. Like many Ontarians, my constituents have numerous questions about how the land use planning and appeal system works and the role of the Ontario Municipal Board. Some find the current process complicated, difficult to navigate and even harder to understand.

Speaker, our government needs to ensure that our planning system works well for municipalities, community groups and developers, while remaining responsive to the challenging needs of our community. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the minister explain to my constituents and all of Ontarians about how they can get involved in this important review?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Thank you to the member for the question. I was happy last Thursday, November 21, to join the member from Ottawa Centre as he held and initiated a consultation at Carleton University to discuss our review of the land use planning process. This system gives municipalities the tools to manage growth so that we can all build cities and towns that we want to live in, work in and raise our families in.

But we’ve heard from municipal leaders from across the province, and from planners, developers and the public, that t