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

November 27, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-27 (PDF)

L091 - Wed 27 Nov 2013 / Mer 27 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 27 November 2013 Mercredi 27 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

RELATIVE À LA POLICE PROVINCIALE

DE L’ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HYDRO RATES

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

CHRIS MAZZA

MINING INDUSTRY

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

MIDWIFERY

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

WIND TURBINES

THUNDER BAY GENERATING STATION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

MANUFACTURING JOBS

FIREFIGHTERS

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

STRONGER PROTECTION

FOR ONTARIO CONSUMERS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RENFORÇANT

LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR ONTARIEN

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MARK LINDSAY

FRIENDS OF MEADOWLILY WOODS

HANUKKAH

HEINZ CLOSURE

ROB’S RIDE

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

BY-ELECTION IN TORONTO CENTRE

PAN AM GAMES

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

PETITIONS

DISTRACTED DRIVING

WASTE REDUCTION

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

BREASTFEEDING

WASTE REDUCTION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

DISTRACTED DRIVING

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

DISTRACTED DRIVING

CHILD PROTECTION

HOME CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT

(CARBON MONOXIDE SAFETY), 2013 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2013

(PROTECTION CONTRE

LE MONOXYDE DE CARBONE)

SCHOOL BOARDS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE DANS LES CONSEILS SCOLAIRES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA NÉGOCIATION COLLECTIVE

RELATIVE À LA POLICE PROVINCIALE

DE L’ONTARIO

Mrs. Meilleur moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act, 2006 / Projet de loi 133, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2006 sur la négociation collective relative à la Police provinciale de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Madame Meilleur.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to highlight the proposed amendments to the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act.

I would like to start by reminding the House that these amendments were meant to be passed as part of the 2012 budget. The removal of these measures in committee was an error, and one that the other parties agree was not intentional.

We know that stand-alone legislation on this item is something that the official opposition has said they will support, and the leader of the third party has stated in writing that she also supports these measures.

If passed, the legislative amendments to the act will establish more consistency between the act and two pieces of legislation: the Police Services Act, PSA, which includes the framework under which municipal police forces negotiate; and the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, which is the framework that governs other OPS bargaining agents. This would allow the party to negotiate a management rights provision clause into the collective agreement between the employer and the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

Les changements proposés vont dans le sens de l’engagement qu’a pris le gouvernement d’améliorer, de moderniser et de transformer les procédés du gouvernement en mettant en place un cadre de relations de travail qui soit tout à la fois souple, dynamique et bénéfique pour les employés de la Police provinciale de l’Ontario.

If passed, these amendments would promote employee engagement, ensure an accountable and professional public service, and allow for management rights to be exercised in a manner that is consistent with the collective agreement policies and applicable legislation. These changes will impact approximately 9,000 OPPA members.

Comprehensive consultations were held with the OPPA in November 2009 and February 2010. Further discussions were held as part of the public sector compensation restraint consultations in August and September 2010.

The language within the OPPA collective agreements would need to change as a result of the proposed amendment. The current collective agreement with the OPPA expired on December 31, 2011. The framework agreement resolved all compensation adjustments through to December 2014, and the parties are scheduled to begin negotiations in late 2014 for a renewal of the collective agreement. It is anticipated that upon passage of the legislation, the parties will amend the collective agreements to incorporate the management rights. The employer would work with the OPPA to make changes to the collective agreements to align them with the proposed legislative amendments prior to proclamation.

Our government’s commitment to ensuring that Ontario has a truly modern policing model goes well beyond labour relations issues. The Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services hosted a summit on the future of policing in 2012, at the urging of the policing community. We brought together police leaders and other partners to discuss challenges facing police services in Ontario and the sustainability of police service delivery into the future. As a result of that summit, the Future of Policing Advisory Committee was established.

The committee’s role is to recommend policy changes that will make policing services in Ontario leaner and smarter. The committee has provided the government with valuable advice on a range of topics including a new community safety model that helps resolve complex social problems, strengthened local governance and oversight, a plan for the sharing of services and resources to realize economies of scale and maximize service delivery, and the identification of alternative resources for service delivery.

Cette phase du travail étant bien avancée, le ministère soumet des thèmes clés relevés par d’autres ministères et intervenants concernés afin qu’ils soient présentés pour des consultations étendues. Ces consultations suivent leur cours et se poursuivront l’année prochaine pour nous aider à déterminer les prochaines mesures et les prochaines étapes nécessaires.

Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to say that the OPPA is a key partner in the discussion shaping the future of policing in Ontario. Collectively, we must find ways to ensure that our communities continue to enjoy policing services that are both effective and sustainable. At the same time, police services have to make decisions on how best to meet the needs and expectations of the communities they serve.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize again that the proposed Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Amendment Act would have an impact on labour relations by promoting transparency and accountability, providing consistency across the OPS bargaining units, and improving, modernizing and transforming government process by building a labour relations framework that is both flexible and dynamic and that will improve service to OPP employees.

To be clear, Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes will not impact the OPP’s ability to fulfill its public safety mandate. They will, however, ensure greater consistency between the labour relations framework of the OPP and municipal police services.

La loi entrera en vigueur le jour fixé par proclamation, ce qui assurera que les droits de gestion sont intégrés à la convention collective avant d’être supprimés par la loi.

Mr. Speaker, enabling stable and efficient labour relations across the Ontario public service and ensuring that a solid future for community safety in the province is part of the government’s plan to work together as one Ontario to build a successful, compassionate and united province where everyone has the opportunity to connect, contribute and enjoy a high quality of life.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to join the debate, albeit a short one this morning that we were presented with by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, on Bill 133. This is something that we’ve been talking about for a few years now. I want to take my hat off to Jim Christie and the members of the OPPA for continuing to raise this issue.

I was the critic for community safety for a couple of years, and I must say I really enjoyed my time in that position, representing Tim Hudak and the PC caucus as our liaison with the members of the OPPA, who are the primary, I would think, movers of this piece of legislation. This is something that I know they’ve been looking for some time. In fact, I do believe that there was a commitment by the government that they would do this some time ago.

I want to congratulate and thank Jim and his members for the great work they do around this province. I think it’s overlooked sometimes, because when you read headlines in the newspapers, the headlines are always tilted towards the negative because that’s what sells newspapers or gets your spot on the 6 o’clock news. But I want to thank them for the commitment they make in keeping our communities safe, in making our people comfortable that we live in one of the most secure and safe environments in all the world, and that when you leave your home in the province of Ontario, you know you’re walking on good ground.

It is our first responders and our police who make us feel that way. So I want to thank them for the great work they do and that I know they will continue to do on behalf of all of us here in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise as the member for London West and also as the Ontario New Democratic Party critic for correctional services and community safety. I want to thank the minister for her comments in introducing this bill and also for finally moving forward on this issue. I understand that as early as 2009 the Ontario Provincial Police Association had brought these concerns forward about the lack of consistency across the OPS in terms of the treatment of management rights in statute or in collective agreements. This has been an issue that has been flagged and highlighted as something that has to be addressed, and it’s good that we’re finally moving forward on this.

I also wanted to echo some of the comments that were made by the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke in terms of the important role played by the Ontario Provincial Police Association, in particular the advocacy of president Jim Christie: the negotiations and work that takes place, and the partnership that contributes to community safety in this province. We know that stable, effective and sustainable policing services will only be accomplished through solid and positive labour relations between the OPPA and the government. I’m very pleased to speak on behalf of the NDP and support this initiative coming forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments. The Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker, for recognizing me to speak about Bill 133. As the Minister of Labour, I wanted to state my support for this bill. I, first and foremost, want to start by thanking all our Ontario Provincial Police officers. They work extremely hard. They keep us safe. On behalf of all legislators and on behalf of our Premier, I thank them for their ongoing community service and ongoing work to keep our communities safe.

I also want to thank the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for bringing this very important piece of legislation, something that will definitely level the playing field for our OPP officers. These measures correct an error that took place at a committee meeting some time ago, and I’m happy to note, at least as far as I know, that the official opposition and the third party support this particular bill, and I hope there will be speedy passage of this bill, given that we have the support of the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

The bill affects about 9,000 OPPA members. It really, at the end of the day, makes sure that labour rights of OPP officers are consistent with the rights of officers working for municipal police forces. This is obviously quite crucial and essential. Again, as the Minister of Labour, I really hope that all members of the House pass this bill as soon as we can.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to add some comments to substantiate where we’re going with Bill 133. But first of all, I’m glad that this bill has come forward, because when things happen too fast, mistakes happen, and that’s what we’ve seen over and over again with this Liberal government. So it’s important to be taking a look at these mistakes and figuring out how to fix them—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: —because, guess what, Speaker? I come from a police family, and my colleague who will be speaking in a few moments also comes from a police family. We have to make sure our first responders and the folks involved in this very, very important service are respected.

I know Jim Christie, and he has a lot of respect for my brother, who is an OPP officer; my brother’s son is an OPP officer; and our critic here hails from a family of OPP officers and police officers. In fact, his one son, to pursue his dream, actually had to move out of province. As per the norm over the last few years, a lot of people have trended to the western move. It’s just indicative of how this government has lost sight and made mistake after mistake. We’re losing our young people to good jobs in the west, even in the police services field, and it’s a travesty.

Coming back to Bill 133, again it’s nice to see this government taking a look at the mistakes it’s made because of really quick actions and not a lot of due diligence. That’s a thread that’s found from ministry to ministry to ministry. Going back to the fact that Jim Christie was here last week representing the OPPA, I think we have to give due diligence to this mistake that was omitted during the 2012 budget, because we cannot take anyone for granted in this province. Our police services are very, very important.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister for Community Safety and Correctional Services has two minutes.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the members from London West and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, the Minister of Labour and the member from Huron–Bruce for their comments.

Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Provincial Police are responsible for policing almost one million square kilometres of land, over 100,000 square kilometres of waterways and two thirds of the municipalities in the province, which make up almost 40% of the country’s population. So we have to listen to the request from the OPPA and its president, Jim Christie—I’m sure that Jim is listening today—and pass this bill that, by mistake last year, was not adopted.

We know that, day in and day out, OPP officers are patrolling our roads and highways, helping Ontarians when they are in need and providing excellent police services to keep communities safe. There’s not a week that goes by without me receiving positive comments from the community.

If I have my chance today, I will talk to you about this couple who were lost in Ontario a couple of weeks ago. They were deep in the forest, and because of the good service the OPP provided—you know, these police officers don’t think about their own safety; they think about the safety of the citizens. So they did their utmost to help to find this couple.

Our government and the OPP are committed to ensuring the safety of all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate.

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s a pleasure for me, on behalf of the Ontario PC party and our leader, Tim Hudak, in my capacity as critic for community safety and correctional services to rise and speak about Bill 133,

An Act to amend the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Act, 2006. I’m pleased to be able to rise to speak on the bill today, to have a few comments.

It’s a very important bill, and when the minister first tabled the bill, I congratulated her. I was at the Ontario Provincial Police Association’s president’s dinner up in Blue Mountains with the minister. I have to give her credit: She stood up at the mike that night and indicated that the government was going to be moving forward with this piece of legislation—and she did. She came forward, tabled the bill, and I appreciate some of her comments.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I offered you a ride back.

Mr. Steve Clark: She did; I want to acknowledge that, Speaker. She reminded me of something. She even offered, once she realized I was there, to give me a ride. So that’s the type of co-operation that Minister Meilleur offered that evening. I know we joked about it later; after I asked her some questions about the OSPCA, I thought maybe I got that offer parked. But I have to admit that it was a great night. It gave me an opportunity to have a discussion with Jim Christie, the president of OPPA.

In fact, I spoke to him this morning about the bill, had a good conversation, and I really appreciated hearing from members of the association about the importance of this bill and really what happened. In my time today, I want to acknowledge that as well.

It’s a very small bill. In fact, anyone who is around this place knows that any time we debate, all of the bills that are being debated are at the table. So I walked in this morning and I grabbed a copy of the bill and I got to my desk. This is how small this bill is: I actually grabbed four copies. It’s just that small that I thought I had one copy of the bill and I actually have—so maybe I’ll get one of the pages to come up and take these three bills and put them back to the table so that one of the other members can have them.

Even though it’s a very small bill—it’s one of the only bills that I’ve ever seen that is printed on one page—I can’t underestimate the fact of how important it is to the members of the Ontario Provincial Police Association. It’s all about changing the OPP Collective Bargaining Act, which we know that the members of the association have been asking for for a long time. I’m glad that the previous critic, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, did a two-minute hit on the minister’s speech. I know that both he and the previous critic, the member for Simcoe North, Mr.

Dunlop, have had extensive conversations with the Ontario Provincial Police Association, have been very supportive and very understanding of how we really got here today.

I’m sure some, in debate, will call this a housekeeping measure to give the Ontario Provincial Police employees access to the same collective bargaining rights as their counterparts in municipal policing. I just want to stop there, because one of the things I realize is that not a lot of people understand policing. I had the opportunity, when I was in municipal life, to learn a little bit about what it does and what it means to be involved in the government structure. I can remember like it was yesterday. Neil Macdonald, who now is with CBC, was then with the Ottawa Citizen.

When I was elected mayor, I had lots of interviews by people about different things. Well, Neil Macdonald caught me: He called me up and asked me a question. I had probably been mayor for two or three days—I hadn’t even been inaugurated yet. He asked me about how I was a member of—they were called police commissions then.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: There we go again. The Attorney General has known me for so long that he remembers me when I had hair. I appreciate that comment. Thanks for making me feel old, Minister.

Neil Macdonald asked me this question: “So, what do you think about being on the police commission?”

I, being a political neophyte, said, “What’s a police commission? Let me guess.”

Guess what the headline of the Ottawa Citizen was the next day: Mayor doesn’t know what a police commission is. I never forgot that. I have to tell you, I was not very happy with the Ottawa Citizen for a while because he wrote that story.

But you know what? It made me sit down and understand about how policing works. And you know what? I made a decision that I would step back. Normally, the tradition back in the early 1980s was that the mayor would be the chair of the police commission. I purposely parked myself and became a member and let one of the other long-serving members became the chair. But I really learned from that experience, really took my issue of governance very seriously and spent a lot of time understanding the relationship between a police association and the administration. I found it very valuable. I think that some of that experience I had, other members of our caucus certainly haven’t had before.

In terms of this bill specifically, the amendment is going to impact the 9,000 uniformed and civilian employees of the Ontario Provincial Police, and it’s going to give OPP employees the same rights as their counterparts in municipal police services right across Ontario. I should add and acknowledge what the minister said in her speech today: The removal of management rights in the existing legislation is certainly not unprecedented. It really brings the OPP Collective Bargaining Act in line with the Police Services Act, and the crown employees act, for instance. And I think she acknowledged that, over time, we’ve been supportive of some of those changes.

I have to tell you, though, that in a minority Parliament, things are quite busy, especially these last few weeks of the session. There are lots of stakeholders who want us to get bills through the legislative process and into committee. This bill certainly was one that we didn’t have a chance to caucus on, as an Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus—I know there are some questions. I’m hoping today, as part of my address, to try to address some of those questions for some of my members—maybe people in the other two parties as well. But I know that I, and certainly the previous two critics, Mr.

Yakabuski, from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, and Mr. Dunlop, from Simcoe North, have worked very closely with the OPPA, and I think there are a number of members who are extremely supportive.

I have to say, though, that I am disappointed to some degree that there aren’t some more substantive measures we can deal with as a Legislature. I know that I called back to my constituency office yesterday to try to deal with some issues. This is the first snowfall of the year, and I can’t imagine how many calls I’m going to get at my constituency office about hydro issues. I just dread leaving the Legislature this morning after question period and calling back to Brockville to find out how many people called.

People are in crisis in this province, and a day doesn’t go by that I don’t have a constituent come in with a hydro bill. I have people in my office crying on a weekly basis about the high hydro rates in this province. I just wanted to put that on the record, because even though this is an extremely important bill for members of the OPP—and I have said I’m understanding; I have said I’m supportive—I wanted to put that on the record, because I know that so many members have that same issue in their ridings and are basically deluged with issues.

Listen, this bill is not an issue that’s going to hit question period today. I think we’ve seen how question period has been dominated with some of the job losses at Heinz and Sears and Imperial Oil.

Before you jump in, Speaker—I know you’re giving me the look; I tell you, you’re giving me that look—I’m going to jump back to Bill 133 before you stand up.

During their annual conference last week, I had a chance to speak to members of the Police Association of Ontario who aren’t affected by this bill, and I know that some of the concerns I raised apply as well to the Ontario Provincial Police Association. One of the things I had been talking about there was the fact that we’ve got high debt in this province: about $20,000 per person.

I think there are some substantive policing issues that I want to talk about today, because there is some confusion about what this bill does compared to some of the other issues that are hitting municipal council tables. I do want to take an opportunity, Speaker, even in this fiscal crisis we have in the province, to address specifically things in this bill.

As I said, it’s a very small bill. There are only a couple of sections. The explanatory note really indicates why we’re here: “The bill repeals subsection 2(3) of the Ontario Provincial Police Collective Bargaining Amendment Act, 2006, which states that every collective agreement is deemed to provide that specified matters are the exclusive function of the employer and will not be the subject of collective bargaining. A consequential amendment is made to subsection 2(2) of the act.”

What I want to do is try to explain to people what that

section is that is being removed. I know I had questions from some of my own members about exactly what is being repealed. What’s being repealed is subsection 2(3) of the previous act, so I want to take the opportunity to explain to members what exactly was in that previous section. I’m going to read it into the record, Speaker, with your indulgence. This is what’s being removed from the act.

Under the heading “Exclusive functions of employer,” subsection (3) states:

“Except in relation to matters governed by or under the Police Services Act, every collective agreement is deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine employment, appointment, complement, organization, work methods and procedures, kinds and location of equipment, discipline and termination of employment, assignment, classification, job evaluation system, merit system, training and development, appraisal and the principles and standards governing promotion, demotion, transfer, lay-off and reappointment, and that such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining nor come within the jurisdiction of the negotiating committee or an arbitration board.”

I appreciate that, to members, that’s a lot to digest, a lot to accept. Not many of us are labour lawyers or human resources experts. So as part of our informed debate this morning, I’m going to give members some real-life examples of just what that means, because I’ve had the question come to me in my own caucus: “Give me an example of what takes place now, in the old Police Services Act, that won’t be allowed under this new Bill 133.” If you’ll indulge me, I do have some examples. I’ve talked to association members. I’m not trying to say anything bad about the way the OPP is operating.

I want to make sure I have the utmost respect. But I’ve had questions about what can happen today that can’t happen once we remove that.

One example: Anyone who knows policing knows how the promotional process works. So let’s say a member of the OPPA goes through the promotional process for becoming a staff sergeant. They go through the process, they’re advised that they’ve won the competition, that they conform to all the OPP HR standards. But then, let’s say, the commander of the bureau lets them know that the member didn’t meet the bureau standards. You know that in one of those types of organization there’s really no autonomy the commander can have. The person’s gone through the system and the system is very clear.

Anybody who’s ever been around the police service knows how this works in terms of promotion. They can’t challenge that promotion without this legislative change. Anyone who is close to policing understands what I’m talking about and realizes that in a municipal police force, or in police forces throughout the country, in most of them, the vast majority of them, this doesn’t happen.

The other example that I’m going to use for members today is, let’s say a member—and it happens in every organization. Let’s say there’s a minor transgression. The member decides, “I realize I’ve done wrong. I accept my penalty from my supervisor.” They take responsibility. Let’s say it’s within 24 hours, so it’s done immediately after the offence, the transgression, occurred, and then the member goes back—let’s say they’re specialized personnel involved in a specialized unit. They show up for work and all of a sudden they’re told that they’re being transferred to uniformed duties. That’s a double penalty.

In other police services that just doesn’t happen; you deal with the issue and you don’t get doubly penalized by the administration. Without this legislative change, that challenge, that unfair treatment, is not available. So if you’ve ever been involved in a municipal force—and I know that there are a number of members who have been close to those forces—you’ll know what I’m talking about in terms of this change.

Even though the clause is very, very large in terms of the specifics, it’s a system that really works in police services right across Ontario. Again, the difference that we have, Speaker, is the fact that we’re not talking about a small 10-, 15- or 25-member service; we’re talking about 9,000 uniformed and civilian personnel. This is representing our province. This is our police service. I think members, when they compare those larger police services throughout our country and in other provinces, realize how this change is needed for the OPPA.

I wanted to give those changes. We’re not blazing new trails in terms of Bill 133. In fact, I think it’s very interesting to talk about why we’re having the debate today. I know that the minister did make reference to it, and I want to make reference as well. Bill 133, or at least the contents of it, was actually contained within something called

schedule 52 of the government’s 2012 budget bill. Unfortunately, during the debate—I’m sure you can appreciate, Speaker—there were a number of schedules that the committee had to vote on, with a lot of different information. You’ve got three parties, you’ve got a minority Parliament and, you know what? Things happen. It’s regrettable. In this particular

schedule 52, in addition to this OPP management rights clause, there were also some arbitration changes. From our perspective they didn’t go far enough, based on the input that we received from some of our municipal partners. I believe New Democrats—I’m not going to talk for them; they can put their comments on the record. I think they thought they went too far. As a result, the way that the situation happened, they weren’t moved forward. I appreciate the minister’s characterization of what happened at committee regarding

schedule 52. It was defeated that day as—I think her quote was, “in error, and one that other parties agree was not intentional.”

I do want to point out two things, though, about this. First, if the changes put forward in Bill 133 were included alone in

schedule 52, I suggest that we wouldn’t be having this debate today and there wouldn’t be any Bill 133. Secondly, I think the government did have the votes—and I’m not going to go into that whole situation that happened with the recess and how the votes ended up; it’s ancient history. I’m not going to revisit that whole thing. I think we just need to move on. So it’s a regret. I think the minister has heard from me, as the present critic, and from the previous two critics. I’m hoping that the bill will be able to be moved forward.

I still, though, do regret that we’re not having a more substantive debate on some other issues today, but I appreciate the fact that we’re having the debate and having the discussion.

I would like to take an opportunity, Speaker, if you’ll indulge me. The member for Huron–Bruce talked about members of the police service who are associated with my family. When the minister spoke about the bill earlier—I’d better get some water before I start talking about my family—I did mention my son Mitch, who has since moved to Edmonton to become an Edmonton city police officer.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He’ll be a Calgary Flames fan—

Mr. Steve Clark: No. I’m a Sens fan, but Mitch is clearly a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. He’s clearly a Toronto Maple Leafs fan. There’s no question that he’s a Toronto Maple Leafs fan.

Interjections.

Mr. Steve Clark: Okay, okay. Speaker, call my caucus members out of order so I can get on with my speech.

I do want to take the opportunity, because I did mention him when I responded to the minister’s introduction to the bill. I mentioned his mom, Cindy Bisson, who is an Ontario Provincial Police officer with Grenville county. Her husband, Paul Bisson, is a retired member. My caucus colleagues know that sometimes I refer to Sergeant Bisson as my husband-in-law, because anybody who understands when I talk about my son and his mother and his stepfather—I think people know the drill. So I do have OPP officers on that side of the family.

I also have another officer I want to talk about today, and that’s my late father-in-law, David Roberts. I appreciate my wife Deanna being the daughter of an Ontario Provincial Police officer. My late father-in-law passed away on Christmas Eve 2007. He was a great person. He had a tremendous interest in politics. He was actually one of the few people I’ve met who regularly watch question period and the debates. He was a real political junkie. He loved debates in this place. He had a vision for me that I didn’t have at the time. I was more interested in the kids because they were younger.

But he felt that if someday I would be in this Legislative Assembly, somehow I would follow my predecessor, Bob Runciman, now Senator Runciman. He kept saying that he hoped one day to see me as a member of provincial Parliament. He never got to see that, because he passed away in 2007, but I’ve been waiting to try to talk about his career in the OPP. So I hope you’ll indulge me, because I want to talk about some of the places he served in his career. He was a great guy.

I’m glad the member for Oxford is in front of me, because he was actually born and raised in Woodstock, Ontario. My late father-in-law, David Roberts, joined the OPP in September of 1961 at the age of 23, and he was posted to the St. Thomas detachment. He worked there from September 1961 to the spring of 1968. It was interesting. I received some information from my mother-in-law, Freda Hilderley, who lives up in Newmarket, that he also did some summer duty in Port Stanley. That was quite common, that they would also do some summer duty in a different community.

As with most OPP officers, he moved around a bit. From the spring of 1968 to the spring of 1975, he was in Parkhill, and at one point he was detachment commander of a two-man detachment which came under the jurisdiction of the Strathroy department. He also did some summer duty in Grand Bend. During his time in Parkhill, he was promoted to corporal and then he was transferred to Brockville, and that’s when he moved the family to Brockville. He was stationed in Brockville from 1975 to 1984, and during his time there, he again was promoted, from corporal to sergeant. In 1984 there were again a number of changes.

As I said, anybody who knows OPP officers knows they do move around a little bit. He was then transferred to Oak Ridges and served in the Oak Ridges detachment from 1984 until his retirement in 1992-93. In Oak Ridges, I think there was a new Aurora detachment that was created.

I have to tell you a story, Speaker. He told me a story about Frank Klees, the member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Can you tell us the story?

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m going to tell you the story. When he was looking after Oak Ridges–Markham, my late father-in-law told me he drove him in a Santa Claus parade one time in a convertible. As you know, the member from Newmarket–Aurora has a wonderful head of hair. If Christina Blizzard ever had a vote on the best hair in the Legislature, I think Garfield Dunlop, the member for Simcoe North, and the member for Newmarket–Aurora would sort of be neck and neck.

So my father-in-law is driving the convertible in the parade. MPP Klees is in the back. He took off his OPP hat and put it on the seat. As he was driving through the Santa Claus parade, he noticed that, way down in the distance, there were a number of kids, and there had been some fresh snow. He noticed the kids were getting some snowballs ready, and they were coming up closer and closer to these three kids with snowballs. So just at the last moment, my father-in-law took his OPP hat and put it on his head, and they scattered.

I remember telling that story to MPP Klees and having him laugh, saying, “I love those OPP officers. They go above and beyond the call of duty to protect members of provincial Parliament.” My father-in-law helped Frank Klees look his best that day in that Santa Claus parade. All he had to do—he didn’t have to exert any force; he just had to put his hat on. It was great. Again, I wanted to tell that because the member for Newmarket–Aurora represented different ridings, but he had always represented that area since my father was in Newmarket–Aurora—

Mr. John Yakabuski: It would’ve been devastating.

Mr. Steve Clark: Pardon me, sir?

Mr. John Yakabuski: If Frank had got a hair knocked out of place, that would have been devastating.

Mr. Steve Clark: No, that wouldn’t have been good. It would have been tragic.

I know that Mr. Klees will get me back at some point for telling this story.

I also want to talk about how, after his retirement, my father-in-law also did some photo radar when photo radar was in the province. It was fascinating talking to him about the creation of the photo radar unit and the dismantling of it as well. It was interesting how, even though the photo radar system had stopped, he was still appearing and going to court to deal with some of the charges.

The Attorney General is here; I was amazed at the time at how long it took from those original charges to be levied and sent out to members for being caught by photo radar to the time that he actually went to court and gave his testimony. I couldn’t believe how long he had been retired from the photo radar unit, and he was still going to court.

Just in closing, he was a member of the OPP vets, Toronto

chapter number 5. My father-in-law, David Roberts, was very loyal to the OPPA. He was a proud OPPA vet. He wore his OPPA pin often, on a number of his jackets. He was one of those people who was really proud of serving the province of Ontario as a member of the Ontario Provincial Police.

He felt that the system where he got to see some different areas of a province—it was a bit hard on the family. They had three kids. I know when he left St. Thomas, he had three young children and moved around from Parkhill to Brockville, and then back to Oak Ridges.

But I never had the chance to talk about him as a great father and a great mentor to me in terms of politics. Again, he never got to see me sit in the Legislature, which I think is regrettable. But I know that he was always very supportive of me in my political endeavours, so thank you for giving me that opportunity to talk about my late father-in-law.

Applause.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you very much.

I want to go back to Bill 133. I’ve had a lot of people in the community confused about an OPP bill before us. I spoke to Jim Christie about this this morning. A weekend almost doesn’t go by that I don’t have some discussion about the OPP—mostly confusion about this bill, because it’s a very narrow bill. As I said, it’s a very small bill, dealing only with the OPPA, the contract negotiations and taking that exclusion out, but I’ve had a lot of discussion in communities about the OPP billing process.

I just had my briefing last week. I want to thank Minister Meilleur for having her staff assemble to give me the briefing on the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Her staff were very accommodating to me, to give me the overview of what’s happening in the ministry.

A lot of people, when they heard or read—because what happens is, AMO sends out a legislative briefing to all the municipalities, and when people saw that there was an OPP bill on the docket, they came to me and said, “Is this the OPP costing bill?”

I think what I’ve seen is that there are three things happening right now that are confusing people. There’s this bill, which deals with the very narrow OPP negotiations and removing that management clause from the act; there’s the OPP billing reform that’s taking place; and there’s also the future-of-policing discussion that’s taking place in the province.

I have to admit that after that AMO notice went out, I had mayors coming to me saying, “Is this the OPP costing reform that’s coming to the Legislature?” I had my own members, before they read the bill, before the bill was printed, asking me what this piece of legislation was about: Was it about the formula? All you have to do, Speaker, is go into the clips this morning and you’ll see story after story about these issues.

Policing is in the media a lot lately. I’m looking at a story from the Orillia Packet and Times that was published on Tuesday, November 26, at 6:24, by Sara Ross: “City Could Save $1M with New OPP Cost Formula.” It’s referring to the city of Orillia’s policing budget. Again, it was something that has come out of some of the initiatives of the ministry.

There’s a story here in Meaford from the Sun Times in Owen Sound, from Rob Gowan. It was published yesterday at 3:40: “Meaford Makes Policing Decision,” is the headline, going through a discussion about moving to a pay-as-you-go model over the next year while they explore all the options.

There’s another Owen Sound Sun Times story from Rob Gowan called “Policing Cost Concerns Remain.” It’s yesterday afternoon’s story, talking about a local information session on the OPP’s billing review process.

So there are stories going all over the province on this, and I have to admit that when I was home on the weekend, I did have a couple of mayors question me about this, about whether this bill was dealing with the costing. It was good that I had the briefing with the minister’s staff to go through it, because it is three separate initiatives and people shouldn’t confuse them. This is very narrow in scope, only dealing with the OPPA. The other two are wide-ranging discussions.

I do believe—and I said this at my briefing; I know that there are some ministry staff in the back behind you—I was pretty clear that I really think the ministry needs to communicate exactly what’s happening in policing—not just this bill; not just Bill 133 and how it affects the management rights, but also the other two systems of what’s going on right now.

I’ve had mayors come up to me, and they know right now based on their discussion that there are going to be winners and there are going to be some losers. I think all members know that these discussions are going on. Some communities may not know the impact, but I do believe that the ministry has a responsibility to come and talk about some of these issues.

In my own community where I live—Brockville—their OPP costing was put in limbo. It was a very divisive discussion in the community. That city is the first incorporated municipality in the province, so obviously it has the first police force in the province. It’s over 181 years old. There’s a big discussion going on that’s now parked because of this costing.

I do want to just quickly talk about the OPP: the fact that there are 324 municipalities that are serviced by the OPP and members of the OPPA. According to AMO, the costs of policing are all over the map. I have to put on the record that some costs per household are as low as $100. In fact, I think some are even lower than that; there may be one or two. Others pay more than $600. In fact, in my riding, the town of Prescott would love to pay $600 per household, compared to what they pay. Right now, they have one of the highest per capita household costs in Ontario, at $900.

I know that there are a number of mayors who have spoken to me about this process, and they were asking, “Does this bill provide clarity for those OPP costings?” I tell them, “No, it’s a very narrow bill.”

I challenge the staff within the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services to have a more substantive debate. We are in the last couple of weeks of the session. I’m not sure what the government’s intention is—whether we’re having night sittings, whether they’re going to put this bill on a legislative programming motion. I can’t read John Milloy’s mind, as the government House leader, but there are a number of bills like this one where the stakeholders are asking when these bills are coming forward.

I know even you, Speaker, have a bill that you’re quite anxious to have go through the legislative process. This is what happens. There are lots of things that want to get passed, that want to have that due diligence in the Legislature, and I think that policing is an issue that every community has been talking about right now, no matter whether you have a municipal force or whether you’re dealt with by the Ontario Provincial Police.

I also want to try to clarify the confusion between the OPP costing and the Future of Policing Advisory Committee. I know that the minister struck a committee more than a year and a half ago—another one of the government’s many panels and committees that are studying the issue. I just want to quickly—very quickly—try again to provide that clarity on what’s not in the bill but is still out there and of concern to police officers and communities, the fact that they are looking at a number of options regarding the future of policing. I just want to quote from a communiqué, if you’ll allow me, Speaker, and then I’ll move back to the bill. This is a communiqué that the government put out in June:

“Following the establishment of the Future of Policing Advisory Committee (FPAC) last year, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) has worked with our policing partners to plan for effective, efficient and sustainable police service delivery in Ontario in the future.

“Through FPAC and its four working groups, MCSCS has sought the experience and expertise of senior policing and municipal leaders in reviewing the issues and helping develop a clear plan forward.

“FPAC and the working groups have provided thoughtful and valuable advice to address several emerging themes. Those themes include:

“—Forward-thinking policy direction provided by the province that includes clear goals, objectives and priorities for policing, inclusive of performance measures;

“—A new community safety model that provides for multidisciplinary approaches and partnerships to resolve complex social problems;

“—Strengthened local governance and oversight;

“—Sharing of services, infrastructure and resources to realize economies of scale and maximizes service delivery; and

“—Identifying alternative resources for service delivery while ensuring proper training and oversight.”

There is a bunch of other information. I think I’m going to stop there. But the time frame—it says, “expected completion time frame of spring 2015.” So when you look at it—if you were a municipal politician, Speaker—you know that’s 18 months and then it’s another 15 months. I just question whether municipalities can wait that long, given the fact that there’s another initiative on the cost of policing that’s going out. There are public meetings like the ones that I quoted in these stories today, in the media. There’s that lack of understanding on what the process is.

I think that communities and local mayors and councillors should be briefed on that. I think members of the Legislative Assembly should have a far more detailed briefing on what those initiatives are doing, because when we look at what this bill covers, it’s only dealing with that small, narrow

section for collective bargaining.

I do want to take an opportunity to give a couple of tributes to the government. I want to talk about the fallen officer memorials, because I think that that’s an initiative that we need to give the government credit for, just like I gave them credit for bringing this bill forward. The minister certainly delivered on her word at that OPPA conference. I know that in my riding of late, we’ve talked a lot about the service and the tremendous job that our men and women of the Ontario Provincial Police do to serve Ontarians.

When I first became the critic, I had two services that I attended—one for fallen firefighters. I came down, and the minister was there. We had the tribute to the fallen, and it was a very moving experience. I saw General Rohmer last night at the Churchill Society Dinner at the Royal York. General Rohmer and Premier Wynne and the minister officiated over the tribute to the fallen, which honours our fallen police, firefighters, paramedics and Canadian military personnel who lost their lives. It was the first time I’d ever attended that service, Speaker. It was tremendously moving, one that I will not soon forget.

Over the years, we also pay tribute to the sacrifice of officers by honouring them through the Highway Memorials for Fallen Police Officers Act. I want to just talk about that, because there’s some special significance in my riding.

Since 2002, 52 highway structures have been named in honour of fallen officers, and over the past couple of months, I’ve been honoured to support two initiatives to rename bridges in Leeds–Grenville after Ontario Provincial Police officers killed in the service of people in my riding, and in this opportunity of talking about the important service that OPP officers do, the fact that there’s a bill that brings them, in terms of the bargaining chip, consistent with other officers, I wanted to pay tribute to those two officers that I recently wrote a supportive letter to.

I also want to recognize Jerry Carmichael from the town of Gananoque, a long-time friend of mine, who was driving one of them. I sent him an email the other day, inviting him to my MPP public reception on December 8, and he told me it was almost impossible for him to tear himself away from the 80-degree heat that he was in to come back to Ontario to deal with the party. But I do want to recognize his hard work on trying to rename the County Road 33 overpass on Highway 401 to honour Constable Henry J. Harper.

Constable Harper died on September 11, 1957, from injuries he suffered while on duty a month earlier, on August 5, 1957. The officer had been investigating a traffic collision on the 1000 Islands Parkway just east of Gananoque when he was struck by a vehicle. It was a terrible tragedy, as the 28-year-old left behind his wife and three daughters, and I should add that his wife, Ellen, was expecting the couple’s fourth child at the time.

I was interested to learn that, prior to becoming a police officer to serve our community—he served the area where he was born and raised—I found out that Constable Harper was an incredibly talented kayaker; in fact, he represented Canada in the 1948 Olympics in London.

Earlier this month, I wrote a letter to support renaming the CN overpass on Highway 416, in another area of my riding, in North Grenville, in honour of another provincial constable, Constable Alan G. Thompson. The memorial recognition effort was led by Sergeant Craig McCormick, who is in the Kemptville OPP detachment in Grenville county. I’m glad that I was able to support the nomination of Constable Thompson.

On the night of March 31, 1975, Constable Thompson was killed on duty while in pursuit of a speeding vehicle. The officer’s cruiser was struck by a train at an uncontrolled level crossing on Beach Road. A nine-year veteran of the provincial police, Constable Thompson left behind his wife, Janet, and their two children, Michael and Pamela. As I wrote in my letter supporting this fitting honour for Constable Thompson, “His death is a tragic reminder of the risks police officers and all first responders take every day in the service of their community.”

I look forward to the government organizing dedication ceremonies next year, because I think it’s very important in our ridings to honour the service of people like Constable Alan Thompson and Constable Henry Harper, who paid the ultimate price in defending our communities and making our communities safe. I also want to take the opportunity, again, to thank Jerry Carmichael and Sergeant Craig McCormick for their very hard work in getting this together.

Speaker, I could actually go on and on. I’m very passionate about policing in the province. I appreciate the work that Jim Christie and the members of the OPPA do. I appreciate the openness of the government to table this bill for debate. I look forward to speaking to my caucus about it in the next week, and I look forward to working with my colleagues on recognizing the very important contributions that members of the Ontario Provincial Police make every day in this province.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on Bill 133.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’m pleased to rise, as the member for London West, to make some comments in relation to the remarks from the member for Leeds–Grenville. I wanted to thank him for his eloquence and his gift for storytelling. I learned a lot from his speech and really appreciated his family experiences. The story of his late father-in-law brought to mind for me some places that I’m very familiar with: Port Stanley, Parkhill, Strathroy and Elgin. As a former trustee with the Thames Valley District School Board, I had the pleasure of travelling around to many of these communities in southwestern Ontario that were within the district.

I also wanted to comment about his disappointment about the other issues that the Legislature could be dealing with, should be dealing with. He mentioned high hydro rates, which certainly is an issue as well for me in my riding. We are constantly getting calls from constituents who are dealing with the cost pressures of high hydro rates and having their hydro turned off, and having to work with the city to implement some emergency assistance so that constituents can have their heat on.

I wanted to echo the member for Leeds–Grenville in his congratulations to the ministry for bringing forward this legislation. It is small, as the member said, but it is important, and it’s something that we, as a Legislature, definitely should be moving forward on as expeditiously as possible.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I appreciate the comments from the member from Leeds–Grenville. I’m pleased that he acknowledged the work that is being done on the OPP cost, and I’ll say to him that, yes, it’s long overdue. No party before did anything about it, so at least we did the review. We put a committee together. It’s important, because then we get the input from—they may believe that when you’re the minister and when you’re in power, you know it all and then you don’t need to consult. On this side of the House, we believe that we need to consult, and so that’s what we have done.

There is a good report that was presented to me. But as he said, there are winners and losers, so we have to make sure, before we make the final decision, that everybody knows what’s going on.

We are here to talk about Bill 133. I would like to see this bill pass, because if this bill passes, the proposed changes will move the management rights clause out of the legislation and into the collective agreements for uniformed and civilian staff.

The member from London West may think it’s a small move, but for the OPP, for Jim Christie and his team, it is very, very important.

We have been listening. That’s why we put this bill—not this bill, but this change into the budget bill last year. It was not approved, so we’re trying a second time for the OPP.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I want to commend my colleague from Leeds–Grenville for his wonderful presentation this morning, and his remembrances as well as his own thoughts on policing in general.

As I said earlier in the hit, I was the critic prior to my friend Mr. Clark, and I, too, had the opportunity to attend the police memorial for the fallen, as critic. The minister was there as well as Premier Wynne.

I’ll tell you, that is some special ceremony. With the names of each one of those officers who has lost their lives in the line of duty from as far back as the records have been kept, it is very special. Then the march past and the parade that follows is something that literally blows you away. It’s something that’s very, very special.

He talked about the naming of bridges and overpasses after fallen officers. I take some pride in the fact that Phil Shrive, who was an officer with the Renfrew detachment of the OPP, who lost his life in the line of duty in 2003, prior to me becoming a member of this Legislature—I presented a motion to the Legislature. The member for Sudbury, Rick Bartolucci, had actually put a private member’s bill in years ago allowing bridges to be named after fallen officers. When I got elected here, I put forth a motion to name the bridge over the Bonnechere River at Renfrew after Phil Shrive.

I’m proud to say that it was the first structure in the province of Ontario ever to be named after a fallen officer. Since that time, you’ll see that, all across the province, there have been structures named. I’m glad that it started, and I’m proud that Phil Shrive was the first one to be recognized.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? Seeing none, the member for Leeds–Grenville has two minutes.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to thank the member for London West, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and, of course, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services for their comments regarding my address on Bill 133.

I also want to take an opportunity—I was remiss in acknowledging the two existing bridges in my riding that have officers’ names. I want to acknowledge that the motorist crossing Highway 416 bridge over the Rideau river, just north of Kemptville, is now the O’Callaghan bridge. Traffic Officer Hiram O’Callaghan of the Ontario Department of Highways was on his motorcycle patrol on the afternoon of January 12, 1928, on the former Highway 16 near Kemptville when he was killed. It was a head-on collision with a delivery truck, and Traffic Officer O’Callaghan was killed instantly.

He was 43 at the time of his death and was survived by his wife, Mary, and their six children: Charles, Fred, Gerald, Claude, Marjorie and Dorothy.

I also want to acknowledge the bridge sign posted at the Blue Church Road overpass on Highway 401. It’s in honour of Constable Tyler Boutilier of the OPP. He died on May 23, 2004, while responding to a call on Highway 15, north of Seeleys Bay, when his cruiser was struck by an oncoming motorist.

These tragedies were now acknowledged by this program. It was unfortunate that I sat down without acknowledging those two existing bridges in my riding.

Again, I just want to wrap up my comments by acknowledging that I look forward to the debate, and I look forward to discussing this bill with the minister and how it can be moved forward.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’m very pleased this morning to introduce three constituents of mine from Windsor–Tecumseh. They’re in the west gallery this morning. We have Jim Wood, the president of CUPE local 82 with the city of Windsor; his wife, Judy; and Chad Goebel, the vice-president of CUPE local 82. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, I’m pleased to introduce four firefighters who do a great job within the province of Ontario: Kris Volpel and Rob Hyndman from Sudbury, Ontario, so from the Sudbury fire department; Warren Scott from St. Thomas; and Mike Pauze from Cambridge. Welcome to you and to all the firefighters.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to introduce to you this morning two firefighters from Simcoe North: Rene Oldfield from the Orillia fire service and Michael Gagnon from the Midland fire service.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome the Giesen family to the Legislature today. I have Jenniffer Giesen; Theodore Giesen, who was a page here last session; and Emily Giesen. They are here to support page Sarah Giesen today. She’s page captain. I want to say thank you to them for coming to the Legislature, and congratulations to Sarah on being the captain today.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, would you please help me welcome two great firefighters from Kingston: President Ann Bryan of the Kingston Professional Firefighters Association and Jeff Olejnik. They’re great firefighters in Kingston.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m pleased and delighted to welcome the parents of page Jeffrey Howson, Andrea and Mark Howson, who are here with us in the visitors’ gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I welcome and I ask members to welcome to the Ontario Legislature firefighters from the Niagara region: Ryan Madill, Dean Stoltz, Chris Wheeler, Mike Fowler and others who are here from the Niagara region.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome Tim Fulford and Dana Yonemitsu from the Bancroft and district real estate association, and also Elaine O’Hara and Sharon Shortt from the Quinte district real estate board. They’re in town for the Ontario Real Estate Association political action conference. Welcome to question period.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, I’d like to welcome Peter Osterberg, who’s here all the way from Timmins with the firefighters. I know that Randy Richards from Sault Ste. Marie is around here somewhere, and I see Mark McKinnon back there. I suggest we welcome all firefighters who are here today. We look forward to seeing them tonight.

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, it is a real privilege for me to have the chance to recognize and welcome two very special guests to me who are here in the east members’ gallery. My mother, Margaret Del Duca, and my uncle, Henry Leonard, have joined us here today.

Mr. Rob Leone: I’d like to introduce John Jetter and Ken Talbot, members of the Cambridge Fire Department, who are here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d also like to welcome two firefighters from the city of Windsor: Brian Bobbie and Andre Gingras. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I want to welcome all the firefighters who are here today in Queen’s Park, but Ontario’s finest come from Ottawa, so I want to welcome John Sobey, Erik Leicht and Craig Morrison. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Speaker, I’d like to welcome two firefighters from the Whitby fire department, the best in Ontario: Mr. Bob Brandon and Mr. Dirk Franke as well.

Mr. Bill Mauro: We have at least two members here today from the Thunder Bay Professional Firefighters’ Association. I’d like to welcome both Eric Norlund and Dennis Brescacin here in the Legislature today.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’d like to welcome Dan VanderLelie. He is the president of Burlington Professional Firefighters, Local 1553.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to welcome some wonderful firefighters from Hamilton. We have Ron Summers, Dan Santoli and Colin Grieve. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Soo Wong: I would like all of us to welcome three classes of grade 10 students from Dr. Norman Bethune Collegiate Institute in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. They are coming in. Their teachers are Alison Rimell and Bibi Stojanovski. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to welcome Gwen Kirkpatrick and Ron Garland of the Huron–Bruce

chapter of the Ontario realty association.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to welcome two exceptionally fine firefighters from Guelph, Colin Hunter and Jason Smith, representing the Guelph Professional Firefighters Association.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: It gives me great pleasure to welcome the president of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association, Mark McKinnon, and the vice-president, Jim Holmes, and all the firefighters. I invite all of you to come to the dining room tonight at 5:30.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m not sure if there are members of the professional firefighters from my riding of Durham here, but I’d like to welcome them to Queen’s Park. Members of the firefighters’ association: Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’d like to welcome my good friends Marta and Aubrey Dan, who are here in the Legislature this morning. Aubrey is a dear friend who has contributed a great deal to Ontario’s arts and culture community. So welcome to them.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I too want to welcome the professional firefighters to Queen’s Park today. A representative from the Woodstock Professional Firefighters Association, Trevor Ford, will be here. But I want to thank them particularly for their support for my private member’s bill that will be debated this afternoon.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Dawn Lee McKenzie, president of the Realtors’ Association of Grey Bruce Owen Sound, who will be visiting Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I wish to introduce Steve Barkwell and the firefighters from Oshawa and welcome them to Queen’s Park, as annually we do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let me offer my own introduction, in the Speaker’s gallery, to the best fire department in Ontario. I guess I get to say that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve been asked if I was partisan. I’m just being factual.

Mr. Tom Smith and Mr. Gavin Jacklyn are here with us with the firefighters. I welcome all of our firefighters and our schools and all of our guests. Thank you for being here today.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Does the Speaker get the opportunity to correct his record?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It doesn’t happen.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier about the ongoing job losses in the province of Ontario. I think, Premier, you’d agree with me that Ontario is at a crucial inflection point. We can continue down the same path we’re on of job losses, high youth unemployment—a province where one million men and women woke up this morning who want to work who have no job to go to—or we can choose a new path for a better Ontario. We’ve laid out our plan to do exactly that.

We woke up this morning to another series of job losses. Sears Canada—almost 800 jobs, the large majority here in the province of Ontario—will be closing down their parts processing plant in Belleville, by way of example.

You know, Premier, I agreed to clear the deck to see your jobs plan. It seems like every day, every week, there are more and more job losses, particularly in manufacturing. Will we actually see a plan before Christmas, or is this the best you can do?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Leader of the Opposition will want to hear some more names of companies that are coming to Ontario who are creating jobs and expanding, and I will speak to those in the supplementary.

But, Mr. Speaker, we actually have a plan, and I have spoken about this plan many times, as has my team. We believe that investments in people, making sure that people have the right skills, making sure that they have the right training opportunities; investments in infrastructure that will allow communities to draw business to their communities and make sure that goods can move around the GTHA region and beyond; and investments in a business climate that is competitive, innovative and dynamic and allows businesses to thrive—those are the investments and that’s the framework within which our plan is functioning. Businesses are coming to Ontario.

I understand that the manufacturing sector is going through a transition, Mr. Speaker, and we are very aware of that. It’s all the more important that we create that environment for business.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Hold on a sec here. The Premier calls 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost a transition? She calls the loss of almost 40,000 manufacturing jobs under her leadership alone a transition? I call it a hollowing-out. I call it a decline in the province of Ontario. I call it an economic disaster. And for you to stand here and say, “Oh, it’s just a transition. Oh, it’s just the forces of globalization”—the problem is, Premier, these plants are leaving your province of Ontario and setting up shop in the States and in Quebec.

John Deere, which had built farm equipment in the Niagara Peninsula for decades, picked up stock. That is still being built, but it’s in the state of Wisconsin. Heinz had made ketchup for 100 years in Leamington, in the province of Ontario. We’ll still be able to buy Heinz ketchup; it’s going to be made in the state of Ohio.

Don’t give me this garbage about a transition. This is a serious issue. It needs a serious plan. If you don’t have one, step aside. We’ve got a plan. We’ll—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. That’ll do.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the Leader of the Opposition needs to also acknowledge is that there are 460,900 net new jobs in Ontario since 2009.

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That’s true.

It is very important that the Leader of the Opposition acknowledge the successes. Our plan plays to those strengths. I understand that there are changes in the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order. The member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order.

Carry on.

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

I understand that there is a change in our economy, but that change is bringing business and bringing companies to Ontario. There are changes happening in terms of companies leaving, but there is an exchange.

Green Arc Tire Manufacturing in St. Mary’s, Ontario, an auto supplies manufacturer, is opening North America’s largest tire remanufacturing plant: 340 jobs. Gizeh Verpackungen in Brantford, a plastics manufacturer: 50 to 70 new positions. There are jobs coming, and we have to create that environment so that that will continue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: We’ve lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. That’s a net loss. That is a hollowing out of our manufacturing sector. That is a weakening of the middle class of Ontario, and I can’t understand—I cannot fathom—this Pollyanna attitude that you have.

Interjection.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: —said that manufacturing job losses were a myth. Now she shrugs it off and says, “Well, Speaker, it’s just a transition.” You tell that to the families in Leamington, Ontario, who’ve got no jobs to go to, come next year. You tell the folks at John Deere. It’s a sad state of affairs when Ontario’s leading export today is manufacturing jobs going across the border to the US.

We cleared the path. We said, “Put your plan on the table.” You’ve got no plan. You’re driving up hydro rates; you’re putting in new red tape every day; you’re increasing taxes. Your plan is not working. It’s time to actually clear the decks of this government and bring in a new plan to restore hope, restore optimism and restore our middle class. You’ve got no plan—

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that if the Leader of the Opposition spoke to the Ford employees in Oakville, where we’ve invested $70 million to allow those 2,800 jobs to be preserved and to allow Ford to compete globally, that the families in Oakville would be very, very positive about our plan.

I know that the Leader of the Opposition is having a town hall in Leamington, I think, in the area in the next couple of days. I know that he’s going to try to claim that there is only doom and gloom, that there is no opportunity for the possibility of success in going forward. I know that his member who was at the meeting last Friday has since said that that meeting was not worthwhile.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have been on the ground in Leamington. We understand that families are suffering. We are working with the community. There are possibilities there, and it would be a very good idea for the Leader of the Opposition and his members to work with the community rather than stirring up negativity. That’s not the way to make success.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier and her lack of a plan for jobs. There was a story about President Truman, where they told Truman to go in and give Congress help. Truman said, “All I have to do is tell them the facts, and they’ll think it’s help.” Premier, 300,000 fewer manufacturing jobs in our province—you’re hollowing out the middle class. Ontario is last in growth in all of Canada when it comes to income.

My Ontario will always lead Canada. My Ontario is one of hope; it’s of opportunity. It’s where we’re bringing good jobs to the province, not sending them across the border.

The Ontario we’ve always known was the leader, the best place for work. Now we’re at the back of the pack. You call that a myth? You call that a mere transition? Do your ideological blinders prohibit you from understanding the challenges that we’re facing in the province of Ontario?

So is it simply globalization, or can you tell me why, Premier, that Ontario, under the Liberals, is last in growth of income of all 10 provinces? How did we go from first to the back of the pack?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m sure that the Leader of the Opposition would like to, in his argument, explain how we’ve achieved 460,000-plus net new jobs since 2009. We’ve done that by making investments in businesses, by playing to our strengths, by creating a competitive environment so that businesses come to the province. I’m—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did not get quiet so any member can continue the dialogue, including the Minister of Finance and the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. I hope you’ve noticed that I’m mentioning your ridings, which means that if you use up your time, you’re gone.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not suggesting that our work is done. Obviously, there is more to be done, and the recovery has not been in this jurisdiction or other jurisdictions as quick, as fast, as we would have liked it to be, Mr. Speaker. But the people at Ericsson Canada, Toyota, Ford, GM, Green Arc Tire Manufacturing, Gizeh, Newterra, Pillar5, Lambton Conveyor, Pavaco Plastics, NASG Canada—all of those companies have benefited from investments and support from this government. We are working with those companies. Jobs are being created. That is our plan, and it is working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I quoted Harry Truman, and she quotes Bobby McFerrin. She says, “Don’t worry; be happy. Things are just doing great across the province of Ontario.” The problem is, Premier, that’s simply not the reality.

We’re down 300,000 manufacturing jobs. We actually have the lowest wage-growth of any province in Canada. Facts are stubborn things, Premier, but these are the facts that families are facing each and every day.

I’ll give you two more examples. You referenced GM. GM had made the Camaro in Oshawa. Now the Camaro is going to be made in the state of Michigan. Caterpillar had made their equipment in London, Ontario. That equipment is now made in Indiana.

The point I’m making, Premier, that the Liberal benches don’t seem to grasp: These products are still being made, they’re still being sold, they’re still being bought, but they’re no longer being made in the great province of Ontario. Why does that keep happening over and over and over again?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Why has the opposition party not supported our efforts to support the auto sector, Mr. Speaker? Why has the opposition party not supported our regional economic development plans? Why is the opposition not working with us to get the Supporting Small Businesses Act passed, the Infrastructure for Jobs and Prosperity Act, the Local Food Act—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That happened. We got that passed—and the Waste Reduction Act? Why is the opposition not working with us to get those pieces of legislation passed that will create jobs?

I understand that it is the job of the opposition to challenge us. I understand that, Mr. Speaker. But it is also the job of the opposition to be consistent. If they are interested in job creation, they should support us on those pieces of legislation that are going to create jobs in the province. I look for that support.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: But the problem, Premier, is you’re creating jobs in Michigan. You know what? I think you missed this point. Michigan has now passed the province of Ontario in auto production. We had been the leaders, the chief jurisdiction, top of the pile when it came to auto production in North America. Michigan blew by us, and why did that happen? Because you’ve doubled energy rates in the province of Ontario. You’ve increased taxes. You’ve hollowed out our middle class. You pile on more and more red tape, and you’re more interested in kissing the ring of Al Gore, whose policies have driven our hydro rates through the roof.

Who do I put on top? Ontario workers, families who need jobs. You can appease Al Gore all you want to; I’m going to stand with the working families in the province who want good jobs and strong manufacturing jobs. That’s where we stand. Why don’t you?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I remind members on an ongoing basis, when I ask for quiet and it does get quiet, it’s not the moment for you to inject.

Premier?

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

What we know about the plan of the Leader of the Opposition is that we would lose 10,000 education workers in this province; we would fire 2,000 health care workers. There would be a cut-and-slash regime in this province, much the way we had a cut-and-slash regime when he was in cabinet previously.

I do not believe that in order to have a strong and aspirational Ontario, we have to sacrifice our environmental protection. I do not believe that having a strong and aspirational Ontario means that we have to undermine the relationship between organized labour and government and declare war on the people who have made sure that our workplaces have been safe and have developed those protections over years. That is what the opposition would do. They would gut unionized labour, they would fire people out of the public service and they would cut and slash—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Minister of Community and Social Services will come to order, and the member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question to the Premier: Next week, the government will announce another long-term energy plan. Since the last plan was introduced, the public has seen their electricity bills surge with private power contracts—cancelled and otherwise. Why should they believe that this plan will be any different?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Energy is going to want to speak to this in the supplementary, but what I would say to the member for Toronto–Danforth—because I know in his career he has been very, very supportive of clean energy; he has been supportive of conservation. I hope that when the long-term energy plan comes out next week and he sees the focus on conservation that we are going to entrench in that plan, he will be supportive, because I think it speaks to many of the core values that he has held in the past and core values that I think have been held by the NDP in the past. So I hope that he will see that and he will be able to support our long-term energy plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Boy, if you’d listened to us earlier, we’d have much lower electricity bills.

The government has claimed multiple times to have a long-term plan for electricity. But the plans always seem to change, and Ontarians have the bills to prove it—a billion dollars for cancelled private power deals in Oakville and Mississauga; $180 million for unneeded new nuclear reactors; $900 million worth of contracts signed for nuclear refurbishment for a contract that doesn’t even have a business case presented.

Why should people believe that this government will have a plan that will work for Ontarians when frankly your plans haven’t worked for a decade?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I fear that if we had listened to them, we would have had no rebuilt transmission, Mr. Speaker. There would have been no investments into the system and there actually wouldn’t have been a plan.

We do have a plan. What we know is that the NDP, this version of the NDP, has opposed nuclear. They’ve opposed wind and solar, they’ve opposed gas—they’ve opposed pretty much everything that we’ve put forward, which is why I said maybe, when we bring forward the long-term energy plan with conservation as a lead element, they might support that. But there has been no plan, surprisingly, coming from those quarters. We’ve had the plan, we’ve made the investments, and that will be reflected in our long-term energy plan.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I wouldn’t exactly call that an answer.

Families and businesses in Ontario are paying the highest electricity rates in Canada—nearly twice as high as their neighbours in Manitoba. The fact is, the government’s electricity plans have helped private power companies get paid for cancelled contracts, but they’ve left Ontarians with massive bills. What assurances can the Premier offer to people that the new plan is not just another public relations exercise from a government that’s left the public carrying the bills for 10 years of misadventure?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member will be able to see the long-term energy plan this coming Monday. It’s forward-looking. It is very sensitive to the ratepayer.

With respect to private developers, the member from Toronto–Danforth has made it quite clear that he condemns private investment in power generation in Ontario. But when the NDP last formed government, they signed nine private power generating contracts for natural gas plants in a five-year span, totalling over 400 megawatts of generation.

The fact is that Ontario has a hybrid system, a healthy mix of publicly owned generation and private investments that help drive our economy and create tens of thousands of jobs in Ontario. The NDP plan to eliminate private investment in Ontario’s energy sector would not only cause thousands of job losses, but would also result in higher hydro rates for Ontario’s families and businesses. Mr. Speaker, he’s an ideologue and he doesn’t know how to—

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

PUBLIC SECTOR COMPENSATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Families are feeling squeezed by tough times and they’re worried about the future. But at the same time as families keep getting asked to tighten their belts, public sector CEO pay keeps going up.

Since 2010, the New Democrats have been saying it’s time to put a hard cap on public sector CEO salaries. In September 2012, the Minister of Finance said the government would move forward with that cap. He said, and I quote him, “It will work to bring some of the overly generous compensation packages back to reality.”

Does the Premier agree it’s time to put a hard cap on public sector CEO pay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the member knows, the NDP supported the budget in which we committed to examining some measures to manage compensation costs, including considering hard caps. That work is happening right now, and we’ll be implementing new measures. We’ll be bringing those forth in the next few months. I know the member of the third party understands that that was part of what we agreed to in the 2013 budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: It may have been part of the deal, but we keep waiting and waiting.

It would take the average Canadian nine years to earn $418,000, which is twice the Premier’s pay. It’s pretty generous as an annual paycheque. In 2012, the Liberal government finally agreed it was time to cap public sector CEO salaries at a level two times higher than the Premier’s.

The Premier has no problem telling hard-working families they’ll have to get by with less. Will she agree to follow through on the commitment the government made and do it now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve already said that we are working on this, that the measures will come forward in the next few months. But, Mr. Speaker, I want to just be clear that we have to have more than a blunt instrument as we deal with this issue, because there are sectors where there is expertise that’s needed, whether we’re talking about medical professionals or nuclear technicians who are vital to running the services that are needed in the province and that the system relies on. We have an obligation to make sure that those systems are run well.

So we are doing the work, as we committed to do in the 2013 budget, Mr. Speaker. Those initiatives will come forward in the next few months. I hope that the member from the third party understands that it’s going to be very important that we do this in a sophisticated way so that we have the expertise that’s needed in every sector across the province.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Most Ontario families haven’t seen a raise in years, and every time they open the newspaper, they see billions wasted on gas plants, eHealth and Ornge. Will the Premier take a small step tomorrow to show some respect for their money and for the plight many of them find themselves in and support the bill to cap public sector CEO pay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we’ve already said that we are working on a plan and some initiatives that we’re going to bring forth. That’s what we said we were going to do in the 2013 budget, and that is what we were doing.

As I have said, we need to make sure that whatever we bring forward is not a blunt instrument that doesn’t recognize that there are needs in different sectors. We need to look at how this can work so that we get the expertise that we need, whether it’s, as I say, nuclear technicians or within the medical field.

I agree that we need to put in place some controls on executive compensation. That absolutely needs to happen. That’s why it was in the 2013 budget. We’ll bring those initiatives forward, and my hope is that the member from the third party will be able to work with us as we introduce those initiatives.

CHRIS MAZZA

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Health admitted that she was surprised that Chris Mazza was back on her payroll. Not long ago, the minister called Chris Mazza a liar. She fired him from his job as CEO of Ornge. She called in the OPP to investigate him. She knows that he’s under investigation by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, and she knows that he put front-line Ornge staff and patients at risk. Now he’s working in the emergency ward at the Thunder Bay hospital. When asked yesterday how she would feel if he was working on her in that emergency ward, she refused to answer. Yet this minister claims she has no authority to keep this man off the public payroll and away from patients.

I ask the Premier: If the Minister of Health has no authority to ensure this man doesn’t get anywhere near the public payroll, who does?

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think that this question was answered very well yesterday by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and I know she may want to comment in the supplementary, but I just want to say that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care made it very clear yesterday how these hiring processes are done.

The comment that I want to add is that I know that the member opposite is not suggesting that we somehow find a way to go around due process. There is due process, and there have obviously been processes that have been begun because of this person’s previous activities. I’m sure that the member opposite is not suggesting that we would somehow contravene that due process that is there for the protection of every citizen in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Actually, Speaker, I am suggesting precisely that. If the chief of staff at the Thunder Bay hospital doesn’t know enough not to put this man on the payroll, then the Premier should overrule that decision. That’s what I’m saying.

A senior Ornge executive revealed that while under the employ of Chris Mazza, he became addicted to Percocet, and that it was Chris Mazza, as the CEO of Ornge, who prescribed his addiction by prescribing those drugs. That’s Chris Mazza. That’s the kind of reputation he has: putting front-line Ornge staff at risk, mismanaging millions of dollars, putting the Ontario taxpayers into debt to the tune of multi-millions.

I say to the Premier again: This man has no place on the payroll of the province of Ontario, let alone in the emergency ward of one of our hospitals.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Speaker, I watched the party opposite stand up and cheer a line of argument that would lead to a very, very dangerous set of precedents, I believe. I don’t know whether we’re getting insight into the kind of society that the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario would have in place, a society where—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order. The Minister of Energy, the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Attorney General will come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

I remembered them all, and I’ve told a few of you more than once. My next time is a warning.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That would be a society where the College of Physicians and Surgeons would no longer have the authority that they have now. It would be a society where due process would be thrown aside, and an individual politician—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West will come to order. Last time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —would make a decision about another individual without the benefit of due process. I don’t believe that’s the society that we’ve built over the last 150 years, and I don’t think it’s a society that would protect the interests of the population of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question is to the Premier. For the last year, the government has been suggesting that a deal with Cliffs was a done deal. But a year ago, a VP at Cliffs, Bill Boor, told the Sudbury Chamber of Commerce that they were concerned about progress the Liberal government was making on the Ring of Fire. In March 2012, Boor said Cliffs needed to sign a definitive document before it could develop the Black Thor in the Ring of Fire.

Did the government sign a definitive document with Cliffs, and what commitments were in that definitive document?

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I appreciate the question. Certainly, as the member knows and people in the region know, the Ring of Fire continues to be a project that we’re working very, very diligently on. In fact, we have set up development corporation in which we’re trying to engage both industry, protected First Nations and the federal government.

In terms of your specific question, though, let’s be clear: Indeed, we have had very significant conversations with a number of companies, and that does include Cliffs. In terms of the details of those discussions, they are, for commercial reasons, very confidential. I think that it is important that that remains the case, particularly as the company itself has announced a suspension, a delay, rather than ceasing their interest in the project.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, we want to continue to focus on moving forward; we want to—

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

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —continue to focus on developing the Ring of Fire and doing all the—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand; you sit.

Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: All right, Mr. Speaker, let’s try this again. So the Liberal government pushed Cliffs away from Ontario. Cliffs was raising concerns over a year ago. We don’t know what commitments were made to Cliffs, and we don’t know whether the Liberal government lived up to its end of the bargain.

In March 2013, Cliffs was still pursuing a definitive document. Did the government sign a definitive document with Cliffs, and if not, why not?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Mr. Speaker, what we all do know is that indeed we’ve been engaged in very significant conversations with a number of companies, and that certainly very much includes Cliffs. We’re going to continue to carry on those discussions.

What we also know is that we are committed to moving forward with making decisions related to some of the key aspects of the Ring of Fire. That certainly very much includes infrastructure, and that’s why we have formed a development corporation and are bringing so many different organizations and partners to the table. Obviously, we hope that includes First Nations, the federal government and industry.

But the fact is, certainly it would not be in any way appropriate or fair to anybody, and I think the member knows that, to be talking in terms of the details that the member seems to think are so crucial. What’s crucial is moving forward with the Ring of Fire development on the First Nations consultations, which are so vital, and, may I say, on forming the development corporation—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you

Hon. Michael Gravelle: —which will be the key—

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

I will remind the minister: When I stand, you sit. Did you forget? You forgot.

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Energy. Speaker, I’m sure many members in this House will agree that one of the most common questions that we receive from our constituents is regarding their hydro bills. It certainly is one of the most frequent calls that I receive in my constituency office in Vaughan.

As we know, hydro bills have many different components, and it can be difficult for folks in our communities to understand what each part represents. I also hear from constituents wondering how they can better manage their energy consumption, to reduce their bills and to reduce the impact of their energy usage on the environment.

As this is something that we all hear regularly from our constituents, I feel it’s important for Ontarians to have a better understanding of the province’s electricity system. I’m wondering if the minister could please provide the House with an update regarding any initiatives being undertaken to increase energy literacy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for his timely question. The need to promote energy literacy is something that we’ve heard from Ontarians from across the province during consultations for the long-term energy plan, and it is an important priority for the Minister of Energy.

In fact, just yesterday morning I was at the launch of the Hydro One Electricity Discovery Centre at the University of Toronto. Members may remember seeing the discovery centre at the International Plowing Match and the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair. The discovery centre is a fully mobile customer education tool designed to engage and educate consumers. Mr. Speaker, it’s one of the several initiatives we are introducing as part of our commitment to keeping Ontarians informed about the electricity system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I thank the minister for both his response and for the outstanding job he’s doing on behalf of the people of Ontario.

This definitely does sound like an extremely worthwhile initiative. Promoting energy literacy will help Ontarians improve their understanding of how our system works. It will help them understand how their energy choices affect their bills and our environment and it will also help them better manage their own energy consumption. I understand the need to promote energy literacy among Ontarians is also a message that we’ve all heard from the Environmental Commissioner, Gord Miller.

Given the complexity of the modern system, and the amount of correspondence that I and many others receive from constituents who are confused about their bills, helping the public better understand Ontario’s electricity system has never been more important.

Can the minister please inform the House regarding what kind of information the discovery centre will provide and how I can make that information available to the constituents in my community?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The discovery centre provides the opportunity for visitors to learn about Hydro One and Ontario’s electricity system in an engaging and interactive way. Specifically, visitors can learn about electrical safety, important tips on managing electricity use and costs, how the electricity system is modernizing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —and the benefits of investing to keep it up to date for future generations of consumers.

The mobile format of the discovery centre brings interactive and engaging exhibits to consumers’ fingertips. To ensure this information is available to all Ontarians, Hydro One will work with any MPP to bring the discovery centre to their own riding. I invite all members to take advantage of this excellent resource.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question as well is to the Minister of Energy. Good morning, Minister. Earlier today you confirmed, I think, what is the worst-kept secret in Ontario right now, and that is that you are going to announce the long-term energy plan the day before the Premier is set to appear again before the justice committee probing the gas plants, so it’s an obvious distraction.

I note also that last week—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Calm down.

I note also that last week, in speaking to the press, the minister suggested his long-term plan would be “short-term in nature.” With that contradiction alone, it is very hard to take this minister’s long-term energy plan seriously, so let’s consider what the last LTEP had in it. It had a rigid adherence to wind energy that has cost this province dearly, particularly the ratepayer. Then it planned for two gas plants, which they later cancelled for a political decision. Now we have OPG asking for another 30% rate increase.

Speaker, I ask the minister a very serious question: Is there any reason that Heinz and others are leaving this province—

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Sometimes questions come from the opposition that are quite uninformed. I’m pleased that the critic chose to use the Heinz example because the Heinz facility in Leamington, Ontario has a seven-megawatt cogeneration plant located on-site. It’s generating its own electricity under our system at very, very cheap prices. They’re not on the grid. It’s uninformed, as all of her comments and questions are uninformed.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve come from a deficit that they created to a surplus. We’ve come from dirty generation to clean generation. Their record is a disgrace. Our record is laudable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The truth hurts; the facts hurt deeper.

Interjections.

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

Order. I can’t hear when you heckle either.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, that’s my job. You’re not getting the last word either.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you’re not. If you say it again, I will warn you. I don’t need challenges here.

Supplementary, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He bungles and he blusters this entire energy file, but if he won’t take my word for it, why don’t we talk about the report released yesterday by the Canadian vehicle—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Sudbury, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m just going to let their quotes speak for themselves: “More recently … a combination of factors—not the least of which is revised policy goals—have converged to make Ontario rates higher than competing jurisdictions. For example, electricity costs for a typical large-scale assembly operation in the US South or Midwest are estimated to be as much as $5 million lower than those in Ontario, a penalty that is now well-known to decision-makers.... For example, Toronto large power users pay 123% more than Chicago customers, 50% more than Nashville and 37% more than Detroit.”

Why are they running businesses out of this province?

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from—

Mr. Jim McDonell: Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, I know what it is. I’m giving you time to contemplate.

The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You guys haven’t gotten the message. I’ll have to be even tougher. Please.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, again, the premises of her questions are very false.

We talk about Heinz; we talk about energy prices in the United States. They blame the closure of Heinz on energy. At the same time, two Heinz manufacturing facilities were closed the same day in the United States. So they want to use the United States as a good example, but they have no credibility in terms of what they’re saying.

Mr. Speaker, we have created a reliable system of electricity. We’ve made huge investments in this sector because of their deficit. Yes, it put pressure on prices, but in the meantime, we have created programs that ameliorate the pricing. For industrial consumers, we’ve created the Industrial Conservation Initiative; we’ve created the Industrial Electricity Incentive program; we’ve created the Northern Industrial Electricity Rate Program.

With respect to Cliffs, we put something on the table that was very, very agreeable and acceptable with respect to energy.

MIDWIFERY

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre.

Speaker, this morning, Ontario midwives launched a human rights challenge against this government because of two decades of gender discrimination. Ontario midwives are paid 52% of what they should be earning. For years, midwives, the families they care for and the NDP have asked this government to take action on this most basic equity issue. We know that the government can talk a good game about the value of midwives and the good care that they provide, but can she tell us why she has ignored her obligation to pay equity for this female-dominated, essential health care provider group?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I can do is tell you that we do tremendously value the work of midwives.

That is why we’ve got three times as many women getting care from midwives now than we had just 10 years ago. That’s why we’ve increased funding to midwifery programs fivefold since we were elected. That’s why we’ve increased the number of spots in our midwife training: because we believe that women who want care from a midwife should have access to that care. But our commitment does not end with those investments. We have increased compensation to midwives by 25% over the past 10 years. Our commitment to midwives is strong and remains strong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: What the minister just told me is that she is comfortable with men being paid 48% more than women to do the exact same work. As midwives tell us, to devalue midwifery services is to devalue the people for whom midwifes provide services: women and their families.

Today, Ontario midwives are being asked to work for free from July 1 to December 31. Midwives are angry and frustrated, and after years of being ignored by this government, they had no choice. They had to pursue legal action for this government to follow its own law.

Is the minister going to fight, in the courts, these women who care for 20,000 women and newborns each year, or is she going to respect her pay-equity obligations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have witnessed first-hand the extraordinary care provided by midwives. On two occasions, I have been present at the birth of a grandchild in the care of a midwife. Our Premier has had two of her three children delivered by midwives. Our commitment and our respect is enormous.

I think it’s important that the member opposite get her facts straight. We provided the first compensation increase to midwives since they were established in 1994. In 2005, midwives received a 20% to 29% salary increase and, every year from 2006 to 2011, a 2% compensation increase. I confess I do not understand why the midwives are going this route, but I am very, very proud of our record, and I will defend our record.

ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Today, November 27, is the 2013 Ontario Environment Industry Day. Established in 1991, the Ontario Environment Industry Association, otherwise known as ONEIA, is the business association representing the interests of the environment industry in Ontario. This not-for-profit environment business association is governed by a board of directors and has approximately 200 member companies.

The Ontario environment industry sector represents over 40% of Canada’s environmental industry and generates an estimated $8 billion in annual revenues. This industry is important to the future of Ontario’s environmental and economic health.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please share with this House more about ONEIA and how they fit in Ontario’s environmental and economic plans for the future?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, the question is a very timely one, and I’m pleased to acknowledge the 2013 Ontario Environment Industry Day.

This is an interesting figure: With more than $8 billion in annual revenues, including more than $1 billion in exports, the Ontario environment industry sector is making an important contribution to Ontario’s environmental health, the quality of life of its citizens and our economic strength. We want to see that continue under the government’s plan to invest in people, build strong infrastructure and support a dynamic and innovative business climate.

The Ministry of the Environment will continue to build on the long-standing relationship we have with ONEIA through events like the Environment Industry Day and our supportive research projects like the Ready to Grow initiative and its follow-up, Still Ready to Grow. ONEIA has had a positive and constructive relationship with our government and is interested in continuing to work with the province on strategies to support and grow Ontario’s environment industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you again, Minister, for the update. This established partnership between the Ministry of the Environment and the Ontario Environment Industry Association is a great example of how this government is following through with its economic plan to partner with key sectors of the economy.

This plan will encourage technologies which will help protect our land, our air and our water. The results will build on Ontario’s environmental strengths, as well as contributing to our economic and competitive strengths.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment further elaborate to this House how our relationship with ONEIA will help protect our environment and foster the development of environmentally friendly infrastructure?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member has appropriately asked an important question—strategically as well; he probably stole the next question from the official opposition—so I am pleased to answer the question.

When municipalities need to upgrade water or sewage treatment, who are they going to turn to? When industries need to abate air or water pollution, who are they going to turn to? When producers of goods need to set up a recycling system, who are they going to turn to?

All these organizations, with all these challenges, are going to turn to a company that is a member of the Ontario Environmental Industry Association. It’s important that we have associations such as this in Ontario, and I look forward to continuing to work with Ontario’s environmental industry to ensure that we have a healthy environment and a clean, prosperous future for our province.

Remember to attend the reception today.

WIND TURBINES

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, much to the dismay of Ontario taxpayers and ratepayers alike, your government is facing lawsuits by two companies whose wind projects were cancelled by your government as a result of a 2011 pre-election moratorium on offshore wind development.

We have learned that Trillium Power Wind Corp. has filed a $2.25-billion lawsuit and that WindStream Energy is seeking damages in the amount of almost half a billion dollars. If the government loses these lawsuits, it could cost taxpayers $2.7 billion on top of the $1.1 billion it cost to cancel the gas plants. And the irony in this is that WindStream was motivated to seek damages because of your gas plant fiasco.

Premier, given the pushback against offshore wind in an election year, was the decision to put a moratorium on offshore another Liberal seat-saver scheme, and will the Liberal Party be picking up these costs if indeed these lawsuits are successful?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the question, but what I don’t hear is any consistency on this front at all, because my understanding is that this party is against wind altogether, that this member would have us cancel all the projects.

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the heckling from the member for Renfrew.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned and the member from Durham is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the heckling that they don’t support wind power at all, and that’s exactly my point, Mr. Speaker. They don’t support green power. They would cancel all of the contracts. We believe that green renewable power is the right way to go. We believe that phasing out all of the coal plants and banning that generation in the future is a good thing to do. They don’t believe that, but they would have all those contracts cancelled, and that’s not consistent with the member’s question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Clearly, Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Thank you.

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you, Speaker.

Clearly, that answer was practised and they were waiting for this, because this truly is another example of Liberal mismanagement.

Back to the Premier: In 2011, during an election year, the Minister of Energy contradicted the then original claim of the Minister of Natural Resources and declared that there was not enough scientific evidence to proceed with offshore development. Now, in 2013, study after study—even your own University of Waterloo study—is demonstrating an association between proximity to turbines and negative health impacts.

So where are we going with this? The Liberal government chooses to cite evidence of one example and yet you ignore evidence on the other hand. Premier, will your government just stop all of this madness and call for an immediate moratorium on all construction of turbines?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

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

Premier.

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

To the accusation that I practised the answer, I never could have predicted such an inconsistent question. So actually, Mr. Speaker, I could not have practised the answer to that question.

Let me just say this: The member opposite, on the one hand, is berating us because there is a legal case because we have cancelled projects—and I’m not going to comment on the specifics of that—but on the other hand, she is saying we should cancel all of the projects, thereby potentially incurring more legal situations. So there is no consistency in this party’s approach to energy. There is no consistency in this party’s approach to the process of siting infrastructure. We are going to continue to work to put a better process in place, but we are not going to be looking to the inconsistency of the Conservatives for guidance on that, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Thunder Bay–Atikokan will come to order—last time.

THUNDER BAY GENERATING STATION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Common Voice Northwest was here at Queen’s Park yesterday raising concerns with the recent announcement your government made for a partial biomass conversion of the Thunder Bay coal plant. Their report says that the biomass supply approved is far too small to supply the energy required by northwestern Ontario, even in the short run. How come you can come up with $1.1 billion to cancel two gas plants in southern Ontario and you can’t deal with the issue of Thunder Bay?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I appreciate the question from the member. I did have the opportunity for a short while yesterday to speak to some of the delegation, including Iain Angus, who thanked me for the decision of doing it. He did raise some questions with respect to supply of the biomass. He came up with some very positive suggestions on how that can be met, and we are certainly going to take those into account.

Mr. Speaker, our energy plan for northwestern Ontario is very, very solid. It’s extensive. It involves $2.5 billion of investments that we’re projecting. The energy security of Thunder Bay is absolutely secure. They’re going to have a plant. We’re going to extend the life of that plant, the biogas component, if it’s required. They have the electricity when they need it, where they need it, Mr. Speaker. It’s extremely reliable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, quite frankly, what you’re saying is pretty shocking, because you should know as Minister of Energy that northwestern Ontario is very different when it comes to supply and ability to utilize the grid than anywhere else in the province of Ontario. What’s happening in Thunder Bay is that that used to be a plant that was able to provide electricity to the northwest. Now what you’re going to have is a peaking plant which is going to produce far less power than what the region needs.

I ask you again: Why is it that your priority was to spend $1.1 billion to save a few seats in Mississauga and Oakville but you’re not prepared to support the people of Thunder Bay in the northwest?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, this absolutely is an NDP question. They’re asking us to make investments that are not required. We’re making the necessary investments. We’re relying on the experience of the Independent Electricity System Operator with respect to reliability. It’s the right solution at the right time for Thunder Bay. They will not have to worry about their energy generation, Mr. Speaker.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: For the record, this question has only been moderately practised.

Ma question est pour le ministre du Développement économique, du Commerce et de l’Emploi, l’honorable Eric Hoskins. Speaker, as you will know, our government has officially launched its youth jobs strategy. This is especially important to families in my own riding of Etobicoke North. The government’s announcement came after a series of consultations which brought together local business leaders, employers, not-for-profits, educators, labour and, of course, the youth themselves. These discussions provided a local perspective about the needs of the various stakeholders and participants, and directly influenced the design of this important program, the youth jobs strategy of October 16.

Speaker, would the minister please inform this chamber when young people in my own riding of Etobicoke North and, of course, beyond