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

April 15, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2014-Apr-15 (PDF)

L129 - Tue 15 Apr 2014 / Mar 15 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 15 April 2014 Mardi 15 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 pour des choix plus sains

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

Power plants

Power plants

Power plants

Power plants

Power plants

Power plants

Access to information

Transportation infrastructure

Long-term care

Services for the developmentally disabled

Political contributions

Transportation infrastructure

Environmental protection

Services for the developmentally disabled

Long-term care

Senior citizens

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Special report, Information and Privacy Commissioner

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Agri-food industry

Oral health

Hospice at May Court

South Glengarry Business and Community Awards

Seed Your Startup

What’s Up Walk-in Clinic

Life-saving skills

Paper bill charges

Burlington business community awards

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Roadside Assistance Protection Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la protection des usagers de l’assistance routière

Auditor General Amendment Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 modifiant la

Loi sur le vérificateur général

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

Towing and vehicle storage

Ontario budget

PETITIONS

Hydro rates

Minimum wage

Cystic fibrosis

Gasoline prices

Minimum wage

Ontario Drug Benefit Program

Off-road vehicles

Hydro rates

Shale Beach

Air quality

Agricultural colleges

Cystic fibrosis

Agricultural colleges

Ontario College of Trades

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Fair Minimum Wage Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 pour un salaire minimum équitable

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Making Healthier Choices Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 pour des choix plus sains

Mr. Milloy, on behalf of Ms. Matthews, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 162,

An Act to require certain food service premises to display nutritional information / Projet de loi 162, Loi assujettissant certains lieux de restauration à l’obligation d’afficher des renseignements nutritionnels.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s a pleasure to put just a few thoughts on the record about this bill. At the outset, I’d like to point out that I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Health, as well as her parliamentary assistant, the member from Oak Ridges–Markham.

I think all of us recognize, and we’ve heard many times over, that unfortunately for far too long—not just in Ontario, but I think throughout the western world—instead of having a health care system, we have an illness system, one that is focused far too much on people who have obviously acquired a disease or in some way have fallen ill. We’re not putting enough emphasis on keeping people healthy in the first place and making sure that people are engaging in the type of activity that allows them to create the healthy choices they need to maintain their health and to have, obviously, a better lifestyle, but also in a sense to remove some of the pressure from the health care system.

That really is the philosophy behind Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act. We know that healthy kids grow up to be healthy adults, and a healthy start is better for our kids and is better for our health care system.

We’ve heard loud and clear from parents that they want support to help keep their kids healthy. In order for our parents and children to make healthy choices, they need to be informed about the food they are eating. That’s why what this legislation would do is make it easier for families to make informed and healthy food choices and give them the right information in the right place at the right time.

Having set a little bit of the context to it, I’d now like to, as they say in the United States, yield the floor to my colleague the Minister of Health. As I say, we’re also sharing our time with her parliamentary assistant to provide more details on this very important and forward-looking piece of legislation about truly creating a health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the government House leader. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant. I am very pleased to rise today to speak further to Bill 162, our government’s proposed Making Healthier Choices Act that I introduced on February 24.

It’s important for Ontario families to know that we have a plan to make our kids the healthiest they can be and that we are implementing strategies to make that happen. That’s why we introduced this legislation which will, if passed, require restaurant chains, convenience stores, grocery stores and other food service establishments with 20 or more locations to post calories for food and beverage items, including alcohol, on their menus.

The sad reality is that the incidence of overweight and obesity are on the rise in this province: 28% of Ontario children and youth are currently overweight or obese, and that figure rises to 40% for aboriginal children. The effects of childhood obesity can have negative consequences well into adulthood, and I speak from personal experience on that. We know that 75% of obese children grow up to become obese adults, and obesity in adulthood brings with it an increased risk of a range of chronic diseases, including heart disease, stroke, diabetes, cancer and osteoarthritis.

These illnesses take a serious toll on individuals and their families, and they also place a financial burden on our health care system. Here in Ontario, obesity results in an estimated $1.6 billion in direct health care expenditures alone every year for hospital care, drugs and physician services. You can add to that an additional $2.9 billion in indirect costs, such as lost earnings due to illness and premature death. It’s clear to me that doing nothing now will only cost the system more later.

This proposed legislation will help Ontario families make more informed and healthy food choices, which is a key to improving the overall health of our kids.

People lead busy lives today. They don’t cook and eat at home as much as previous generations did. Today, 60% of Canadians eat out once or more a week and more than 60% of young people eat in a fast food restaurant once or more a week. When eating away from home, portion sizes are bigger and people tend to consume more calories and fat and fewer fruits and vegetables. According to a 2011 Ipsos Reid survey, 95% of Ontario residents support requiring fast-food restaurants to post nutrition information on their menus. The need to act is clear, and the public is behind us. Ontarians support this legislation.

In addition to having public support, I was convinced from the outset that improving the health of our kids would not be possible without strong industry partnerships. So we consulted widely with key sectors including food and beverage manufacturing, agriculture, restaurant, food service, food retail, health care and most of all parents, to get their input on how to move forward. These consultations were completed in November 2013. I do want to thank all of these partners for the very thoughtful advice they provided, much of which is reflected in the legislation.

We also have strong support for legislating the posting of calories on menus from health experts in the US and Canada, including the Ontario Medical Association and Cancer Care Ontario. Here’s what Dr. Scott Wooder, the president of the Ontario Medical Association, had to say: “Ontario’s doctors wholeheartedly support the government’s plan to introduce menu labelling in large chain restaurants ... Obesity is strongly associated with an increase in chronic disease.”

Our proposed legislation requires the posting of calorie information for standard food and beverage items. This includes alcohol because, for adults, the calories found in alcohol should be counted as part of their daily caloric intake, and we want everyone to be able to make healthier choices.

The proposed legislation requires food service premises to display a contextual statement that explains the recommended daily intake of calories. This information will help people understand how calories fit into the context of a healthy diet. As well, the proposed legislation would authorize public health inspectors to inspect food service premises and enforce these requirements.

If the legislation passes, Ontario will be the first province in Canada to legislate posting calories on menus.

I want families to have easily accessible and transparent nutrition information when they buy prepared foods, because I know that when they have this information they’re more likely to make the wiser, healthier choice. As for industry, I want to say thank you to businesses like McDonald’s, who have welcomed this change. Businesses are used to adapting to the desires of their customers, and I’m confident that menus will change to reflect their customers’ wishes when more nutritional information is available. We also intend to provide the food industry with adequate time and the necessary tools to support implementation of the new regulations.

This proposed legislation is a key component of Ontario’s Healthy Kids Strategy, which responds to the Healthy Kids Panel’s recommendations for reducing childhood obesity. We developed this cross-government strategy to promote children’s health with a focus on, first, a healthy start, supporting healthy preconception, a healthy pregnancy and early years to build a foundation for a healthy childhood and beyond; we built it on healthy food, an essential component to achieve healthy weights and healthy childhood development; and, finally, healthy and active communities, because building healthy environments for children is the responsibility of the whole community.

This proposed legislation is the latest in a series of actions we’ve already taken to implement the recommendations of the Healthy Kids Panel’s report. We know that posting calories on menus on its own wouldn’t be enough. That’s why last September we announced new investments of $2.5 million to enhance breastfeeding supports to make sure that every new mum who wants and needs help with breastfeeding can get it.

In October of last year, we announced an investment of $3 million to expand Ontario’s Student Nutrition Program, creating more than 200 new breakfast and morning meal programs for about 33,000 more kids in higher-needs communities. More recently, as part of our five-year plan to enhance and expand this program, we committed an additional investment of $32 million over the next three years. That will give 56,000 more children and youth the nutritional boost they need to be healthy and succeed at school.

Last December, our government and the 2015 Pan Am/Parapan Am Games organizing committee launched the Pan Am/Parapan Am Kids Program to build excitement for the games and inspire young people to lead healthy and active lives. Pan Am/Parapan Am Kids will provide opportunities for kids to participate in a variety of games-related sports and para-sports activities, increase cultural understanding of Pan American countries and encourage community celebrations leading up to the 2015 games. Activities will begin at selected after-school programs during the holidays and ramp up in schools in the spring of 2014, building excitement all the way to the summer of 2015.

In January, the Premier and I announced the Healthy Kids Community Challenge that involves communities across Ontario partnering with organizations from all sectors of the community to work together to promote healthy eating, activity and sleeping among our kids. This is a fantastic opportunity for communities to build innovative, unique and community-driven programs together to make Ontario’s children the healthiest they can be.

The challenge will get families, schools, local businesses, and health, recreation and other organizations working together to create a strong network of supports that will improve the health of our young people because we want to create an environment that motivates kids to be active and healthy. We want our children to get the best start in life and put them on a path to lifelong health so they can reach higher and achieve their aspirations.

At least 30 communities will be chosen to participate in the challenge. Selected communities will be eligible for up to $1.5 million over four years in funding to develop community-based programs that encourage and promote physical activity, improve childhood nutrition and appropriate sleep. My ministry received dozens of terrific proposals from communities across Ontario. I hope to say more about the successful communities very soon.

Just last month, my colleague David Zimmer, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, announced that we’re expanding three highly successful programs that foster healthy eating and physical activity to make it easier for aboriginal children and youth to adopt healthy lifestyles. We’re doubling funding for the healthy eating and active living strategy delivered by the province’s aboriginal health access centres. We’re doubling funding for the Urban Aboriginal Healthy Living Program delivered by the Ontario Federation of Indian Friendship Centres and doubling funding for the Northern Fruit and Vegetable Program to expand to more communities with a high aboriginal population.

With this added funding, we’re implementing another recommendation of the Healthy Kids Panel, which recognized the unique challenges faced by young people living in northern and aboriginal communities.

I know that all members in this House want to give our kids and grandkids the best possible start in life so they can grow up to become healthy, productive adults who will continue to build this great province.

Passing this proposed legislation would give us all the opportunity to carry on with the important task of keeping our kids healthy. Together, we can help parents across the province make the right choices to keep themselves and their families healthy.

I’m confident that this legislation is on the right track and hope that members of all three parties will support its passage at second reading so it can be examined more closely at committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Oak Ridges–Markham.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to expand on the remarks made by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care regarding our government’s proposed Making Healthier Choices Act.

Since 2007, the federal government has required food labelling for prepackaged foods only. Current federal legislation does not require posting calories on prepared foods served at restaurants and other food service premises. Our proposed act would fill that legislative gap.

To support Ontarians in making healthier choices, the proposed act would, first of all, require food service premises with 20 or more locations in Ontario to post calories on menus and menu boards. The legislation would only apply to food service premises with 20 or more locations in Ontario that are selling or serving standard food and beverage items, including alcohol. It would not apply to small operators with a handful of locations that may be financially challenged in meeting the requirements of the legislation. The proposed legislation would require only calories to be posted, which is the single best proxy for meeting our commitment to reduce overweight and obesity in children.

Secondly, it would require food service premises to post a contextual statement regarding daily calorie requirements. This statement could include the fact that, for example, the average adult requires 2,000 calories a day; children, of course, need less. We know that calorie information in isolation does not provide the public with sufficient information to make healthy choices. That’s why displaying a contextual statement explaining the daily intake requirements for the nutrient in question will increase people’s understanding and use of the information.

Thirdly, the proposed legislation would provide regulation-making authority to: exempt or require additional operators and settings to adhere to the legislation; create exemptions to the calorie-posting requirement for food items; and require the posting of additional nutrients at a later time. Exemptions would be defined in regulation, in consultation with industry, and may include daily or seasonal specials or items on the menu for a limited time, for example.

Another provision would prohibit municipalities from creating bylaws to require additional nutrition information to be posted on menus and menu boards. Several boards of health across Ontario have approved resolutions to implement the posting of calories on menus in their regions. I’m sure this has been done with the best of intentions, but we want to demonstrate provincial leadership and avoid a patchwork of different municipal requirements, which would be onerous for businesses to meet.

A further provision would provide for an offence for failure of food service premise owners and operators to adhere to the legislation. This means that there would be fines for individuals and corporations who fail to meet the requirements of the legislation. Of course, we will authorize inspectors to inspect and enforce these requirements.

The proposed bill will permit the minister to appoint inspectors to support compliance with the bill. The intent is for local public health units to be responsible for inspection and enforcement activities that could be done during routine inspections of food service premises.

As the minister said earlier, the government consulted widely with key stakeholders, including parents, to develop this legislation. The ministry also consulted with the public through an online survey, which confirmed public support for moving forward with this legislation.

Speaker, we are confident that with this legislation we will raise public awareness about the calorie content of foods eaten outside the home; make it easier for people to make healthier choices when eating out; and encourage the industry to reformulate high-calorie menu items.

I think we can all get behind what this proposed legislation intends to achieve, and I ask all members to support its passage through second reading so that we can take a closer look at it in committee.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m glad to provide a few moments of comments on this bill.

I do want to express a concern. On March 4, 2014, the National Initiative for Eating Disorders, as a delegation, met with me in my office. I was very concerned; they have some concerns about this bill. Obviously, people with eating disorders, if they’re going into a restaurant and see the calorie count in front of them—that’s a concern.

I met with a woman named Wendy Preskow, who is the founder of the National Initiative for Eating Disorders. It’s a huge organization. There are about 600,000 Canadian men and women, who are impacted, with eating disorders. They have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness: an astounding 20%.

So I listened very intently to the group that was there—how they feel that there needs to be some better awareness. I know this bill was one bill they had expressed concern about because of the way that menus would be labelled. This is a big issue for them to try to deal with. I just hope the government realizes that there are some groups that feel there should be some recognition that eating disorders are a huge issue and that we need to have the Ministry of Health better engaged with some of these groups.

I took very seriously the comments that Wendy made to me that day about some of the struggles she’s had as a parent. The group that met with me really was concerned about the implementation of this bill and how it would affect people with eating disorders, and I promised them that I would bring their concerns and put them on the record today. I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to comment on some of the statements that have been made with regard to Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act. Certainly, and first and foremost, I would just like to say that the member from Nickel Belt, of course, has introduced legislation that is very similar to this four times prior, so I think it’s good that it’s here on the floor today.

I agree with the member from Kitchener Centre that, currently, the focus is on dealing with illness in the province of Ontario. I think that there is a genuine call from the citizens of this province to have a more holistic, interventionist and preventionist perspective on health care. I think that would serve all of us well, including the taxpayer.

I would agree with the member from Oak Ridges–Markham that there are certain legislative gaps that the federal government has left on this portfolio which need addressing. I think that this is a timely piece of legislation.

I do think, though, that when we look at the broad spectrum of health care in the province of Ontario, we need to approach it from various places. Even from a planning perspective—I don’t know if the Minister of Health noticed last week that the jurisdiction of Peel has the highest rates of diabetes, and they’ve connected that to planning, to the way the regional government has planned, because there’s sprawl and there’s a lack of exercise.

Certainly I hope that, within the confines of this House and outside, we look holistically at the way we plan our communities, at the way we address education and nutrition conversations through the health curriculum, for instance; that, perhaps, maybe the government may listen to some of our genuine calls to reform the Ontario Municipal Board so that municipalities are not overruled by that chapter; and that we plan for healthier communities where people are active. This is certainly a key piece: watching calories and connecting that conversation to smart decisions around healthy eating.

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

Mr. John Fraser: I’m pleased to have the opportunity to respond to the opening speeches on Bill 162, and I’d like to thank the member from Leeds–Grenville for his comments.

This bill is about a healthy relationship with food, and those concerns are rightly expressed. We have concerns with obesity. I think one of the ways we’ve tried to address this as a government and as a legislative body is through the Healthy Kids Panel and the Healthy Kids Community Challenge. The reality is we have to make sure that our young people have the right relationship with food and understand what they’re putting in their bodies, and understand what is healthy. This bill is one measure to do that.

Other measures, again, the Healthy Kids Panel: Understanding what the healthy choices are when you’re young is very important. It’s very easy to slide into a dietary situation where you’re just eating junk. I’m a prime example of that. It’s easy to slide into that. I think that if we inform the public, if we give our community the opportunity to understand what they’re buying, what’s in the food that they get—that’s the kind of information that they need to promote health. I encourage all members of the House to support this bill.

Again, to the member from Leeds–Grenville, I understand what he’s saying, and I appreciate that he raised that concern. I think there’s a way that we can all work this out together.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure to make a two-minute comment on Bill 162. I did hear a comment from the Minister of Health saying that if children are obese, the odds of them being obese adults go up significantly. She’s dead on in that. I’m not so sure about some of the other stuff in the bill.

Recently, a fellow gave me a calendar, and it was photos from the 1930s and 1940s in a local factory in the Pembroke area. Incidentally they were all men, but that was part of the culture at the time as well. But every one of the persons working in that factory was thin, because they all worked hard physically for a living, and they all ate less.

Obesity is the biggest problem we’ve got in our society right now as far as health is concerned going forward, in my opinion. I’m not an expert, but sometimes the experts don’t really have it right either.

But here’s the issue: Every one of our approaches to obesity has been very weak, very soft. Nobody wants to call a spade a spade. They want to find some namby-pamby way of thinking we’re going to fix obesity. We figure if we put calorie counts on menus, that’s just going to be the panacea. That’s not going to work.

We’ve got to change the way people think. Parents have to be proactive, really proactive, in their children’s health from day one—from day one. And we have to be double what we used to be, because the diversions and all of the things available to children to take them away from physical activity are much, much greater than they were when I was a kid and far greater than they were when my father would have been a child. We have to be very proactive about this, and we can’t beat around the bush. If we’re going to take care of obesity, it’s got to start early, and it’s got to be something we’re absolutely committed to as parents and a society.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister has a two-minute response.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to say thanks to the members from Leeds–Grenville, Kitchener–Waterloo, Oak Ridges–Markham, Ottawa South, Kitchener Centre and Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

I want to really focus my comments on enthusiastic comments made by the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. He says, and I think he’s right, that the biggest challenges we have in health care are those conditions which we create. They are diseases of wealth as much as they are diseases of infection that we used to fight in the health care system.

I completely support his argument that parents must be proactive in the health of their children. If he hasn’t already read the Healthy Kids Panel report, I’ll make sure he has a copy, because it speaks to many different things that need to happen in our society and in our families so that we actually stem the increase and begin to decrease the rates of childhood obesity in this province.

This legislation is one piece. It is not a panacea. This alone will not solve the problem, but it is one piece that gets us on track to giving parents the information they need to make healthier choices in the context of a society where eating out is the norm. Our families are busy. Parents need the information they need to make healthier choices.

Just yesterday I was in Ottawa, and happy to announce breastfeeding supports there as well as an expansion of a community health centre—big focus on the importance of getting kids off to a healthy start, and that includes supporting breastfeeding. It’s all part of a strategy that, taken collectively, will begin to change the trajectory of the health of our kids. That’s why I really think it’s important that all of us join together to move this forward as quickly as we can.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I seek unanimous consent to defer our one-hour lead.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Dufferin–Caledon seeks unanimous consent to step down on their one-hour lead. Agreed? Agreed.

The member for Dufferin–Caledon.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you very much, Speaker. It’s an honour to rise this morning to discuss Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act, on behalf of the residents of Dufferin–Caledon.

Bill 162 is basically the follow-up to the government’s announcement at a McDonald’s restaurant late last year that was going to bring forward legislation to require restaurants to list calories on their menus and reduce advertising to children.

This is standard form for this Premier and her government: Make a press conference announcing a new initiative, introduce a bill thereafter that is short on details and leaves much to regulation, and then

schedule the next press conference for the next initiative. In this case, I do find it interesting that Bill 162 was actually introduced on February 24. We are now mid-April and this is, today, in the chamber, the first time we’re discussing this piece of legislation.

It’s actually one of the reasons I’m glad I have the opportunity to speak to Bill 162 this morning, because I think this bill is the perfect example of something I’ve been talking about here lately in the chamber. What I’m referring to is the fact that sometimes, when you have too many priorities, you have no priorities.

What I mean by this is that we’ve seen many, many government bills come through this chamber in the last year under Premier Wynne. Indeed, many even have received royal assent. Yet still, we see no clear jobs plan from this government. Still, we see absolutely no plan or regard for the drastic overspending that has occurred under the Liberal government. To be honest, based on what we’ve seen so far from this Premier and finance minister, I would question whether they even think that an $11-billion-plus annual budget deficit is even a problem.

But even if we put aside the two most important pressing issues before Ontario currently that the government has no plan on—the job crisis and the out-of-control deficit spending—we still see little or no focus on any major issues. We see bills like Bill 162 announced and subsequently introduced months later, and yet we always seem to see only half measures. This lack of focus is not lost on Ontarians.

Earlier this month, the Orangeville Lions Club hosted their annual spring home show in Dufferin county. It’s a great event, and this year didn’t disappoint. It’s one of the busiest shows I can remember, actually. As always, the Lions did a fantastic job of organizing. I go to the show every year, and with this year being so busy, it was an even better opportunity than usual to hear what people in Dufferin–Caledon are saying about the Liberal government and their priorities. I can tell you, Speaker, I didn’t hear a single question or issue raised about Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act.

I didn’t hear anything about Bill 55 either, the Stronger Protection for Ontario Consumers Act. I didn’t hear anything about Bill 30, the Liberal government’s tanning bed bill, or about Bill 138, the Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act. Now, without a doubt, these are all very catchy titles, but they do not speak to the issues that Ontario residents are concerned about.

So while bills like these and the one before us here today, which seeks to require restaurants and fast-food chains to display calorie counts on their menus, may be admirable goals or worthy of discussion, I would argue that these bills are not representative of Ontarians’ priorities, because I didn’t hear about any of these government bills. What I did hear about was the $1.1 billion this government spent to save a handful of its MPPs’ seats.

What I did hear about, actually, is what remains the number one issue from Dufferin–Caledon residents and that’s the skyrocketing price of electricity under this government. Will Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act, impact individuals with their concerns? No.

I hear from families about how they’re worried about how they’re going to be able to afford that extra family night out or new soccer equipment for their son or daughter because they are worried that their gas bills have gone up by 40%. Dufferin–Caledon families are worried about these rising costs of living because they may not have seen their paycheque rise substantially these past few years, and they’ve seen, every year, more fees, more charges, higher taxes.

So, Speaker, when we—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Renfrew, your member is speaking and you’re holding court over there. It’s so loud, I’m having trouble hearing her. So be nice, if you can. The minister might want to hear what she has to say. Thank you.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thanks, Speaker.

So when we discuss legislation like Bill 162, we have to ask ourselves: At what point does the government acting a little bit on many issues become counterproductive? I think, rather than act a little bit on a lot of issues, the government should focus on doing a lot on one issue, and that’s creating jobs here in Ontario. I know that would be priority number one under a Tim Hudak PC government. Again, when you have too many priorities, you have no priorities.

As I mentioned, however, Bill 162 in and of itself is not entirely without merit. This bill is being showcased by the Liberal government as an effort to curb obesity, particularly childhood obesity. No doubt about it, this is a very serious issue and one that every parent needs to be aware of.

The problem isn’t with the government highlighting an issue like child obesity. The problem is, will Bill 162 actually help? What difference, if any, will Bill 162 actually make? There are a number of problems with this legislation, not the least of which being that it leaves much to be determined by regulation.

First off, however, I want to briefly overview what the bill actually does and does not do. As I have mentioned, were Bill 162 to become law, owners and operators of “regulated food service premises” would be required to display the number of calories in each standard food item. They would also be required to include a contextual statement that is supposed to inform patrons about their daily caloric requirements—for example, “The average adult is recommended to consume X number of calories per day,” that sort of thing.

Bill 162 would also authorize public health inspectors to monitor and enforce these labelling requirements and issue fines to those who aren’t complying with the new rules. The fines would be $500 for the first offence, $1,000 for subsequent offences for individuals, and $5,000 for the first and $10,000 for subsequent offences for corporations. Here’s the catch, though: How this information would have to be displayed and what, if anything, would be exempt is left to regulation.

I will acknowledge that the government has committed to consultation with stakeholders as those regulations are being crafted, but nonetheless, this is a continuing thread with this government, where they leave significant portions of legislation to regulation.

How the information is displayed is arguably as important as whether it is required to be displayed at all. Yet as we debate this bill here this morning, we have no idea how this information will be displayed, as the government is basically telling us, “We’ll figure that out later.”

These labelling and display requirements would affect “regulated food service premises,” which are defined as places that sell meals for immediate consumption with 20-plus locations that operate under the same name. So this includes the fast-food operators in grocery stores, as well as other locations that are brought under the act by regulation. There is that regulation approach again.

So that’s the basis of the bill, and here are some of the key issues with it. First of all, Bill 162 would extend to alcoholic beverages. So owners and operators would have to display calories and the contextual statement, I presume, on alcoholic beverages as well as food. Tell me, Speaker, how on earth does this impact childhood obesity? I don’t understand how anyone could possibly argue that displaying calorie counts beside alcoholic drinks would have an impact on childhood obesity.

Continuing on the question of whether Bill 162 will affect the childhood obesity issue, I want to touch on the government’s failed attempt to introduce healthy lunches in our schools, yet another previous announcement and initiative. This, too, was a lauded and notable program, but, due to lack of Liberal follow-through, seems to have failed miserably.

I will highlight an

article that Karen Howlett from the Globe and Mail wrote in December, where it talks about “Ontario Schools’ Healthy Menus Have Students Seeking Fast Food Elsewhere, Auditor Says.” This says it all. The

article begins with:

“It was a noble policy aimed at combatting childhood obesity.

“French fries, burgers and chicken nuggets were all banished from school cafeterias across Ontario, and replaced with healthier fare....

“But the Ontario government’s much-vaunted Healthy Schools Strategy—part of former Premier Dalton McGuinty’s platform in the 2007 election campaign—has been a dismal failure, says the provincial auditor in her 2013 annual report.

“Students have abandoned the school cafeteria,” said the Ontario Auditor General in her report.

“‘High-school principals told us that many students head to fast-food places instead,’ Ms. Lysyk said.

“At schools in three boards visited by auditors, the report says, cafeteria sales plunged by 25% to 45% after the province introduced healthier food choices in 2010. Vending machine sales dropped even further—by as much as 85%.

“The idea behind the policy was to ban junk food high in fat, salt or sugar from school cafeteria menus. But at one unidentified school where the auditors sampled the cafeteria fare, many menu items did not meet the nutritional criteria.... A bowl of soup, for example, contained twice the amount of fat allowed under the Healthy Schools Strategy.

“The government introduced the policy to tackle a dramatic increase in the number of overweight children. Nearly one in three students is overweight, says the auditor’s report. And almost 12% are considered obese—nearly twice as many as in the late 1970s.

“But the auditor says in her report that neither the Ministry of Education nor the school boards have monitored the food and drinks sold in cafeterias to ensure that they comply with the government’s nutrition standards.

“As well, the auditor says, there is no formal monitoring to ensure that students in grades 1 to 8 get 20 minutes of daily physical activity as prescribed under the Healthy Schools Strategy.”

As a parent, I can speak to that issue because, as you know, we’ve had many, many no bus days; 15 was my last count in Dufferin–Caledon. Some schools have taken it upon themselves to remove the 20-minutes of DPA as they call it, daily physical activity, to make up the time. So even though the 20 minutes of daily physical activity is prescribed by the Legislature, by the government, school boards are removing that and not even ensuring that the kids get the 20 minutes.

We understand that we need to deal with childhood obesity. My question is: Does Bill 162 touch on it? I had an excellent meeting with the Ontario Federation of Agriculture last week, and they are raising this issue. Their suggestion—which I actually told them seemed like a low bar—was that upon graduation, students should be able to prepare six meals from scratch. When I think of my own family situation, when I think of my own children, I can’t imagine that at 17 I would have a son or a daughter who could only prepare six meals. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture believes that that’s where we have to start.

I think that that is a laudable goal. If you want to make a difference in childhood obesity, in general obesity, then people have to understand how meals are prepared, what’s in them and what the impact of it is.

Very briefly, I read an

article that talked about how to deal with obesity, how to deal with a society that seems to be getting bigger and not healthier. The

article stated that your health is based 80% on what you do, and 20% is based on what you put in your mouth. Is Bill 162 actually going to deal with childhood obesity and ensure that our kids are healthier adults? I don’t think it is. I don’t think the goal that you are trying to achieve is going to happen as a result of Bill 162.

I gather the government’s response is to force these restaurants to display the calorie counts, but will it actually make a difference? I’m not sure it will. Do our children really not know that the double cheeseburger from the fast-food restaurant is high in calories? Or do they know, and they don’t care? I don’t believe Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act, will help with the issue of childhood obesity.

I will not be supporting this bill in its current form because I think that the issue of childhood obesity is an important issue that deserves a thoughtful and well-thought-out approach. Bill 162 isn’t that approach, and that’s why I can’t support this legislation.

I’ve given a few examples. I’m blessed to have an Olympic athlete in my extended family. There was one

article I was reading about one of the rowers. For breakfast, he consumes 10,000 calories. It’s not what you put in; it’s what you do after you eat.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Input and output.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Yes. Junk in, junk out: I get that. We have to make sure that, as parents, as a society, we give options. Simply putting an apple on someone’s chair or in the cafeteria does not mean that they’re going to eat it, and it does not mean they’re going to choose that over a granola bar that happens to be high in calories, or something worse.

I think that, collectively, society can do a better job of explaining the cause and effect of eating; making poor choices; eating, for lack of a better word, stuff that isn’t going to make our bodies healthier—but Bill 162 is not that solution.

The reality is, you can go and ask at any McDonald’s restaurant, any of the fast-food chains—right now, they do provide a list of what the calorie choices are. Speaking as a mother of a teenager and a soon-to-be teenager, I can tell you with a great deal of certainty, that is not how they choose what they are going to order off that fast-food menu. What does make a difference is what their parents are eating and what is provided to them on a regular basis for their meals at home. To suggest that Bill 162 is going to be the solution for childhood obesity, and ultimately a healthier society—I think we’re misleading ourselves.

I think that there are better ways that we can focus. I’ll go back to the 20 minutes of DPA, daily physical activity. The Minister of Education is in the chamber. I would suggest to her that she needs to reinforce with school boards and principals the value, the importance of those 20 minutes. We legislated that as MPPs, so now we have to make sure that it’s actually being followed through and that the kids are getting that 20 minutes. That regular activity and that consistency of having the daily physical activity is going to go much further than limiting or posting calorie counts at a fast-food joint.

I would also suggest that there are ways we can do it that involve the parents and the caregivers, to ensure that we are doing a proper job of educating and informing our children.

We all know that when we smoke, there are health repercussions. Are we telling our kids that when they have French fries five days a week, there are health repercussions? I don’t know. If we’re not, we need to. Is that a government role? I don’t believe it is. I think that, ultimately, there has to be some participation and some understanding. And to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture’s point, if there is a large segment of society that doesn’t understand how to prepare a proper meal without high-in-fat, processed, salty items, then let’s deal with that and let’s educate and inform people. But Bill 162 is not going to accomplish that goal.

I would just finish with, if we have some priorities, if we have some concerns that we want to raise, let’s focus on those. Bill 162 is not the solution

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m happy to contribute to the debate today for Bill 162,

An Act to require certain food service premises to display nutritional information.

Speaker, the title of the bill is pretty clear. They would like service industries that provide us with food to make sure that people can make educated choices when they’re picking items off the menu to eat at mealtime.

Oftentimes, and what we heard the member from Dufferin–Caledon talking about, it’s lifestyle choices. We all have a part to play in our own health and our lifestyle choices, in what we eat and how we choose to have extracurricular activity in order to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Part of that, though, is that we have a busy lifestyle. Ontarians, Canadians—parents usually are both working. They’re running the kids off to soccer. There are all kinds of activities going on after work, and a lot of them run in and grab a quick meal on the run. I think it’s important that they can have that option to know what the calorie count is on one choice as opposed to the other.

I can tell you that there are many restaurants now that have decided that instead of just offering the fries, they have a side dish of salad. I’m very impressed with a lot of teenagers I see. When I go into a fast-food restaurant at times as well to pick up a quick meal, they’re ordering the salad. I think it is making an impact that we educate our generation, our youth today, our adults today to make sure that we can make healthier choices. It is possible. I think posting information when people are ordering can help people make healthier choices.

The bill, I’m sure, needs to be strengthened. I know our health critic here, France Gélinas, will be speaking to it. I look forward to hearing France’s speech later today.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: I listened attentively to the member from Dufferin–Caledon. She always has very interesting things to say. But I’m disappointed in her speech today because this is a small but important step that would help young people especially deal with this epidemic of diabetes we have across this province that’s a huge cost to our health care system.

To say that we should be doing all these grandiose things—when we come forward with one meaningful step, “No, we don’t agree with it.” So if you don’t take that first step to help kids especially—because they’re being bombarded around the clock by these ads for fast food: “Eat pizza.” “Eat hamburgers.” “Drink Coke.” It’s non-stop on the Internet, on the radio and on television. At least we can give them a bit of help to deal with this bombardment.

These mega-multi-billion dollar international corporations that sell fat, sugar and fructose around the clock—our kids deserve a little bit of protection. All we’re saying is let the kids know and let adults know.

There’s the member from Durham there supporting the big fast-food industry; I know. But we’ve got to give the kids a bit of information. The kids are smart. They’ll see. Why should you take that super-hyper Big Mac for 3,000 calories when you may be able to get a chicken sandwich—still not that great—for maybe 1,000? Just give the kids some information. The member from Durham disagrees with this. He says that Coke and McDonald’s are great for kids. They’re not.

They have to give some information. That’s all this bill asks for, some simple information about how much fat is in that fast food that’s killing a lot of people prematurely. We’ve got to take this step.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s amazing; we’ve been talking a lot about McDonald’s. I’m thinking that they’re getting all kinds of advertising just this morning on this particular discussion.

Unfortunately, when we take a look at this particular bill, there is no silver bullet, as one might say, to correct everything. I have concerns about childhood obesity, as everyone in this particular Legislature has. But you know what? You talk about making sure that all the food manufacturers and so on list—and people are getting in the habit now. They go to the grocery store, especially parents, and they’ll look at how many calories, how many carbohydrates, what’s the sodium, the salt content and so on. I think that’s a good idea.

But again, when we talk about childhood obesity and we take a look at children, I really think, as has been mentioned by my colleague from Dufferin–Caledon, that you take a look at education. It should start in the house. You talk about calories. You talk about educating our kids. You take a look at the calorie intake. You take a look at the carbohydrate intake. Cut back on the sugars. Cut back on the salts. Cut back on the breads—all that stuff that seems to kind of puff us up. I used to say, if you’re hungry, you have a hole, you fill it, and so on. But I think we really need to take a good, hard look at that.

Maybe one of the things we need to look at, from an educational point of view, is maybe making it mandatory for kids in high school—for example, instead of taking one credit in high school for health and phys. ed., you make it mandatory for four: one for every year. Then it’s a constant reminder for these children, and, of course, not only from the health side, educational, but also on the physical side, they get active. So I think it’s very important that we take a look at this.

Let’s not create more red tape. Unfortunately, I can’t support Bill 162.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was quite interesting to listen to the MPP talk about the lack of focus and the half measures. In some ways, I will tend to agree with what she said, that a lot of what is being put forward is being put forward with really no clear intention of bringing it to the finish line.

On my side of the House, I’m truly committed to making sure that this, the calorie labelling, makes it to the finish line. It is something that I have been working on for a very long time.

Unfortunately, it is true that the minister brought this idea forward last fall and introduced it for first reading in February of this year, and two and a half months later, the Conservatives haven’t even done their lead, and I’m about to start mine. When you have over 180 bills on the docket that need to be dealt with and then you see those ideas being floated forward but not being called for first and second reading—I have a bill very, very similar to this, Bill 149, that has passed second reading.

If what we’re really interested in is making it to the finish line, making sure that the next time you go to McDonald’s, you will see “Big Mac: $2.99, 540 calories,” then there is a way to get to the finish line way faster. My bill has passed second reading. It is sitting in committee, and we could have debate on it and a public hearing this week, clause-by-clause next week, and it would be done. But no. We are bringing the minister’s bill, very similar to mine, for second reading for the first time.

The member is right: Are they really committed to this?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Dufferin–Caledon has two minutes.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Thank you for the comments from London–Fanshawe, Eglinton–Lawrence, Chatham–Kent–Essex and Nickel Belt.

I particularly liked the “lifestyle choice” line from the London–Fanshawe member. I’m a parent, so I view things in a bit of a different area. It is about lifestyle choice. It is about risk versus reward. It is about explaining to our children, to our nieces, to our nephews, to anybody who will listen, basically, what happens when you consume these items.

Can you have the occasional bottle of pop? Absolutely. But you don’t need to have it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. I think that’s ultimately the responsibility that we have to explain to people. It’s not about, “This is bad; this is good.” There are quality products that, if you ate them regularly, would not be healthy for you. I’ll talk about potatoes. Potatoes happen to be a product that is grown in abundance in Dufferin–Caledon. I would never suggest to anyone that they should be eating potatoes for breakfast, lunch and dinner, but it is a healthy product. So we have to be able to make choices, to understand what those choices are and to educate our people.

Lifestyle choice, what you put in, how active you are: all play a role in, ultimately, how healthy and active society is. It helps us in our education and learning. It helps us in our health care in controlling costs. So there is an opportunity here, but I can’t see Bill 162 solving it.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to do my one-hour lead on Bill 162, the Making Healthier Choices Act. I realize that I will have to do this lead in two steps, but I will use my first 15 minutes wisely and get as much on the record as I can. The reason I do this is because I seriously don’t know how committed the government is to bringing this to the finish line, and I’m really worried that two and a half months after the government introduced this bill for the first time we are just doing our leads now.

This is the first time we have had an opportunity to talk about this bill; yet, it was announced with a big press conference by the minister last fall at a McDonald’s. I attended, and a lot of people were in support. She finally introduced the bill on February 24 of this year, and we’re finally starting to talk about it. My 15 minutes may be it, Mr. Speaker, so listen carefully. This may be the last time you hear about this bill. Hopefully I’m wrong.

So I think it’s no surprise to anyone who has been following what’s going on at Queen’s Park that this is an issue that the NDP has been pushing for a long, long time, and I want to take you a little bit through the chronology of the bill. The first version of my bill was called the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act, and I introduced it for first reading in March 2009—so more than five years ago, Mr. Speaker. The bill was then Bill 156.

It went to second reading on April 9, 2009, and it passed second reading. I remember you were there with me, Speaker, when this particular event happened, and I will always remember that there hadn’t been much time between the introduction for first reading and bringing it for second reading, as a private member’s bill, and the restaurant industry had come out in full force. The number of lobbyists on the lobbying registry had jumped in a way that we had rarely seen, and they were all here at Queen’s Park with one goal: to make sure that this bill didn’t pass.

I was sitting in the third row with you at the time, Speaker, making my points, trying to bring this bill forward, and the gallery on the east side was packed. They were all restaurant lobbyists, all wearing their little T-shirts that said, “The Keg,” “Montana’s,” “Harvey’s”—all of the big chain industries. They were all there and they were all staring me down to the point where, if a stare could have made me drop dead—I think this is what they had wished. But I survived, and not only did I survive the stare, but the bill went through.

Applause.

M me France Gélinas: Yes, the bill went through. I have to be honest, it was an open vote—not something we see very often lately, but at the time it was an open vote. Some of the Liberals voted for and some voted against, and it passed by three votes—not a ringing endorsement or anything, but this is a democracy, and it passed by three votes, so it passed. It went to second reading. I was quite proud of my colleagues and the people who had helped make this bill pass second reading. And then it sat there.

At the time, we had a majority Liberal government. They were the ones who would decide by themselves which bills were to be called for committee work, and my bill stayed at the bottom of the pile until the House prorogued, and then that was the end of that effort.

So that was back in 2009. Since then, I have reintroduced the bill and the work continued to be done. I have met with the restaurant industry, with the beverage industry and with the manufacturers a number of times to try to take into account their reality. At the same time, an ever-growing number of health agencies came behind me and supported the idea.

After the House prorogued, which meant that after all of those efforts the bill had died, I reintroduced it in June 2010. It was called, again, Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating, and the bill number was then 90. Bill 90 was very simple. It required the disclosure of calories on restaurant menus, and the restaurants were defined as the big ones. They have to have at least five sites in Ontario and at least an income of $5 million. Basically, all we’re asking them to do is—the big chains already have that information.

They already have brochures and websites and posters that tell you that information, but the way we have it now is that this information is on a poster on the way to the bathroom, or in a brochure under the counter that nobody can find, or on a website that you look at after you’re sitting down with your meal, after you have already ordered. All we’re asking them to do is to take that information from the way they’re giving it to us now and put it on the menu board.

The reason that the chain has to be big enough is that, in order for this to work, the portions in the recipes have to be very standardized. If you go to a McDonald’s or a Keg or a Harvey’s, the portion size in the recipes are always the same; therefore, when you put the number of calories, you know what you’re talking about. The mom-and-pop restaurants, who basically cook with—if carrots are in season, they do carrots; if tomatoes are in season, they cook with this. They have no idea how many calories are in the food that they’re putting on their menu, and that’s fine.

We’re not asking them to do this calorie count, which requires a little bit of time, effort, energy and knowledge. We wouldn’t expect the little mom-and-pop restaurants to have that information, but we do expect the big chains, including all of the grocery stores that are selling more and more meals to bring home, to have that information, and that’s what we were asking them to do.

We’ve gone through Bill 156 once. It passed second reading. Then, prorogue: It means that the giant eraser, the magic eraser from Mr. Clean, was applied to it—gone. Reintroduced as Bill 90 in 2010, and then again the House prorogued. That time, it was—I never had a chance to bring it for second reading before the 2011 election. So that bill died.

Not to be outdone, after the 2011 election came 2012, when I reintroduced the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act. It was now labelled Bill 86. By the time I reintroduced it in 2012, I would say that most of the people who know nutrition—and I’m not part of that select group—had really convinced me that the body of evidence was there to not only put the number of calories on the menu board but to add a flag for high and very high sodium. I will explain the health effects of this a little bit later.

By the time 2012 came around, I reintroduced the same bill, Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating. It was now called Bill 86, and not only do we mandate the number of calories beside every item on the menu, but we also mandate a flag. I’m sure, when you go to restaurants, sometimes when you open the menu you will see a little pepper that tells you, “This thing is spicy,” or you will see a sign for vegan or vegetarian etc. The flag is the sign to let you know that this item has either high or very high sodium content. So that’s Bill 86.

In October 2012, I was getting ready for second reading, and we all remember that that week, just before my second member ballot was to come on that Thursday, the House prorogued. That was when then-Premier McGuinty decided to leave us and prorogue the House in the process. I have said before that I took that a little bit personally, because my private member’s bill was coming. But apparently he had other reasons for leaving and proroguing.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I don’t think it was all about you.

M me France Gélinas: It was not all about me, I know. I agree; I agree. Nevertheless, my bill died once again.

But I’m a patient person. I’m very perseverant. When I see something, I don’t let go. So in 2013, I reintroduced the Healthy Decisions for Healthy Eating Act as well as Healthy Decisions Made Easy, where I put together a few health promotion ideas, one of the ones being menu labelling as well as a flag for high sodium. I’m happy to say that on February 20 of this year, I had the chance to debate this bill for second reading. I’m really proud of all of my colleagues in this House. All of the MPPs decided to support my bill, Bill 149, Healthy Decisions Made Easy, and it passed second reading on February 20 of this year.

It has then been sitting on the docket of a standing committee of the Legislature, and could so easily be moved forward. We are presently debating a bill which has a brother very, very similar to it that has already made it to second reading. I don’t understand why we don’t just go to Bill 149, call it at committee and be done with something that is so, so small but, at the same time, could be so significant.

I agree with everything that has been said. Will posting calories on menus and menu boards reverse the obesity crisis? Of course not; of course not. It’s not going to do this. But it’s going to give people information that they want.

I’ve been working on this for over five years. There have been more polls done by restaurant associations, by public health units, by everybody else on this. Did you know, Speaker, that 95% of Ontarians want to see calories on their menu boards? Ninety-five per cent of Ontarians want to have that information. Isn’t that reason enough to give it to them? Is it going to change the world and reverse the obesity epidemic? No, but it’s going to give them information to make healthier choices for themselves and for their family. Very, very seldom can we see an issue that unites all Ontarians to the point where 95% of us vote in the same direction and say, “Yes, we want this.”

Sure, it leaves 5% who don’t, but frankly, Speaker, you could offer paradise and some people wouldn’t want it. Am I hoping to get 100%? No. We’re never going to get 100%, but 95% in our kind of work is pretty hard to get.

This is where this bill pulls at. Ontarians have told us they understand that they need more than just calorie information, and they understand that they need more than just a sodium flag, but they see it as a good step, a step in the right direction, a step that will help them make healthy decisions. And the science behind it supports them.

People who travel will know that if you go south of the border, if you go into the States, McDonald’s has taken it upon themselves to put menu labelling in all of their restaurant chains. I used to remember the number of tens of thousands of McDonald’s in the States—I forgot what the number is—but all of them, within a period of one week, had their menus and menu boards changed to add the calories on them.

We have the state of New York and the city of New York that have had a similar bill, where they have mandated restaurants to put the calories right on the menus and menu boards. Did it change the world? No. But when you look at a public health issue as important as obesity—in the public health world, they will tell you that the biggest threat to human health after cigarettes in our province and in our country is obesity. Now, in states, in provinces and in places where you put menu labelling, where you put the number of calories directly on the menu or the menu board, people use that to make healthy choices.

People use that to make choices that, on average, will go from a low of 75 calories less per order to a high of about 150 calories less per order.

You may look at this and say, “Well, what’s 100 calories more or less?” But when you apply it to the millions of people who eat in restaurants each and every single day, on a public health scale it’s a game-changer. You are on a path to making healthier changes because you will consume less calories, and if you don’t change anything else—I mean I agree with the member for—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The time has expired. It’s now 10:15. We’ll continue with the debate next time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House is recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Mantha: I just want to give credit where credit is due. Sometimes when we come here to do our jobs, people provide us with assistance and make us look good. I’ll introduce my constituency assistant Cindy Restoule. She’s all the way up here from Elliot Lake.

Ms. Soo Wong: I am shortly joined by students in grade 7 from Kennedy Public School and Terry Fox Public School, along with their teachers Mrs. Mohamed and Ms. Chan, and the vice-principal, Debbie Tierney. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bill Walker: It is my pleasure to welcome page captain Calvin Devries and his cousin A.J. Jonker—who is a former page from the spring session 2013—and his aunt Cathy Jonker, who will be in the gallery this morning. Welcome. Calvin, thanks for all that you’ve done while you’ve been here.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I would like to introduce Marty Sarkisian and Andy Petrowski. Andy is a regional councillor from Niagara. Marty is a citizen from the Niagara region and a GM retiree.

M. Grant Crack: Il me fait un très grand plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue à M. Jean-Yves Léonard, le président de Valoris, et au directeur exécutif de Valoris, M. Raymond Lemay, who are here today. We met with Minister McMeekin and had a great meeting. I wish them a great day at question period and Queen’s Park. Merci beaucoup.

Mr. John Vanthof: I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate our page captain for today, Callista Laffrenier, and to welcome once again her mother, Karen, in the public gallery.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: The page Isabella O’Brien, who is from my riding, has enticed some friends, Claire Hunter and Jessica Bohm, to be with us today. Who knows, maybe they’ll be here as pages too. We would like to welcome them to the assembly this morning.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Power plants

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, when you came in with your transition team after becoming Liberal leader, you sat down with David Livingston and the outgoing staff. In that first meeting, I imagine that you told Mr. Livingston to protect all documents around the gas plant scandal.

Can you answer a simple yes or no question: Did you direct David Livingston to preserve all documents, including emails, related to the gas plant scandal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, I did not direct David Livingston. He was the chief of staff to the former Premier. He was never my staff. I never directed him in any way whatsoever.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m absolutely perplexed, Premier. You were the leader of the Liberal Party, you were the incoming Premier, and you gave no direction to preserve documents related to the gas plant scandal?

This is the difference between that Premier and how I would handle it. I would want the information; I would want it on the table; I would want all of the answers.

This tells me that you were either in on it or you looked the other way. I don’t know what other conclusion we could reach, Premier. So are you telling me today that you made no effort whatsoever to get to the bottom of the gas plant scandal? You did not give, as one of your first directions, to preserve all documents so that taxpayers can get answers on where all that money went and who benefited?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are two parts to that question. I did not direct David Livingston. I did not direct the staff of the former Premier. I never did. They were the staff of another Premier. I did not direct them.

What I did do when I came into this office, and I said that I was going to do it during my leadership: I opened up—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I also heard something that I’ve said in the past I don’t like to hear. If I hear it again, I’ll try to pinpoint who said it.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I did exactly what I said I was going to do, which was to make sure that all the documents that were being asked for were turned over, that they were made public, that the committee had the scope to be able to ask the necessary questions about the whole issue around the relocation of the gas plants. That’s what I committed to, and that’s what I did when I came into this office.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you looked the other way. The first question I would have asked as Premier is, get all the facts on the table. Don’t let any documents be destroyed. I can’t believe you looked the other way. That makes you complicit in this scandal. You either knew and allowed it to happen or you looked the other way, both of which disqualify you from being trusted to run the province of Ontario. I’m still absolutely incredulous you didn’t ask that basic question. It sounds like your first goal was plausible deniability.

Let me give another example. I know this man, a hero of yours, Paul Martin: much to be admired about his record as finance minister in Canada. Many of his campaign team are now part of your team. At least he did the right thing when there were allegations of criminal behaviour. He called a judicial inquiry. It’s called the Gomery inquiry. I would call a judicial inquiry.

My question is this: I would. Paul Martin did. Why didn’t you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just be clear with the Leader of the Opposition. My office preserved documents. In fact, we turned over 30,000 pages of documentation to the committee. We know that the scope of the committee was changed, that the questions that were being asked were being answered, because I made it clear when I came into this office that that was going to be our modus operandi. That is what we committed to. That is what I have done. I did not direct the staff of the former Premier.

We changed the rules around preserving documents. We made sure that all staff in my government had training so that they would understand the rules around preserving documents. I upheld that commitment that I made as I came into the leadership.

Power plants

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. Premier, you’ve threatened a lawsuit on me, on my colleague from Nepean–Carleton. You have tried to shut down debate. I’ll tell you this directly: We won’t cease. We won’t desist. We will pursue this and get facts for the taxpayers in the province of Ontario.

I only wish, Premier, that you would put as much energy as you are into suing the opposition to actually get answers for taxpayers, to hold Liberals to account: instead of looking the other way, instead of giving promotions, to actually hold those Liberals to account. I can’t believe you didn’t ask the basic questions. I can’t believe you won’t call a judicial inquiry. Why are you pointing at us? Why don’t you point at your own team and hold them to account?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, during the transition from the former Premier’s tenure until mine, I asked the Auditor General to examine the costs of the relocation of the gas plants. My staff worked with the staff of the Leader of the Opposition to make sure we set up the committee. That commitment that I made to open up the process was upheld. That’s exactly what we did.

As for my willingness to engage in debate, I am willing any time to engage in debate while we are talking about facts. I have said that, and I have engaged in debate in this House day after day. I have appeared before committee twice. I have said exactly what my role was and what I knew to be the truth, Mr. Speaker. I will have that debate any time. But when it comes to false allegations, I will not debate false allegations.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs will come to order. And I know what I’m doing.

Supplementary question, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, I think the language from the aboriginal affairs minister says what their plan is. He just said, “Get your chequebook out, Tim.”

This is all about trying to intimidate the opposition. You’re trying to shut us down from asking legitimate questions. You have ordered us to cease and desist asking the tough questions. My team and I will not cease—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m hearing noises on both sides, actually, when he’s trying to put the question. Come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Tim Hudak: You’ve asked us to cease and desist. We’re not going to cease; we’re not going to desist. We’re going to pursue the facts as far as they lead. This looks like a Premier who is more interested in putting things under the carpet than getting in the facts.

I’ll ask you a very simple question: Premier, why don’t you put the same energy into finding and holding the Liberals accountable who may have committed these crimes? Why don’t you put that level of energy that you put into the lawsuit into actually getting taxpayers in the province of Ontario—this is all about your—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would just say to the Leader of the Opposition that all my energy goes into making sure that we make the right decisions for the people of Ontario. That’s what my energy goes into, Mr. Speaker. Part of that, when I came into this leadership, into this role, was to make sure that we had the questions answered that were being asked about the relocation of the gas plants. That’s why I asked the AG to do an investigation. That’s why we opened up the committee. That’s why we changed the rules around the siting of energy infrastructure and we changed the rules around preservation of documents.

Far from wanting to shut down debate, I opened up the debate. I wanted the debate opened up. That is the kind of debate that I think the people of Ontario deserve.

What the people of Ontario do not deserve is that we not deal with the facts. I believe that dealing with the facts is what must happen if we’re going to have a healthy political debate in Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, with all due respect, threatening lawsuits is not about democratic debate; it’s about shutting them down. That’s what your plan is.

Secondly, if you truly were interested in getting the facts, you would have made sure that documents were not destroyed. These are OPP anti-rackets division criminal allegations that took place in the Premier’s office. You were in charge at the time.

I know you’re an intelligent woman. I know you’re dedicated to your job. But respect our intelligence too. We simply don’t believe that Peter Faist could have gone in and destroyed documents on up to 24 computers, called himself Wendy Wai, used a password, and you never knew. None of those 24 staffers called it to your attention, your chief of staff? I don’t think there is a single person in the province of Ontario who believes that alibi. It’s simply not credible.

Premier, let me ask you this: Will you finally do the right thing? If you really want the facts, call a judicial inquiry, just like your hero Paul Martin did—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let’s hear what OPP Commissioner Chris Lewis said. He said, “I am told by our investigators that the OPP is receiving good co-operation from senior government officials in this matter.” There was full co-operation. That’s February 27, 2014.

The Auditor General, in October 2013, said, “I did have the opportunity to meet with the Premier ... it was good to hear that they are taking the report seriously and they are taking some actions and changing the way things are going to be done in the future so that a situation like this doesn’t evolve.” That was October 8, 2013.

Dr. Ann Cavoukian, the Information and Privacy Commissioner: The Premier “has been fully co-operative with me and my office.... In fairness to Premier Wynne, she said, ‘you have my full co-operation, whatever you want from us.’”

Mr. Speaker, we have done everything in our power to make sure that all of the information was available. We will continue to do that, but I am going to insist every time that we debate factual information.

Power plants

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. The Premier claims that she didn’t learn about the widespread deletion of emails and wiping of computers until the OPP anti-rackets warrant was unsealed. When did her staff learn about the allegations?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I am going to say exactly what I have said to the Leader of the Opposition and previously in this House: When I was in the leadership race, I knew that there needed to be a change in terms of the way documentation was provided. I believed that there needed to be an opening-up of the process.

We did that. We opened up the scope of the process of the committee. We provided tens of thousands of documents to the committee. I have appeared before the committee twice, and we continue to co-operate in every way possible. That is what I said I would do, and that is what I have done.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier suggests that she knew nothing about allegations that computers were being wiped by senior Liberals, even though the OPP says that three of her current staff were among those who had their computers accessed and wiped.

Her Minister of Government Services says that he didn’t want to know anything about an investigation. He never once discussed it with his chief of staff, even though the OPP said that her computer was one of the ones wiped.

Is the Premier also asserting that no one on her staff was keeping tabs on a file that could see senior Liberals facing jail time?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I will repeat: I knew, coming into this office, that there was a lot of work that we were going to need to do in order to make sure that the process around the relocation of the gas plants was opened up, and that there were questions that were being asked that had not been answered. So I knew perfectly well that we were going to have to change the way that we were working with the opposition—and with the public, quite frankly—to make sure that all the information that was asked for was provided. I made that commitment.

I knew, from the moment that I began the leadership race, long before I was in the Premier’s office, that we were going to have to make changes and we were going to have to open up the process.

That’s what we did. That’s why we’re having this discussion. We have co-operated with the committee and the ongoing investigation, and we will continue to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier claims she was in the dark. The House leader and Minister of Government Services claims he was in the dark. We’re now being told that staff at every level not only didn’t know what the OPP was investigating; they didn’t know what their own internal investigations had found, and the Premier supposedly hasn’t spoken to people she works with every single day about whether their computers were wiped.

The people stuck paying the bill for the gas plant scandal, the people whom the Premier is supposed to be accountable to, might find this just a little bit hard to believe. What does the Premier have to say to them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I have to say is that there is an independent police investigation ongoing. It’s entirely independent, and that’s as it should be. The OPP investigators have been working with the federal crown attorney. I know the leader of the third party knows that, and that’s in order to make sure that it is an independent inquiry. I will not interfere with that.

We are co-operating with both the requests from the committee and the investigation. That’s what I said we would do, and that is what we’re doing.

Power plants

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Minister of Government Services has produced a report, apparently, on their investigation into the 24 computers wiped in the Premier’s office. Will the Premier release that report today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Government Services.

Hon. John Milloy: I believe that what the honourable member is referring to is a notice that is given in the document that was released by the courts some two weeks ago, where it talks about the OPP working with a branch of the Ministry of Government Services to help undertake their investigation.

As I’ve said in this House, as is appropriate for a minister, I was not aware of the details of what went on. I told my deputy minister that I didn’t want to know about the details of any police investigation. I am still of the view that a police investigation should stay with the Ontario Provincial Police. I will in no way interfere with that investigation.

I would remind the member that when the OPP appeared in front of the committee, they talked about how political interference could actually jeopardize this investigation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier insists that this government is committed to transparency and openness. Why won’t she make a government report, one that the people of Ontario paid for, available to the public?

Hon. John Milloy: Speaker, there we have it. The leader of the New Democratic Party now believes that governments should interfere in the work of the Ontario Provincial Police.

I’m not sure how they do things over there, but on this side of the Legislature, when the Ontario Provincial Police is involved, we respect their independence and we get out of the way of their investigation. We don’t interfere with their investigation.

What she is suggesting is incredible: that a leader of this party would ask a government to interfere in such an investigation.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier keeps insisting that she’s doing things differently, but all people see are reports being kept under wraps, senior Liberals fleeing the province and a Premier who claims she sees nothing, has heard nothing and has done nothing. Does she really think that is good enough for the people of this province?

Hon. John Milloy: Let’s deal with facts. The member is making reference to a document, which I am only aware of due to the court document that was released some two weeks ago. I have no information about this report. I shouldn’t have any information about this report because it was done as part of an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police.

Again, I cannot believe that a leader of a political party would be standing up here and counselling the government to interfere in a police investigation. It is quite frankly beneath her. We respect the independence of the OPP, and we will continue to co-operate with them, but in no way interfere in their very important work.

Power plants

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question, as well, is to the Premier. The Premier suggests that for six weeks in 2013 no one was in charge in the Premier’s office, that although she was elected on January 27, was using the Premier’s office for meetings and was chairing the Liberal caucus on January 30, she still says that she wasn’t in charge. The OPP says that the transition happened immediately, yet the Premier disagrees.

What I find interesting is that one of the alleged hard drives that was wiped was a staff member’s of the current Premier, and the Premier must understand how this looks. So I’m asking her, can the Premier tell us how Brianna Ames’s computer came to be wiped on February 6 if she did not work in the Premier’s office until after February 11?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I would suggest that the honourable member do two things: First of all, review the court documents, which gives us a glimpse into an OPP investigation; then it talks about one person who is right now the subject of these allegations—unproven—and that is the former chief of staff to the former Premier, for activities that happened under his watch.

The second thing I would ask is that she start dealing with the facts and apologize for all that she has said. She’s had experience with this before: her involvement with Bluedraft. She knows that when a legal battle goes wrong, she sometimes has to apologize, and maybe she should consider it right now.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I won’t apologize for asking the tough questions to get to the bottom of this scandal, and you’d better get used to that.

Why would Brianna Ames’s hard drive be deleted prior to joining the Premier’s office? I’ll give a quick answer: It wouldn’t have been.

The Premier chooses to believe that she was not Premier until February 11, so let’s go with that for a moment. She would have hired Brianna Ames between February 11 and March 8, if that is the case, yet according to the OPP ITO, which, for the government House leader, is a fact, Brianna Ames’s computer would have been one of the 24 accessed between February 6 and March 20, 2013. That means when the computer was wiped, it would have taken place after the so-called delayed Premiership.

Will the Premier and the government House leader stop playing games, tell us the truth and get to the bottom of this scandal right now or call a judicial inquiry like my leader would?

Interjections.

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

Government House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, it is clear the OPP are interested in one individual, the former chief of staff of the former Premier, for events that happened under his watch.

But just to remind the member, let me quote: “The operators of www.bluedraft.com”—the member for Nepean–Carleton—“Ms. Lisa MacLeod and Chris Froggatt, would like to sincerely apologize to Maureen Murphy-Makin and Rick Morgan for wrongfully implicating them in an erroneous story in January 2004 … We are sorry for the negative perception that may have been created since then and how it may have harmed the solid reputation and high integrity of both Ms. Murphy-Makin and Mr. Morgan.

“We admit that our sources were not reliable and proper accuracy and verification procedures were not followed prudently in publishing this story.”

Mr. Speaker, she’s done it once. It’s time for her to do it again.

Power plants

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians deserve answers about the $1.1-billion scandal and they deserve answers about the Liberals’ subsequent email deletion and data destruction. Now, Liberal insiders, who the OPP say are behind the mass email deletions and computer wiping in the Premier’s office, are playing games with the committee. Peter Faist insists he can’t come to Toronto, and he won’t be available for a whole month, weeks after the dates being thrown around for a budget.

We think he has important information and we want him here as soon as possible. Have any members of the Premier’s party been in touch with Peter Faist about the timing of his testimony?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: It is up to the committee to determine which witnesses to call; it’s up to the committee Clerk, of course, to deal with those witnesses and try to

schedule them. Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, there are procedures in place if committees cannot obtain a witness’s testimony. This is all work for the committee.

I’ve got to tell you, Mr. Speaker, since we’re on the topic of the committee, how disappointed we are that we tried once again—I believe it’s the 14th time; I’m not making that figure up—to ask the PC witnesses to come before the committee on Thursday so they could talk about what I would have thought would have been—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing will withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Withdraw.

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

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: They could answer such questions as, when they promised in the last campaign that if they were elected they’d cancel the gas plants, whether they asked about costing, about the policy analysis that was done, about the interaction that they had with the Leader of the Opposition and others.

Fourteen times, and yet they refuse to come. It’s very frustrating on this side of the House but, again, it’s up to the committee.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Laura Miller, a former deputy chief of staff in the Premier’s office, has timed her visit to the committee to fall on a possible budget date announcement. Just like the cynical timing of the tanning bed legislation, which we learned, from internal Liberal staff emails which were made public last summer, the Liberals thought would “make a fabulous headline in Saturday papers” just to distract from scandal, this seems like another attempt to change the channel.

The timing, again, looks convenient for the Liberals. Did Ontario Liberals help Ms. Miller pick her date?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, it is a case where they can’t take “yes” for an answer. The committee has asked for certain people to come forward, and he mentions one witness who has made herself available. I understand, obviously, from media reports, that she is in British Columbia and she’s coming forward and testifying before the committee. I think we should allow the committee to handle that work and handle that testimony.

Again, if the member is frustrated, we are frustrated. As I say, we have tried 14 times. I’ll give you one example: the candidate for the PCs in the last election, a gentleman by the name of Zoran Churchin—he has actually been re-nominated and will be running again—we’ve called him 14 times.

We want to know who approved the robocall scripts, the flyers and campaign announcements promising to cancel the plant. We want to know about their costing during their campaign promises. I believe he was present when the Leader of the Opposition made his famous YouTube—

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

Access to information

Mr. John Fraser: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Minister, when Premier Wynne announced the Open Government Initiative last October, she made a commitment to make Ontario the most open and transparent government in the country. Our goal is to change the way citizens think about and interact with their government, and ultimately to rethink government so that it works better for the people of Ontario.

An integral part of our Open Government plan is open data. Like governments around the world, Ontario generates and collects huge amounts of data, facts and statistics. A key Open Government commitment is to make the data we collect available to the public in machine-readable formats.

Minister, can you tell my constituents what is being done to make data more open in Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member not only for the question but for the important work that he has done in terms of open government. Making government data open by default—that is, the collection of statistics and other data that governments collect—is an important part of our Open Government plan. We launched our open data catalogue in 2012, which contains 178 sets of data available for the public to access online. In consultation with every ministry across the government, we’ve developed a master list of over 1,000 potential open data sets that could be posted online in our catalogue.

Yesterday we announced that instead of the government deciding which data sets to undergo the process of making them machine-readable, access them and release them, we will ask the people of Ontario to tell us their open data priorities by using an online voting tool—what the kids call crowdsourcing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Fraser: Thank you, Minister, for taking the opportunity to engage the public in open government and to find out what’s important to them. Ontario has taken an exciting step on the road toward open data, as the first government in Canada to develop an organization-wide data inventory like this for public voting.

As data topics like traffic, student achievement and health care wait times become accessible, citizens and businesses with innovative ideas will find solutions to help people in their everyday lives and encourage economic growth throughout the province.

Minister, can you tell us more about this open data inventory and how it will work? What about safeguards for things like privacy and confidentiality?

As far as privacy protection goes—as you know, we take that very seriously—Ontario will release data in a responsible way that protects the privacy of its citizens. The inventory does not include data containing personal or confidential information; legal copyright and security restrictions are protected; and public safety is prioritized above all.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, you announced yet another transit plan, but you still refused to tell Ontarians how you’ll pay for it. Well, your Minister of Transportation let the cat out of the bag. He said the money will come from—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Your Minister of Transportation said that the money will come from “everything from health care to education.” Really, Premier? That is your idea? Is that in addition to raising taxes on businesses and income earners over $75,000?

Premier, it’s clear you have no plan. As with everything else that you announced, you can’t explain how you’re going to pay for it. Premier, don’t Ontarians deserve better than that?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Transportation is going to want to speak to the supplementary, but I just want to say how thrilled I am that we are able to bring a plan—we will bring the plan forward in our budget—to invest $29 billion in transportation infrastructure, including transit, over the next 10 years: $15 billion in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, and $14 billion outside of Toronto.

We are very clear where the money is going to come from. We’re very clear that there will be some repurposing of the gas tax and HST. We have said clearly that we want to get the most out of our assets. And we have said that there will be new revenue tools in the budget. We will bring that plan forward, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues will support that transit plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs will come to order, and the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): My sympathies.

Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Other than your cuts to health care and education, we’re still waiting for you to explain how you’re going to balance your budget. We’ve disclosed the $4.5-billion budget gap which you kept from the financial community. The Bank of Canada said revenues would fall, and now we’ve heard that your revenues are $5 billion less. Leaked budget documents show you’re going on a $5.7-billion spending spree. Everything you announce involves raising taxes and adding more debt.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, has a plan he unveiled yesterday that makes transit and roads a priority without raising taxes. Why are you insisting on raising taxes and taking money out of health care and education when we’ve given you a plan to do it without raising taxes?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If the member opposite had listened to the whole remark that the Minister of Transportation made yesterday, he would have realized that the minister was clear that there is money that is being repurposed, but that does not mean we will be cancelling programs in education or health, unlike the party opposite. The member for Etobicoke–Lakeshore basically said, in their plan, people will have to choose between full-day kindergarten and transportation infrastructure. That is a ridiculous choice. That is not a choice that we would ever put before the people of Ontario. It means that their plans to build transit are actually misguided, as well as magic.

Long-term care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. This morning, in the paper for all to see, is an exposé commenting on the growing trend of prescribing antipsychotic drugs to long-term-care residents. In some long-term-care homes, over half of the residents are on these drugs that are often dangerous drugs. The consequences of excessive prescribing of off-label use of antipsychotic drugs can be and have been deadly.

Can the minister explain why she has allowed this problem to balloon into crisis levels?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. There is no question that the care and safety of residents in long-term-care homes is of paramount importance. I must underline that doctors must prescribe medications appropriately and only as necessary. However, there is recognition across the long-term-care sector and within government that residents with challenging behaviours should receive non-pharmacological care whenever possible.

That’s why we are investing in Behavioural Supports Ontario. Behavioural Supports Ontario is really showing enormous potential in the training—it encourages non-pharmaceutical interventions to address aggressive behaviour. We’ve hired 600 full-time staff through BSO. They’re working with residents and providing real results in long-term-care homes.

I will speak more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: For years, long-term-care homes have alerted this government to this growing problem of coping with the growing numbers of seniors who suffer from dementia. They have told the ministry of the rising use of antipsychotic drugs and that this trend was continuing. Way back in 2007, the Ontario Auditor General released a report that alerted the government to this problem, as well as issues about the lack of consent for the use of those drugs.

Can the minister explain why this problem isn’t being taken more seriously by this government, as the use of antipsychotic drugs continues to rise exponentially in our long-term-care homes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: If a drug needs to be prescribed to a patient, under the Long-Term Care Homes Act, a drug cannot be given to a resident unless it has been prescribed by those who are allowed to do so under the Regulated Health Professions Act. Before a treatment can be given to a resident, consent must be given by the individual receiving the treatment. If that person is unable to give consent, then the substitute decision-maker must do so. A resident in a long-term-care home cannot be restrained by use of a drug unless immediate action is necessary to prevent serious bodily harm to themselves or others.

I acknowledge that more work needs to be done on this issue, and everyone who works within the long-term-care sector agrees that more needs to be done. We are investing in Behavioural Supports Ontario to support non-pharmaceutical control of behaviours that could cause harm to residents and others.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In 2004, our government launched a transformation of Ontario’s developmental services. This transformation emphasized community inclusion and increased independence for individuals.

However, many members in this House, including myself, heard from families telling us that we need to do more to support families affected by developmental disabilities. I know the minister has been a strong vocal advocate on this cause, and has spent the last year consulting to improve developmental services.

As a proud member of the Select Committee on Developmental Services, I have travelled across the province with the committee and heard from families affected by developmental disabilities. We heard from parents who urgently need respite care or residential support for their adult children as they grow older.

Last Friday, Minister, you made an exciting announcement. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please share with the House what the proposed plan for developmental services is?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d be delighted to do so. I just want to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt both for her question and her own fierce advocacy on this front.

The member is absolutely correct about what we have heard from families across the province. That’s why I was proud to recently announce a bold plan. I’m delighted to share with the House this morning that our government plans to invest some $810 million over the next three years in support of developmental services.

In total, the proposed new investment would represent the single largest infusion of support to the developmental services sector ever. This is the next step in our plan. It’s about giving people with developmental challenges the tools they need to be full citizens in our society.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to thank the minister for his answer, and also congratulate him on this milestone achievement. I know that many families from across the province appreciate his leadership and dedication to take these next steps to improve and support families affected by developmental services.

The proposed new money is a truly unprecedented commitment to developmental services in Ontario, and the magnitude of this announcement cannot be overstated. I know that families in my riding are delighted to receive this announcement. They also would like to know what the new investment would do to help support them.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can he please inform the House what the goals are of this investment and how this new money would be allocated?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, it has been a lot of work. I’m delighted to say that this new money will wipe out the wait-list for developmental service direct funding in the province. Over four years, it will support an additional 13,000 individuals through the Passport Program, including 4,000 new individuals we anticipate coming on stream.

It will eliminate the wait-list for Special Services at Home—just within two years—and will help 8,000 children and their families. Our plan will provide residential support for more than 1,400 new individuals, strengthening our ability to respond to people with special needs. Furthermore, more than 4,000 people would receive help to plan or make the transition—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank the Premier for being so supportive of this initiative, and for her ongoing encouragement, support and leadership.

Political contributions

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question this morning is to the Premier. Premier, last week I rose to question why your chief of staff, Mr. Tom Teahen, failed to appear on the seconded list despite his annual salary for 2013 of over $344,000.

Today your chief of staff is in the news once again, this time joining six other Liberal entities in allegedly violating the Election Finances Act,

section 29 of which states clearly that “No political party, constituency association” or “candidate ... shall directly or indirectly ... accept contributions from any person” residing outside of Ontario.

Premier, of course I’m referring to the seven donations totalling nearly $11,000 made by Mr. James Barry, a resident of Quebec and the union boss for your friends the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.

Premier, will you direct your chief of staff to immediately return the nearly $1,000 that was illegally donated to his own Liberal campaign in Beaches–East York?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities has something to add to this, but I just want to make sure that—the rules around political donations are really important. They are a very important part of our democratic process.

Today’s

article was the first that I’d heard of the question raised by the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry. It’s my understanding that Elections Ontario has been asked to look into questions about particular donations. I understand that the individual in question has said that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Even when I eyed him and he continued—I will ask the member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound to come to order. This will be his last chance.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand that the individual involved has said that there has been a clerical error that has been made, but we will work with Elections Ontario. Of course, if they have any questions, we will absolutely work with Elections Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Back to the Premier: Premier, in 2009 your Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services and the past president of the Ontario Liberal Party accepted, allegedly, illegal donations from Mr. Barry, and even worse, the Liberal Party of Ontario accepted $5,400 in illegal donations as well.

But Premier, that’s not all. To reward Mr. Barry, your government appointed him to the board of governors for the Ontario College of Trades.

Premier, will you demand that all money donated from Mr. Barry be returned, including any illegal donations accepted by your chief of staff and your Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, and will you take the necessary steps to remove Quebec resident Mr. Barry from the board of governors of the Ontario College of Trades?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The incorrect information in the member’s question is just unbelievable.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: He lives in Quebec, Brad.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, these guys will stoop—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, a complaint was made to Elections Ontario, and Elections Ontario is looking into it. The allegation appears to be that there was a clerical error made. I’m sure that whatever was done will be corrected.

But Mr. Speaker, here we go again. We have James Barry, who’s the president of the IBEW. He represents 14,000 electrical workers across this province.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: He lives in Quebec.

Hon. Brad Duguid: When you smear that gentleman’s reputation, you smear the reputation—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North is warned.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, nothing is more important to people than their reputation. We’re in a business where we’re used to those kinds of smears coming at us. I don’t think it’s fair for people outside of this chamber to be—

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

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Premier. After wasting a year dithering on transit, the Premier made a dozen or so announcements yesterday—so many, it’s hard to take them seriously.

But one announcement stood out. She said she would fund transit by shuffling—sorry, repurposing—gas tax money. The Premier used to attack the Leader of the Opposition, and she did it again today, for threatening to fund transit by sacrificing health care and education. Remember that? But when asked last night where this gas tax money would be repurposed from, her own Minister of Transportation said, “Everything from health care to education.”

My question for the Premier is: How much will your government cut from health care and education to pay for transit?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, first—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the member for Nipissing and the member for Trinity–Spadina, who I both consider friends, would offer an apology today. The reason I think an apology is appropriate is because if you listen to the tape, what it actually says is a direct question: “What does general revenue fund?” And I said, “Everything from health care to education,” which is actually the truth.

To either friend, including my friend from Nipissing, who I consider a friend—and I’m looking him in the eye right now—who tells me he doesn’t like that kind of politic—he is now proffering that kind of politic. And if you want—

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: First the government floated a scheme to privatize and toll our highways. Then they talked about raising the HST and gas taxes. Then they denied they were even in favour of tolls or the HST or gas tax increases, and instead proposed a fire sale of public assets. Now the latest plan of the week is to pay for transit by reallocating—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration can hide his face. I still see it. Stop.

Carry on.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Now the latest plan of the week is to pay for transit by reallocating or repurposing money from health care and education budgets. When it comes to funding transit, the government is making it up as it goes along. We still have no idea where the money is going to come from. What services are we cutting? Which taxes are you raising? What is the government’s plan?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Coming from a party whose municipal wing can’t vote for a single new tax increase that they’ve been given, that they asked for; coming from a party that has no transportation plan for highways, transit or roads; coming from a party that can’t articulate a single source of revenue to support transit—not a single source. No plan, no credible plan, no costed plan—and no apology for saying things on the record that you know are not true—tells people in Ontario a whole bunch about your character and a whole bunch about your lack of leadership.

We are quite happy to ask you one last time—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —to take this historic moment—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll make that decision. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

New question.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The member from Durham will withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I withdraw, Speaker.

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

Environmental protection

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, next Tuesday, April 22, is Earth Day. Earth Day is the largest environmental event in the world. More than six million Canadians—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order. Do it again and I’ll name you.

Mr. Bob Delaney: —including nearly every school-aged child, will participate in an Earth Day activity in their respective communities.

When Earth Day started in 1970, North Americans drove gas-guzzling cars that drank leaded gasoline. Belching smokestacks were then seen as a sign of a strong economy instead of an environmental shame. Since 1970, Earth Day has been a chance to raise our awareness of how this planet is the only home we’ll have and focus on how we can protect it.

Would the minister explain how our government is doing its part to protect the environment here in Ontario?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s an excellent question. I know it was the question of the member for Leeds–Grenville, that has been stolen.

With Earth Week only a week away, I’d like to remind the House that our government has made the environment a priority again in Ontario. Ontario’s elimination of coal-fired electricity generation is, as everyone knows, the single largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative in North America. Federal ministers even use that in their international arguments.

Additionally, initiatives have been taken to reduce toxics in our ecosystems, to reduce waste, to protect Lake Simcoe, to clean up contamination, to protect green space and to invest in science and transportation. We’ve created opportunities for individuals and communities to become involved in the protection and the restoration of the Great Lakes through the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund.

This government takes the health of the environment very seriously. We encourage members opposite to work with us to pass our important proposed pieces of legislation and further protect the environment for future generations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Minister, conserving our Great Lakes’ water supplies and protecting our water quality is essential to ensuring the health of our families, our communities and our economy. It’s essential that Ontario provide communities with the tools to ensure that the Great Lakes will continue to supply our drinking water; power our towns and cities; irrigate our farms; enable sport fishing; and provide recreation and relaxation on the water for Ontario families and visitors.

The Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund provides many ways to help preserve and protect the Great Lakes. Would the minister please share some ways in which this is done?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m delighted to. Mr. Speaker, for all members of the House, the Great Lakes Guardian Community Fund is designed to support local community actions to protect and restore wetlands, beaches, shorelines and coastal areas by offering modest grants for non-profit groups for cleanup projects. Since we launched this program two years ago, we have awarded more than $3 million to 156 groups to make improvements in their corner of the Great Lakes.

Here are a few examples: improving habitats for native fish, and plant more than 2,000 native trees and shrubs with the help of more than 80 community volunteers in the Ajax-Pickering area. In Burlington, I was pleased to work with 100 volunteers to improve the coastal environment of Lake Ontario’s Beachway Park by planting native grasses, shrubs and trees, removing invasive species and picking up litter. Additionally, community cleanup events took place on Manitoulin Island.

The deadline for non-profit groups to seek funding for their projects is upcoming. It’s May 9. I encourage all communities to seek this funding and to help clean up their portion of the Great Lakes.

Services for the developmentally disabled

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Friday, the BLT—the budget-leaking team—and the minister announced $810 million over three years to alleviate some wait-lists for developmental services.

Applause.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Clap for yourselves. Ontario invests $1.7 billion in developmental services, a 63% increase since 2003.

Applause.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Clap again. But here’s what you’re applauding for: You’re applauding for a decade of investment that still hasn’t improved your ministry’s performance.

Under Liberal reign, reliance on OW and ODSP has grown by 50% and 40%. The problems are so pervasive, especially for people with disabilities, a committee was struck to help the minister do his job.

Minister, why does your party think spending more money is the only solution when it hasn’t worked for you in 10 years?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’m amazed; actually, I’m almost speechless with the question. Coming from a party that, when in office, tried to balance their budget on the backs of the poor by cutting 23% from social assistance and developmental services, that didn’t increase the minimum wage, that didn’t increase OW or ODSP once in their tenure, that voted against every initiative this government has taken since we came to office—we don’t have anything at all to learn from you over there, sir, I say.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: The minister has got to do much better than go back in time.

Minister, the truth is Comsoc is a neglected portfolio. The quintessentially Liberal cop-out to the developmental select committee is to throw more money at services to avoid doing the hard work to actually improve them. The quintessentially Liberal response to the 2012 Lankin-Sheikh report, just like Drummond, was pretending that it didn’t even happen.

Minister, the most vulnerable people in our province won’t be bought and they won’t be ignored. When will you respond to the Lankin-Sheikh recommendations, and undertake to actually improve service delivery for people with developmental disabilities for real?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: That’s all we’ve been doing since the Sheikh-Lankin report came out. And speaking of stakeholders, we circled back with over 280 groups to get their feedback. I want to tell you, the people the member opposite is talking about being so unhappy—that was reflected on Friday with the 600-plus emails and tweets that we received and the fact that it was trending nationally, right across this country, as being the single most important investment in the developmental services sector since we came to office in 2003. I’m proud of that.

Time doesn’t stand still. The answer isn’t all money. The answer is investing and ensuring that people with unique challenges have all the opportunities to fully participate in our society that so many of us take for granted. We’re going to make sure that happens.

Long-term care

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The Brantford Expositor recently published a series of articles on the Ministry of Health inspections at long-term-care facilities in the Brantford area. What the newspaper found and repo