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

October 1, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-01 (PDF)

L103 - Thu 1 Oct 2015 / Jeu 1er oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 1 October 2015 Jeudi 1 er octobre 2015

Orders of the Day

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of pins

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

By-election in Sudbury

Health care funding

Health care funding

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Probation services

By-election in Sudbury

First Nations

Federal election

Executive compensation

Consumer protection

Property taxation

Correction of record

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sukkot

Education

Hispanic Heritage Month

Muslim community

People’s Republic of China

Sean Jackson

Pension plans

Humber River Hospital

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

Visitors

Petitions

Taxation

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Dental care

Public transit

Environmental protection

Diagnostic services

Student safety

Long-term care

Lung health

Personal support workers

Hospital funding

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Private Members’ Public Business

Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Rehabilitative or Therapeutic Purposes Exemption), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la location à usage d’habitation (exclusion pour services de réadaptation ou services thérapeutiques)

Capping Top Public Sector Salaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le plafonnement des hauts traitements du secteur public

Missing persons

Residential Tenancies Amendment Act (Rehabilitative or Therapeutic Purposes Exemption), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur la location à usage d’habitation (exclusion pour services de réadaptation ou services thérapeutiques)

Capping Top Public Sector Salaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le plafonnement des hauts traitements du secteur public

Missing persons

Capping Top Public Sector Salaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le plafonnement des hauts traitements du secteur public

Orders of the Day

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 29, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 113,

An Act respecting police record checks / Projet de loi 113, Loi concernant les vérifications de dossiers de police.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad to join this debate. I think it’s a tremendously important issue to discuss, and I am honoured to be able to share my thoughts.

First and foremost, I must commend the government on bringing forward this bill. It’s rare that opposition does that, but this is an important bill. It addresses a very important issue, and I do acknowledge the government’s work in introducing a bill that addresses such a serious issue.

I’ll just lay out some of the groundwork on why this bill is so important and why this issue is such an important issue. Then I’ll move into some of the areas where we can improve it—there is always room for improvement. Let me just lay out some of the groundwork.

According to a report by the John Howard Society entitled Reducing Barriers for Ontario’s Youth With Police Records, over 4.1 million Canadians—that’s roughly 20% of the adult male population—have a record of criminal conviction. In addition, in Ontario, our criminal court system processes more than half a million charges annually. And this is important: About 43% of criminal court cases resulted in stayed or withdrawn charges.

So, it’s important to note that the issue of having contact with the criminal justice system sometimes results in convictions, but a large number of people are charged and eventually see those charges withdrawn or stayed. “Non-conviction records can be and often are disclosed on police record checks. These types of records can have as devastating an impact on young people’s employment, volunteering and academic prospects as records of convictions.” I end the quote from the John Howard Society.

What we’re talking about are non-conviction records. If you are convicted of an offence, you’ve committed the offence, there is enough evidence that’s brought before the court, and after due process takes its course and you have the opportunity to defend yourself, you are then deemed to be guilty. There is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, upon which either a jury or a judge says, “Yes, there is enough evidence here that I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that this person is guilty,” and then there is a criminal conviction.

In those cases—when there is a criminal conviction—the disclosure that someone has a conviction is appropriate. Disclosing that conviction under our criminal records is appropriate.

The area that we’re very concerned about—that many civil liberties activists, many community organizers and many individuals have shared their personal stories about—is non-conviction records. What are those? These involve, according to, again, the John Howard Society—just a brief

summary of what police records we’re talking about when we’re talking about non-conviction records: These can involve calls to 911 for assistance, victimization, mental health crises involving the police, being questioned by the police, arrests and charges that did not result in convictions. Now, it’s the last three issues that are of most concern currently, given the concerns that people have raised around carding and street checks.

Let’s just quickly talk about carding and street checks. When we’re talking about carding and street checks, people are concerned about arbitrary or discriminatory stops that are conducted by the police that result in data being collected, people being stopped and people being discriminated against. When someone is stopped for a discriminatory reason, there is no evidence, there is no connection to what they are doing and a particular incident or some evidence or some complaint. There’s no reason, there’s no justification to stop an individual; it’s completely arbitrary.

Those types of street checks, or that circumstance which is also known as carding in Toronto, result in some data being stored.

When that data is stored—first of all, being subject to street checks that are arbitrary and being subject to carding that is arbitrary, in and of itself, is a harm; it makes you feel like you don’t belong. On top of that, that harm is compounded by the fact that there is data then stored. If that data is then released in a criminal records search, you’ve been doubly impacted. Not only were you improperly treated with the first arbitrary detention, but then the second negative blow to you is the fact that there is data that is being disclosed that has not been proven in court, that has not been tried; the evidence has not been tested.

Whatever that data is, if it is in any way negative, it could impact your future career, whether it’s volunteering, whether it’s applying to a professional school or whether it’s trying to get a job—so, those types of interactions with the police, arrests when you’re eventually proven to be not guilty or when those charges are withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, if you have been arrested, if an individual has been arrested, and then they’re charged with an offence, and it turns out there was a mistake: They got the wrong person; the police admit, “Hey, listen, we just charged and arrested the wrong person. We withdraw the charges against you.” The fact of that charge and that arrest, that laying of a charge—that any disclosure of that could impact someone’s career is so completely ridiculous and offensive, in fact.

We have a principle in Canada and in most nations where there is the rule of law, that you are entitled to the presumption of innocence. In fact, in Canada, this presumption of innocence is protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says very clearly that you are entitled to it—this is one of your rights—that you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Now, that presumption, which is one of the hallmarks of any society that is based on the rule of law, is so fundamentally eroded when people who are not even convicted of an offence, who are absolutely innocent—they don’t even need the presumption of innocence because they are innocent.

When those individuals who have been found not in any way to be guilty, in fact, have not even been charged—that charge is withdrawn—if those individuals are facing barriers and obstacles to employment and to volunteer opportunities, to accessing school, that is so fundamentally flawed; that is such an abrogation of that fundamental principle. So I think it’s something that we really need to address.

There are a number of stories I want to share of individuals who have faced some serious issues based on this disclosure. I think that it’s important to put a human side to this story. I’ll turn now to the great work of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. They released a report in 2012 which, in a lot of ways, was one of the main reasons why and was one of the motivating factors why this bill is now before this House.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, in conjunction with other organizations like the John Howard association, raised the issue that they were seeing a number of people being unfairly treated, receiving or facing unfair burdens and obstacles to employment, volunteer and educational opportunities because of non-conviction records. They raised this issue.

In 2012, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association released a report. To follow up with that report, the association released something called Presumption of Guilt: The Human Story. This Presumption of Guilt piece was essentially a compilation of stories across Canada regarding what people had faced, the stories of people who had faced burdens and obstacles because of their non-conviction record. I’m just going to quote from the

preamble of this follow-up to the report.

“In the time since the release of our first report over 100 Canadians who are struggling with the impact of a non-conviction record have contacted CCLA. We decided to record just a few of their stories.” So the following are going to be some excerpts of stories from people who were impacted by non-conviction record disclosure and who responded to the 2012 report by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. Again, I really want to recognize the tremendous work of CCLA in standing up for civil liberties, not just in this case but in a variety of other areas of great concern. The first story is Gord.

“Gord was a nursing student when he was asked to get a vulnerable sector check in order to complete college placements. His non-conviction record, which was nearly two decades old when it was disclosed on his police check, completely altered the course of his life.” His quote is: “You sort of wonder how one group could have so much power to influence your life. Even if you haven’t been charged with anything, even if you are innocent, they can still affect you decades later, if they haven’t cleared your records. And that’s a problem....”

So Gord was a nursing student and faced difficulties in his college placement for charges that, again, he wasn’t convicted of. He wasn’t even found guilty. These were charges that were withdrawn. The fact that withdrawn charges could impede someone’s career in something as important and noble as the nursing profession is absolutely unacceptable.

There’s another story; this one is about Robin: “Robin was 18 and pregnant when her male roommates started dealing drugs out of the apartment. She tried to find a new place to live, but before she could move the police came and charged everyone who lived there with trafficking. The charges against her were withdrawn, but her record has followed her, preventing her from pursuing her career and furthering her education.”

Again, this is another circumstance. How unfair is that? In the first place, for her to be charged—in some fairness to the police, perhaps, everyone who was in the facilities or the premises were charged, but eventually they realized that this didn’t even take going to court. Robin didn’t need to defend herself in court because the police looked at the evidence and, in fairness, they realized there wasn’t enough evidence to proceed and they withdrew the charges against Robin.

Despite that, the fact that those charges were still on her record, that they were disclosed, that she was charged with some drug-related offence—that drug-related offence charge was withdrawn. She still received a barrier. She still was impeded and prevented from furthering her education and pursuing her career. Keep in mind that this is an 18-year-old woman; she’s pregnant at the time. The fact that we have someone in this circumstance who is already vulnerable and on top of that is faced with this severe obstacle is completely unacceptable.

It just really shows you the human story of how non-conviction record disclosure can impact someone.

I want to move on to another story just to add the human element to this issue. This story is about Lana. “Lana’s abusive ex-partner phoned the police and accused her of assault, twice. After leaving her partner she was unemployed and needed financial assistance to try to pay school application fees. When she first went to Ontario Works, they initially told her they wouldn’t even pay for the application for nursing school because there was a chance she wouldn’t get a nursing placement while in school.”

Her quote: “I’m not guilty, I didn’t do anything, it’s just someone manipulating the system against me.... That life-long discrimination is just infuriating, for something I didn’t do.... It’s humiliating. Because I’ve never, ever, ever, ever, not even close to it, being in trouble—never been in trouble in my life. And now all of a sudden, it’s like, why aren’t you working? What did you do? There’s this whole presumption that I must have done something terribly wrong.”

That’s the issue here: Though we have this principle of the presumption of innocence, when you are faced with—if you are an employer, if you’re someone who’s in school administration and you receive an application and on that police record check it says, “charged with possession of a narcotic,” “charged with trafficking in a controlled substance,” “charged with” some heinous assault—looking at that assault, whether it was withdrawn or stayed or acquitted, there is so much stigma that is associated with that. There’s such a negative presumption that flows from that, simply the fact that you were charged.

That’s why it’s so important that that charge not be disclosed in the first place. It’s so important, Mr. Speaker, that we don’t disclose information that has not been proven in a court of justice, that has not been proven to be true. We can’t be disclosing this type of information. It’s already difficult enough for people to find a job or to find volunteer opportunities. We don’t want to discourage them and, in fact, impede them further, and that is why it’s so important that we have this piece of legislation.

Let’s take a break from the stories—we’ll come back to some more life stories—and talk about the legislation and some of the good things it does and some of the things that we need to improve upon. What’s important to note is that the bill offers some guidance in an area that, up until now, has been quite unclear in terms of what the acting principles, the guiding principles, are around when you should disclose and what you should disclose when it comes to criminal records. So it’s important that we have this clarity. There has been a lack of clarity up until this point.

Underneath this piece of legislation, there are a couple of really important components. One component is that, upon application for a police records check, the individual who is applying for the police records check has to provide their consent for the police check to be initiated in the first place. I think that’s absolutely important. We don’t want to allow circumstances where third parties can make a check, or can order a police records check, without the consent of the individual it involves. That’s very important, and that’s included in this bill. I think that’s an important issue.

In addition, it’s also part of this bill, which is an important component, that if there is a police records check that’s initiated, the results of it first go to the individual who made the request. So it goes to the individual first and then they have to consent in order for it to be released any further. So that’s an important extra protection. I think that’s worth acknowledging. It’s very important to acknowledge that the bill basically breaks down three types of checks. This is under

section 8. They break into three categories: there’s a criminal records check, there is a criminal records and judicial matters check and then a vulnerable sector check.

The first check is probably the most common. It’s the straightforward criminal records check. The bill makes it very clear that the starting point will be that non-conviction records are not to be disclosed. That’s important, and that’s a good starting point. I acknowledge that, and I want to recognize that that’s something important.

Actually, it’s also important to recognize that a host of stakeholders were consulted on this bill and did support it, and those ranged from individuals in the police services to individuals on the advocacy side, as well as people who are victims or people who are charged and who are in circumstances where they are impacted by disclosure of non-conviction issues, as well as the CCLA. So those stakeholders were consulted and supported it.

There are, though, a couple of areas of concern. One of those areas is when it comes to the exceptions. Under

section 10 of the Police Record Checks Reform Act, there is a headline which indicates “Exceptional disclosure of non-conviction information, vulnerable sector check.” Underneath that, under

section 10, subsection 2, there are criteria for exceptional disclosure. This is where we have a couple of areas of concern. First off, I acknowledge that there are circumstances where, in exceptional circumstances, there are exceptional cases where there may be an importance, there may be a requirement to release some information that doesn’t actually make up a conviction. So in those cases, then, maybe you do have to release occurrences or charges that were withdrawn. There may be some grounds to do so. There may be some reason to do so.

A couple of areas of concern: In the criteria that are listed, it’s not clear that the position that’s being applied for has to have a connection—that there needs to be a nexus between the position applied for and the entries in the record. What I mean by that is this: We have to keep in mind that this exceptional disclosure circumstance is the disclosure of things that are non-conviction. We’re talking about things that people are actually determined by a court of law to be innocent of. They’re actually offences where they may have been the wrong person and the charges were withdrawn.

They might have challenged the issues in court and were found to be not guilty. These are incidents that could simply be occurrences where the evidence wasn’t tested by a court; there wasn’t the opportunity to test the evidence. These are already issues that aren’t convictions. And in that exceptional case where there is some reason to be releasing that information, there has got to be a connection between the position you’re applying for and the type of records that you have.

What I mean by that is if there are some entries in your criminal record that are not convictions—you’ve not been found guilty—but they’re related to something that’s quite troublesome, perhaps something around offences related to children, which we’re all very concerned about and are very serious, but again, they’re not convictions; you have not been found guilty—if you’re applying for a position at an old age home or your work will be involved with elders, but the entries that are non-conviction are related to children, then there isn’t really a direct connection between those entries and what you’re applying for. It’s got to be something that is very connected.

If your entries are for something that involved fraud or fraudulent behaviour with seniors, but you’re applying to work with youth, there isn’t a connection between fraudulent offences against seniors, which are, again, very serious—but you haven’t been convicted. If you want to disclose that information that is non-conviction, that you’ve not been proven guilty on, you should be entitled to the presumption of innocence. If you are being subject to having that information released, and it doesn’t connect to the actual employment or education that you’re pursuing, then, again—that criteria needs to be added; it’s not included here. That’s one issue that I raise.

The second issue, which is even more important, is the criteria for exceptional disclosure. I just want to read from subsection 10(2): “Non-conviction information about the individual is not authorized for exceptional disclosure unless the information satisfies all of the following criteria....”

Subsection 10(1) reads: “This

section applies with respect to the disclosure of non-conviction information in response to a request for a vulnerable sector check in respect of an individual.”

The criteria that are listed are good criteria, with the exception of the additional point that I raised; however, the mechanism to apply this criteria is not clear. As it stands, the decision-making and the discretion would lie in the hands of the police.

While our police officers do phenomenal work in our communities to keep us safe, while front-line officers are essential in our public safety, if police are the body that control or house the data—they have the data; they have the records—and they’re also the body that you apply to for whether this should be released or not, and they also have the discretion about whether to release certain information or not, and they also apply the criteria, inherently, it’s a system that is not as transparent or as accountable.

If the police themselves are the ones who are making the decision—they have to apply their criteria—then it’s not an open system. What I mean by that is if I’m applying and I submit for a records check, the police look at my circumstance and then look at the criteria. They then make the assessment, “Okay, the criteria apply.” There is no opportunity for me to say, “Hey, listen, I don’t think their criteria apply.” There is no way for me to actually dispute that, in terms of having my opinion, to come forward and say, “Listen, there isn’t a connection between what you’re hoping to release and what I’m doing.

The criteria that you’re applying don’t apply to me.” There is no form for that.

What there is is after the case, there is an opportunity for reconsideration; that’s what it states. You can request a reconsideration. Again, you’re not provided with the reasons for the decision, you’re not provided with the manner in which the criteria were applied, so there isn’t really that due process.

What BC has proposed, because they recognize that this is a very valid concern—the government in British Columbia created a separate, independent body. That independent body is assigned the task of assessing the risks and applying the criteria, and it is independent from the police services. So there is a level of independence, there is an increased level of transparency and, because it’s an independent body making that decision, you have a greater opportunity for accountability and to challenge those decisions if they are inappropriate.

Again, the entire purpose for bringing this forward is because there has been improper use of the existing discretion. The whole reason we’re bringing this bill forward is because there’s an acknowledgement that in the existing system, records were disclosed in a manner that was not proper and people were severely prejudiced because of it. If we know that that’s an issue, the solution has to also acknowledge that if we continue down the same path of allowing all the discretion to be in one group, and not an independent group, then the problem continues.

That’s an area of concern, and much like the British Columbia decision, I’m suggesting that there needs to be some independence in that decision-making.

The Canadian Civil Liberties Association, as I indicated, released a report in 2012. They also made a series of recommendations. In them, they made recommendations to the provincial, territorial and federal governments, as well as to police services and police service boards, businesses, not-for-profit organizations and third-party record check companies.

Referring to their recommendations around provincial, territorial and federal governments, the CCLA stated, under their recommendation 1.2: “Governments should introduce legislation based on British Columbia’s Criminal Records Review Act, establishing centralized bodies to conduct vulnerable sector screening and evidence-based risk assessments. These bodies should provide screening services for all positions that would qualify for a vulnerable sector check.”

Now, it’s important to note that they included the language “evidence-based risk assessments.” Broadly speaking, one of the other problems that was raised by both the John Howard Society and the CCLA was that there seems to be a knee-jerk reaction to criminal record checks. It can’t be the case that in every circumstance you need a criminal record check. There has to be some thorough analysis. It shouldn’t be the case that anyone can just request that you have to have a criminal record check for any job. That doesn’t seem to be a very logical proposition.

What the CCLA and the John Howard Society are recommending is that there needs to be an evidence-based risk assessment. There needs to be a look at: “Is there evidence that suggests that in this particular type of work or this particular type of education, there is a risk that is posed where there is evidence of a certain type of criminal activity?” If there is some clear evidence and that evidence is related to the actual risk assessment, then in that case it makes sense and there should be an assessment. Then, that means we need to actually look at whether there needs to be a criminal records check or not.

I think the issue here is that it shouldn’t be the case that—what it looks like now is that any job you apply for, there’s always an automatic criminal record check. That’s a problem.

The other concern around criminal record checks, broadly speaking, was raised by a number of community groups, and one member of our caucus raised this issue as well. It’s that there is a cost associated with a criminal record check. That cost is something that often acts as a barrier, in and of itself, for individuals who want to volunteer. First of all, there’s a cost, and there’s a time issue. The cost is both financial and time-related.

So you want to apply to volunteer in a position in your community—you want to help out, contribute and give back—but the requirement is for a criminal record check. Two issues come up. One is that it takes a long time. You have to follow through a lot of hurdles and a lot of bureaucracy to get your criminal record check completed. It takes a lot of waiting time, sometimes in lines, to get this done. The process is very difficult, and there is also a high cost.

In terms of the actual act, it’s information that’s stored, presumably by the police, in a database, and the fact that the charges are sometimes so exorbitant, so high, doesn’t seem to make sense. It creates a barrier. So if I want to apply to help out in my local community but there is a criminal records check that is going to cost me a lot of money and take a lot of time to process, maybe I don’t bother to do it. The fact that some people are precluded from applying for positions like this because of this cost barrier is not acceptable.

So we need to address why there is a cost in the first place. Can that cost be waived if you’re applying for a volunteer position? You’re giving your time freely. In those circumstances, perhaps the cost should be waived. If you are applying for a job and you are a youth or somebody who can’t afford to make ends meet, and you’re struggling and you want to find a job to pay some of your bills, you have to pay money to start earning money. It’s difficult in those circumstances. So there needs to be a look at whether—if it’s a young person applying for a criminal records check or someone who’s applying for a volunteer position, in those circumstances perhaps the charge could be waived.

Also, we have to look at ways of streamlining this process so it can be quicker and people aren’t waiting a long time. The member from Welland raised an issue, that sometimes in the health sector there are opportunities that are missed because the wait time is so long. The opportunities are available, but the wait time to get your criminal records check takes so long that you miss an opportunity. That’s another issue that has been raised.

So to sum up these last two points, we need to really evaluate whether or not, in terms of provincial leadership, there’s a reason to be requesting a criminal records check. In all circumstances, I don’t think it makes sense to just immediately need a criminal records check. There needs to be an evidence-based risk assessment: Do we need to look at the risk of this individual in this particular employment? Does it make sense for us to do so? If it does, okay, let’s move to the next step and then make that assessment.

Secondly, the other area of concern, broadly speaking, is that we need to look at ways to make it easier to access your criminal record. Employment opportunities for young people, who are already facing some of the highest unemployment in the history of Canada, and Ontario is facing a high youth unemployment rate, well above our regular unemployment rate—we need to make sure that there aren’t additional barriers to youth, perhaps waiving the records for youth. And again, the volunteer component: If someone is applying to give their time freely, there needs to be a consideration for perhaps waiving that fee as well.

I want to return again to some other stories around this issue of criminal records checks and why it’s so important to address this matter and the real-life stories of people who are impacted by it. I want to share the story of Chris. Again, this is from the CCLA’s follow-up to their 2012 report that compiled some stories they’d received of individuals who had faced barriers because of non-conviction records.

“Chris had been accepted as a volunteer firefighter in his small town and was several months into training when he realized that his vulnerable sector check listed him as the subject of a drug investigation. Chris had never even been questioned by the police, much less charged with any offence. He assumes that his name was entered into police databases because he had a friend who was arrested and charged with drug offences—Chris had met the undercover officer who was investigating his friend, but Chris was never questioned by police or charged with anything.”

I quote his story: “It’s a small town, I mean, all the people I was in class training with, it was a class of 25 or 30, they all know I got kicked off. All the people at the station know I got kicked off. I run into these people on a daily basis. I feel now like a criminal and I haven’t done anything wrong. Or even if I had done something wrong, I’ve never been to court to prove it. It’s like guilty until proven innocent....

“It kind of ruined my chances. My whole plan was getting on, and getting full time—it threw that out the window. Now I’ll never be able to be a firefighter.”

We have to understand that these are real lives that are impacted. These are people who are faced with losing a career over not having done anything. These are people who are actually innocent, who have not committed an offence. They were the subject of an investigation; in this case, an individual who may have been approached by a police officer but not even questioned. Their name just came up because they were in contact. I don’t blame the police in this case.

They contacted this individual; that’s not their fault, but the fact is that that record was disclosed that he was the subject of a drug investigation when he wasn’t charged with an offence, let alone convicted. The fact that, just because he was—in some broad-speaking, vague way—involved in the investigation as someone that the police contacted, for that information to be disclosed, is absolutely unacceptable. The fact that that information precluded him from becoming a firefighter is even more unacceptable.

I want to share the story of Lois: “Lois was trying to board a flight to Los Angeles to spend Thanksgiving with family when she was pulled over by American border officials for secondary screening. She was told she was not able to cross over to the United States because Toronto police had attended her home in 2006 after a 911 call for medical assistance.

“This interview was conducted in February 2013,” some seven years later. “Since then the matter has been resolved. Lois is not at liberty to comment further due to a confidentiality agreement.

“‘To me, this is the kind of thing that needs to have a public airing.... But many people are not willing to be public about it because they fear the embarrassment, they worry about job security.... I think this is something that we really need to look at, because too many people are being hurt—and too many people will continue to be hurt—if we allow this to go unchallenged.’”

It’s important to know that this impacts not only employment, not only educational opportunities; it also impacts something like travel, people going to the States or going to other countries—international travel. When there is the sharing of information, and certain information is allowed to be shared that is not relevant to someone’s risk in any way—someone is not in any way convicted of an offence—it should not provide this barrier.

I want to talk about, again, the impact of these from my own experience as a criminal defence lawyer. I represented a number of clients, many of them who were innocent, who were either wrongly accused, or misidentified at the scene. There was very clear evidence that could exonerate them. I personally represented these clients. Great kids: They had a great future and great potential. The fact that they were simply charged with an offence—they received good representation and were able to be found not guilty.

But the fact that they were charged, that those charges were either withdrawn in some cases, or that those charges were eventually acquitted of them, and that they were now going to face barriers to their employment in the future, to me, is something that I can’t live with. The idea that people that have such great potential, that could be such great contributing members of our society, people that have so much hope and so many aspirations, people that I’ve dealt with—I represented them. I got to hear their stories. I got to meet their families.

I know that they’re good people, and I know that they’ll go on to do great things. But I know also that, simply because they were charged, they are going to have greater barriers unless we pass laws that protect them. They’re going to have difficulties accessing certain educational opportunities. The fact that they’re going to perhaps be looked over or passed over for job opportunities is just not acceptable to me. It’s something that’s troubling and it’s something that needs to be resolved.

There’s a larger discussion around barriers that exist and particularly when they exist for people who are already vulnerable. We have a vulnerable sector check, but we also have people that are more likely to be in contact with the police and more likely to get charged. Those individuals are often younger individuals, often racialized, often from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and living in neighbourhoods where there’s a higher police presence.

It’s not because of their own fault, not because of anything they’ve done wrong, but it happens to be a community that, because of issues of poverty, there’s a heightened degree of policing, and they are now more likely to be subject to police contact. People who are already facing systemic barriers, whether it’s racism or whether it’s poverty issues—they’re facing systemic barriers. Those systemic barriers are then augmented or made worse by the fact that they have police contact which results in charges. These charges are maybe acquitted or withdrawn. But they’re still going to face barriers.

That’s what’s so troubling to me: It creates a system that’s already unfair and makes it even more unfair for them.

That’s why we’ve raised concerns around carding; it’s the exact same issue. When there’s police contact that can be disclosed and that can negatively impact, like these stories I’ve shared—people have lost the opportunity to travel, to get employment, to get education, due to information that is stored that doesn’t have anything to do with their guilt or innocence. That information being disclosed results in these issues.

In the same way, carding not only allows for one additional avenue for information to be disclosed that might result in some other barriers to employment, volunteering and education, but carding itself—when the act of stopping someone is arbitrary, when the act of stopping someone is discriminatory and when the act of stopping someone in a street check or carding circumstance is not based on any evidence, is not based on any specific complaint and there is no connection between some evidence and that individual—when that’s not present, it’s unacceptable to stop these individuals. What it does, Mr.

Speaker, is that it further sends a message that you don’t belong. It tells people living in their own community, people who live in their own neighbourhoods, that simply for existing, simply for being, simply because you were there, you are not welcome.

People are stopped multiple times in their own neighbourhood for not having committed any offence, for not even being a subject of an investigation. The fact that that practice is going on, arbitrarily and in a discriminatory fashion—often that discrimination is based on youth and based on race—is so unacceptable. It’s something that is fundamentally offensive, and it violates our charter. It’s something that can’t be regulated. You can’t regulate a practice that is inherently violating our charter. It can’t be regulated, and the government is taking a course of action where they want to regulate this practice.

It can’t be regulated, Mr. Speaker. If a practice openly violates our charter rights, it cannot be regulated. It is illegal.

The concerns that are raised—there are public safety concerns; there are issues around police investigations. I wholeheartedly support the work of our front-line officers. They have tremendous tools, and they are very capable of using those tools to keep our communities safe. Those tools that exist allow the police to stop individuals, the tools that exist allow them to investigate individuals and, in fact, the tools that exist allow the police to search individuals without a warrant.

But there is a requirement that there are reasonable grounds to do so, that there is evidence to do so, that they can articulate a cause, that they can give a reason. When there is a reason present, the police have the ability to do a whole host of things.

The issue that community activists have, the issue that members of the civil liberties associations have, the issue that legal experts have, is that when you have an arbitrary system, an arbitrary detention, arbitrary stops—stops for no reason, no evidence—those are unacceptable. They cannot be regulated. When you have discriminatory stops—stops that are based on simply the colour of your skin, stops that are based on your age, stops that are based on young people hanging out at night—that’s not reasonable grounds.

Reasonable grounds are very well articulated, very well laid out through years and years of jurisprudence. There is clear jurisprudence around what reasonable grounds are. We know this. If there are reasonable grounds, if an officer can articulate those grounds, then it’s absolutely fine to engage in whatever the tool may be, whether it’s an investigation, an investigative stop or whether it’s actually searching the individual. If there are grounds, then it’s appropriate.

All we’re saying, very clearly, is that if there are no grounds, if there’s no reason to do so, they should not be stopped. That issue of carding, compiled with the issue of disclosing non-conviction records, is creating a heightened sense that the police are not serving the community. Again, this is not the fault of the police. This is the fault of the government. The government has a responsibility. The provincial government, in this case, has a responsibility to provide the leadership. They have an opportunity to do so. They have the means to do so. They have the authority to do so. They simply must take that next step and actually act.

So, on this non-disclosure piece, the government has finally taken the right decision and acted—years of various activists raising this concern, years of various legal experts raising it, and various advocacy groups raising this concern, saying that people are being impacted by this.

I think it is really important, as I forgot to note, and I want to get into this as well, the tremendous work of the Toronto Star with respect to this issue. In specific, I want to give a shout-out to the great investigative journalism of Mr. Robert Cribb. Mr. Cribb has released a series of reports around the impact of disclosure of non-conviction records, and I think it’s really important to note his tremendous work. He shared a number of stories. I’m just going to share one of those stories.

In an

article published June 22, 2014, again by Mr. Robert Cribb, the

article reads: “‘No Judgment, No Discretion’: Police Records that Ruin ... Lives.”

He outlines the story of Andrew and indicates that “Andrew’s career-limiting moment of humiliation unfolded in front of a distinguished colleague in the security line at Pearson International Airport.

“The 42-year-old Toronto area businessman was on his way to a prestigious trade conference in the United States last year that promised valuable networking opportunities for his construction firm.

“He’d prepared for months.

“But it was all ... undermined thanks to a minor contact with a police officer 24 years earlier that torpedoed the biggest business trip of his career and continues to compromise his professional credibility and prospects.”

Mr. Speaker, 24 years ago—I mean, what were you doing 24 years ago? A “minor contact with a police officer” 24 years ago. I mean, it’s funny, because we think of what we were doing 24 years ago, but it’s not funny for Andrew. The fact that a minor contact 24 years ago is impacting his career in such a significant way is just unacceptable. Like my colleague is saying, it’s abusive. It’s abuse. This is something that is absolutely unacceptable.

Again, like the other stories we’ve shared, the individual—in this case, Andrew was “directed into secondary screening for the first time in his many trips south ... waiting 90 minutes in puzzlement until a US border guard asked him if he’d ever been convicted of possessing narcotics.”

He said, “No, sir,” of course; he had not. He would have known that. That’s a pretty big offence, possessing narcotics.

“The officer told Andrew that records showed he was investigated for possession of narcotics in 1990 and that, as a result, he was being denied entry to the US.”

Keep in mind, he had never been convicted of a crime. This is simply an investigation from 24 years earlier, and that investigation precluded him from going to the States. He was never even charged. This wasn’t a case where he was charged and then the charges were withdrawn, which also is completely offensive, because he’s been found not to even need to go to court to defend himself, but he wasn’t even charged in this case. This is a serious issue.

There are a number of other stories. Mr. Cribb went on to talk about something that I initially raised, that Toronto police have experienced a 92% increase in police background check requests in the past five years—a 92% increase over the past five years. So, as I was saying, we need to really evaluate why there is this sudden increase in police record check requests. It shouldn’t be the case that you immediately request a police record check for any employment. There has to be some reason for it; there’s got to be some basis for it. There has got to be some risk assessment.

It shouldn’t be just a knee-jerk reaction where if you’re applying for a job, you need a record check. Given the fact that it has increased 92% in five years without any justification, there are some concerns here.

Again, if there is a risk that is identified and there is a risk assessment that’s required based on some evidence, that’s absolutely appropriate, and that’s what we need to see. That’s why it’s so concerning that this trend is increasing towards increased criminal record checks without any reason for them, and people are being precluded from opportunities when they haven’t even been convicted of an offence.

Mr. Cribb goes on to talk about the fact that people have had to seek legal representation at a great cost to have records deleted. Again, these records are not even convictions. These records aren’t in any way showing criminal guilt. These are records that are non-conviction in nature, but they have to obtain legal representation to get those removed so they can actually move on with their lives. Again, this is something of great concern, and I want to again acknowledge the great work that Robert Cribb did in raising some of these concerns.

He also wrote another

article on May 17, 2014. The

article is entitled “Canadians Stunned to Learn They Have Police Records, Despite Never Being Found Guilty.” In this case, the story is about Chris. He’s a 27-year-old construction worker. He “hoped that firefighting was a calling he would one day turn into a profession.” He was asked to provide a vulnerable sector check.

The results left him stunned. The check “indicated no charges or convictions.” There was a letter attached. It said he was named in a drug investigation. Again, just for being named in the drug investigation, it precluded him from an opportunity to go on to do his life’s goal, which was to become a firefighter.

There’s significant stigma associated with it. It has gone on to plague him in his own community. Again, not being charged, not being found guilty has resulted in him not being able to pursue his career of choice, and perhaps us missing out on a great firefighter. There are so many stories. The impact that this has is tremendous.

We looked at, to a large degree, career opportunities and educational opportunities. I want to focus on the impact of stigma. The impact of stigma can’t be understated. We already know that your sense of self-worth has a significant impact on your ability to be successful in society. One of the reasons why we have raised such a concern around carding and street checks is because that feeling of being stopped in your own community for no reason, just because you’re there, sends that feeling that you don’t belong.

Similarly, when you are faced with the stigma of having committed an offence, of being treated as if you’re guilty of an offence which you’re not guilty of, it sends this very powerful message that you are unacceptable, that there’s something wrong about you. You live with this feeling. The stories talk about feeling like a criminal, feeling like they’ve done something wrong when they haven’t, and that feeling is so crushing. It limits your ability to succeed. It limits your motivation to be able to be a contributing member of your society. It has such a negative impact, and we can’t state enough how horrible and how detrimental it is.

It’s that feeling of not being valuable, of not having any worth, of being a criminal when you’re not, that we need to get rid of. That’s the human story here. That feeling, that limitation that exists, is so powerful and so debilitating that it really needs to be addressed, and that’s why this type of law is so important.

In my last eight minutes, I want to move towards some of my recommendations. While I acknowledge that this bill is an excellent step forward—it’s not even an incremental step; it’s a significant step forward. It’s addressing a lot of the concerns that have been raised, and it sets out a very clear guideline that non-conviction records should not be disclosed. That’s absolutely appropriate.

It breaks down a number of areas of checks, and the one area I want to address in more detail is when there are exceptional cases, when we determine that in a very specific case, when there are vulnerable people at stake—youth, seniors, or whatever the group may be; that based on their health or age, there might be a greater level of vulnerability—there might be some reason for us to disclose additional information. But this is where we have to be even more vigilant. Basically we’re releasing information that otherwise this law says we cannot release.

In those circumstances, I have to highlight how important it is to have an independent body. BC’s solution was to strike an independent body. There is a certain cost associated with that, but the benefit is having an independent body allows for a tribunal or independent decision-making to assess whether or not certain information should be released, and to engage in that risk assessment. That risk assessment is vital, because as it stands right now, the discretion is in the hands of the police, the same people—again, it’s not their fault, but if they’re not provided with the guidelines and the tools to do their job, then they’re going to be left with this position.

The police hold the data, and now they’re going to have to apply criteria and assess whether or not, with their discretion, these criteria are met and whether or not they should release or not release information. That system inherently is not the most transparent and accountable. We need to look at a more accountable and transparent mechanism, whether it’s a tribunal or whether it’s another mechanism.

I’ve consulted with a number of legal experts and community advocacy groups, and individuals that have represented communities and community groups that are impacted by these types of non-conviction disclosures. I am hoping to propose an alternative solution that would look at creating more independence, that would allow for a solution that would take away that discretionary element from the police so that there is a more accountable and transparent way to do it.

One of my suggestions will be that an application can be made to the court, to a judge who is independent, a judge who has that decision-making capacity to weigh the evidence and look at the circumstances and say, “Listen, in this particular circumstance, there is a certain risk; there is a certain number of entries that are non-conviction-related; and there is a nexus, a connection, between the two.” In this case, the criteria have been met or have not been met, and they can make that decision.

That process would be open. That process would allow for two sides to be heard. The individual that is requesting the check, that wants to have a criminal record check, could actually raise an argument and say, “Listen, there is no connection between this offence, or this non-conviction record, and the opportunity that I’m seeking, and I don’t think it’s necessary to release it.”

There is an avenue to provide more accountability. That decision also would be subject to appeal, to be reviewed, and that again allows for greater accountability. That’s the real issue here with respect to many of the concerns that we have. When the public feels concerned about police services, it’s not the police services themselves; it’s the lack of accountability and transparency around some of the decision-making. This would be a great step forward in terms of ensuring there is that transparency and accountability.

Taking the decision-making and that discretionary power away from the body that controls the data and putting that in the hands of an independent decision-maker, like a judge, would allow for greater transparency. I think that’s a solution that I encourage the government to look at, in terms of addressing this concern—or look at the BC example and look at their criminal records act and how they’ve set up that tribunal.

Both of those circumstances would provide a solution that would provide greater accountability and transparency and would ensure that our solution to a very serious problem doesn’t create another problem with respect to this discretion now being at question. So I ask you to consider that.

I also want to highlight that this concern around the independence is something that has also been brought up by the CCLA. In their recommendation, they also request that the government look at the BC act, so I think it’s something that is strengthened by their recommendation.

The John Howard Society took a very interesting angle on police records, and they focused in on the youth. I want to take a little bit of time here to focus in on the youth. We know that youth already are facing some of the highest unemployment rates in the history of Canada at this time. Given that there are already so many barriers for youth to finding employment, the existence of a record or record checks could create an additional barrier. They focused their report Reducing Barriers for Ontario’s Youth with Police Records on those barriers that are faced by the youth and really looked at some solutions to that.

Their recommendations included—one of their recommendations, under

section 2, was regulating the demand for police record checks.

I’ll just read from 2.1: “The provincial government should commit to making Ontario a province that fosters barrier-free reintegration and inclusivity. It should model the efforts” under way in other jurisdictions on “eliminating the government’s use of stigmatizing and labelling language, and enacting policies akin to the ‘Ban the Box’ reforms in the US.” They go on to talk about the importance of limiting the ability or limiting the requests for criminal record checks in circumstances where it’s just not necessary and of ensuring that youth don’t have an additional barrier to actually accessing employment.

They also talk about the regulation of the disclosure of the police records. That’s something that this bill, I think, will do. So that’s important.

Finally, they talk about regulating the use of police records in general. This is something that has been called for by the CCLA as well, and the John Howard Society. It’s something around the Human Rights Code. I just want to read it out. I think it’s important.

It’s recommendation 4.1, and it says, “The provincial government should amend the Ontario Human Rights Code’s ‘record of offences’ provision to broaden its definition to explicitly protect Ontarians against discrimination on the basis of any record of offences—which should include all non-conviction police records, mental health police contacts, criminal convictions and records that have been sealed subsequent to a record suspension—with a narrow exception allowed for employers who can demonstrate that a particular criminal record is reasonably and objectively connected to a bona fide requirement of the specific employment or volunteer position being sought.”

So this is a step broader. If an individual has a conviction, and it’s for an offence that has no—even if they had a conviction. This is another area for us to look at. If that offence has no bona fide, evidentiary connection to a particular risk, a specific risk, whatever the employment or volunteer opportunity—if there is no nexus, and I do have a conviction—then that shouldn’t create a barrier for me either. There has to be reason for it to create a barrier. It shouldn’t just be that the existence of a criminal record means that forever you are precluded from opportunities.

There needs to be some evidentiary basis for that; there needs to be some reason behind it. That would create a more inclusive society. Just because someone has committed an offence years and years ago and they haven’t received a pardon shouldn’t mean that their entire future or their ability to contribute to society is forever impeded.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member for Sudbury.

Mr. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you for seeing me up in the corner here, Mr. Speaker.

I’d like to thank the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton for his thorough presentation. He outlined many stories in that presentation. He talked a lot—I think it was halfway through when he talked about cost and time. I think those are two important factors that he was raising.

I do have a question for him that I hope he could address in his rebuttal. This isn’t a “gotcha” question; it’s more of trying to get an understanding of when you were talking about the independent body that’s occurring in BC and some suggestions of what we could do here in Ontario.

We also heard earlier, when you talked about cost and time—when we’re talking about time or employment or if it’s time for a volunteer organization to get this volunteer, would that process—have you heard in your research—then slow down if we are using that independent body? I think that’s important for us to get an understanding of. Especially when we’re looking at how this bill is going to change—making things more accountable.

It’s going to really change some of the unnecessary barriers that citizens have been facing when it comes to non-conviction and non-criminal information, especially mental health records and those types of things being undisclosed in record checks. I’d appreciate to hear some information from the honourable member on that piece.

Also, I think it’s important to reassure the honourable member, when he talked about this legislation and he was talking about street checks, that street checks will not be released under this legislation. It’s something that I think is important to bring forward as well.

I do appreciate his comments. It was very well thought out. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to add a couple of comments following the remarks of the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton.

I particularly appreciated the balance that he was bringing to the presentation in terms of the impact of these circumstances that people find themselves in. It reminds me why Justice was always presented as standing with the balance, because there are always arguments on both sides. I think in this case it becomes clear we must appreciate the long history and the long reach of—it’s not the law, in the sense of someone having been through the process; it is, in fact, being touched by the process. I think all of us would agree with the fact that the balance is tipped when you are standing in a line to get on an airline and something 24 years before prevents you from doing that.

It’s all the more important to understand this and respond to it in an appropriate manner when you consider the kind of communications tools that people have. When you drive your car up to the kiosk at Fort Erie, the Peace Bridge or wherever, you know that your licence plate has been checked in the computer as you are driving there, and the identification you provide is verified. How much other information is there that is really extraneous? I know of a municipality that requires a police check, and it has nothing to do with vulnerable adults or vulnerable people. We are using these indiscriminately.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to comment on the one-hour lead that the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton just shared with us. I think some of his points will resonate very well across the province. He did quote, at length, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the John Howard Society. The John Howard Society, particularly on the issue of youth, has said that the release of non-conviction records is a “total repudiation of the presumption of innocence, a gross distortion of the right to privacy.”

I think it’s important, and I think he touched on this, to remember that until you lose those rights of privacy, until your rights are violated, you actually don’t know how sacrosanct they are. And yet, the stories that he shared—I think it is very important to reflect on those human stories that are the truth, right? These are the lived realities of the people in the province. Inherent in the entire one-hour lead was the reality that there is a power imbalance in society, and we have a responsibility in this House to bring those voices, those marginalized voices, to this place.

The relationship between police forces and the community—in some communities, Mr. Speaker, it needs to be acknowledged that it is very tenuous. When a police officer, in the instance of street checks, as he referenced, asks for personal information—unprompted, a random ask of that information—this happened to the member from Welland, and she challenged that police officer, but she is in the position of privilege. She felt empowered to challenge that ask. When you look at youth across the province, in some communities they feel more vulnerable, and they definitely don’t feel that they are speaking from a position of strength.

So I share the congratulations that the member has given the government. This legislation is needed, but let’s make it as strong as we possibly can in this House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m pleased to have a brief opportunity to comment on the police records check legislation and the comments from the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton. The piece of legislation before the House will prohibit the release of non-criminal information, such as mental health records, and strictly limit the release of non-conviction information. I think we’re all in agreement that that general prohibition is a good thing.

The other thing the act also does identify, though, is that there are circumstances in which there need to be vulnerable sector checks.

As Minister of Education, with responsibility for schools and licensed child care, those are two of the circumstances in which, in fact, we require that employees in schools and people who work in licensed childcare centres do, in fact, require criminal record checks and in particular the vulnerable sector checks, because they are dealing with children and have responsibility for children and, by the nature of their work, have a special relationship with children and often will have that relationship in a one-on-one encounter circumstance.

In that case, we do require an easy test for figuring out if you can ask for a vulnerable sector record check.

So I would just caution the member that in looking at tribunals and things like that—for example, one thing that we already run into problems with is that all the students who come into faculties of education all over the province each fall need to get a vulnerable sector check before they can go and do their practice teaching in the schools because, again, they’re going to have that special relationship. We need to be careful that we don’t back up the ability of those people to get their check done quickly in another context of looking at tribunals. We have to find the right balance here.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton. You have two minutes.

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Thank you for the comments. I thought they were very thoughtful. I want to acknowledge everyone who responded: the member from Sudbury, the member from York–Simcoe, my own colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo and the Minister of Education.

I’m just going to respond as quickly as I can to all the issues that were raised. I think that, absolutely, having a tribunal process or having a process that requires an application to the court would increase time and cost. It would increase time and cost in circumstances where the result of the criminal record disclosure would preclude you from the job and the opportunity anyway. So it’s only in those rare circumstances where the release of information would actually generate a record that could actually preclude you from an educational opportunity or a job opportunity. That impact to your life would be a much bigger cost and a much bigger time loss. In those circumstances, it’s worth it.

In cases where there isn’t a need for an application, it would be where you don’t have a response generated. You receive that response, there is no issue and you go on with your life. It’s only when there is a response generated that you perhaps make that application to a court or tribunal. That’s a suggestion.

I want to thank the member from York–Simcoe for recognizing that there are circumstances where it doesn’t make sense or doesn’t seem necessary to have a criminal records check.

I want to thank the member from Kitchener–Waterloo for bringing up the John Howard remark that it really is a repudiation of the presumption of innocence when we have information that’s released that generates obstacles for people to pursue education or employment. It really does violate that fundamental principle.

So thank you all for your comments, and hopefully we can create a bill that protects people.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m.

Interjection: Recessed.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Recessed.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Gila Martow: Mr. Speaker, I want to introduce my friend Trevor Kahn. He’s here from Richmond Hill, and I believe it’s the first time he’s been here at Queen’s Park since I’ve been a member. Thank you for coming, Trevor.

M me France Gélinas: I have some big visitors with me today. This is Dr. Toth, who is the president of the OMA; Amber Anderson, who is the manager of government relations at the OMA; and Danielle Milley, who is the media relations adviser at the OMA. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to take a moment to congratulate the Blue Jays, as they won their sixth American League title. It’s been 22 years since there has been playoff action in the city of Toronto. As an Ontarian, I just want to say congratulations and wish them well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll accept that as an introduction to the Blue Jays.

Further introductions? The member from Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank all honourable members who participated in the “Do Not Pick On Cody Welton Week” here at Queen’s Park this week. Cody is quite a capable member of the PC staff here, and I appreciate the co-operation of all members. Keep up the good work; there are a few hours left to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m glad you introduced Cody.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I want to thank all members of the House who showed up this morning for omelettes with the Egg Farmers of Ontario. I got a nice tie out of the process; I’m wearing it proudly.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to introduce today, with the page from Simcoe North, Calvin Kudar, his mother, Beth Kudar; his grandmother Wendy Johnston; his aunt Mary Johnston; and another aunt, Mary Caulder.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome—an actual introduction.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Jasmine Rajbhandari. She’s in the gallery here. Her husband is coming in a few minutes, Kishor Rajbhandari. They are the parents of page Krishaj Rajbhandari, who’s here today.

I also want to introduce my constituency office assistant: Jessica Bozzo is here today as well, for her first time to watch question period.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I know he’s been introduced already; however, he is a constituent of mine and a local family doctor, the president of the OMA, Dr. Michael Toth. Welcome.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like members of the Legislature to join me in welcoming Sandy and Ken Bradley, and Howard and Ingrid Sproxton. They bid on a day at Queen’s Park and a lunch with their MPP. Unfortunately for them, that’s me. Thank you.

Wearing of pins

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Davenport on a point of order.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear commemorative pins in recognition of Hispanic Heritage Month, which begins today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Davenport is seeking unanimous consent to wear pins in honour of Hispanic Heritage Month. Do we agree? Agreed.

Last call for introductions.

Mr. Michael Harris: I know that B.J. Birdy isn’t allowed in our Legislature, but I do want to stand up and congratulate the Toronto Blue Jays for making the playoffs—22 years since winning the AL East division. Congrats, Jays.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If we can keep that mood in question period, I’m just going to be moving right along.

There are no further introductions. It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Premier. The Premier has said she has answered questions a hundred times regarding the corruption and alleged bribery in the Sudbury by-election. The reality: The Premier has failed to give a direct answer to any of those hundred questions.

We will stop asking those questions when we get a direct answer.

Did the Premier give permission to Pat Sorbara or Gerry Lougheed to offer Andrew Olivier a job or appointment in exchange for stepping down as the candidate? Yes or no?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sure the member opposite would like to correct his record. The Premier has actually answered 107 questions on this topic.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Premier has been open with the Legislature, open with the media—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Answer the question and we’ll stop asking.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —open with the public about allegations related to the Sudbury by-election. She has addressed questions dozens of times in interactions with the media.

We have faith in the process—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, second time.

Finish.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have co-operated fully. We will continue to do that.

As this is a matter before the courts, we will have no further comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, that was just one more spin and one more no-real answer.

Gerry Lougheed Jr. said he took

part in conversations with Pat Sorbara and the Premier when they discussed who the Liberal candidate in Sudbury would be. Gerry Lougheed told Andrew Olivier that Pat Sorbara was going to talk to him about appointments in exchange for stepping down. Gerry Lougheed Jr. told Andrew Olivier that the Premier wanted to talk to him.

Did the Premier give her deputy chief of staff permission to offer Mr. Olivier options if he stepped down? Yes or no? No more spin.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I must say I’m shocked that the members opposite continue to—

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Time for a citizen’s arrest.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I’m shocked that the members opposite continue to disregard the law and the conventions of this House.

The Supreme Court, academics and even our own standing order rules make it clear that ongoing court proceedings cannot be discussed in this House. That’s no spin.

What the members opposite are doing is they’re playing politics with an important issue that is before the courts, and they are disregarding the constitutional convention of this House.

I tell the Leader of the Opposition to perhaps listen to his own deputy leader when he said—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The Premier has said that she will co-operate fully. You would have to assume that “co-operate fully” would mean that if subpoenaed to testify, the Premier will testify. Yet again and again, when I’ve asked that question, there has not been an answer.

You may not want to talk about the upcoming trial, but will the Premier testify? It’s hypocritical to say you’re going to co-operate but not testify.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Are you finished?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Will the Premier testify if subpoenaed?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Let me just stop, because I think the Leader of the Opposition should listen to one of his deputy leaders, the member from Leeds–Grenville. I actually agree with him—I agree with him on a lot of things—when in February he said to the government, I am assuming, “Stop interfering in an ongoing investigation and let it run its course.”

The member from Leeds–Grenville is right, and I would suggest—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, you’re warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition listen to his caucus members as well and stop interfering in a court proceeding.

Speaker, the Premier has been open and clear and transparent to this House, to the media and to the people of this province. She has co-operated in this matter fully, and she will continue to co-operate.

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. Sadly, it is becoming all too common: Today, the Wynne Liberals slashed funding to physicians yet again. The government cut funding in February and again in April. Today, the Liberals have slashed another $235 million from patient care. That’s over $800 million cut this year alone. That means longer wait times and less access to care in Ontario.

How does the Premier explain to the single working mother forced to sit in the ER longer—all night—because she can’t get a doctor for her child? How can they justify that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite clearly doesn’t understand what this is all about. In fact, by constraining compensation to physicians, that is allowing us to provide more care to patients across the province.

The member opposite is saying physicians should be paid more. We are saying our physicians are already the best paid in the country, and if we have more money to spend in health care, it should be spent on things like home care that people rely on.

We heard from your own caucus a request for more and better home care. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We cannot pay physicians more and make the investments that are necessary in other parts of the health care system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Acting Premier: The culture of cuts to doctors is not sustainable. With a growing and aging population, Ontario’s health care system is put under immense pressure. The decisions the Liberals make today will impact patients. That’s what this is about. It’s about patients’ access to quality, patient-focused care in Ontario. Patients deserve the type of care they have spent their life putting into the system—hard-earned tax dollars.

Can the Acting Premier explain why her government is making these cuts at a time that we absolutely can’t afford it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is an outrageous accusation that the member opposite is making. He simply does not understand that we are investing more in other parts of the health care system. We are improving care, and we must constrain physician compensation in order to make those investments.

There are no cuts to patient care. We have excellent doctors.

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Paying doctors more does not solve the problems in our health care system. We have the highest-paid physicians in the country, many would argue in the world. If you are arguing that physicians should be paid more, then I think you have your priorities wrong.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question again is to the Acting Premier. In this round of cuts the Liberal government is slashing funding to addiction services. We are seeing a 50% cut to addiction monitoring and testing funding. Because of these cuts, there are six addiction clinics on the chopping block in the city of Toronto alone. The next closest clinic is an hour away. The people battling addiction need these services. The risk of falling back into addiction is serious if you don’t have access to these doctors.

Mr. Speaker, where is this government’s compassion? Do the Premier and this government not recognize the need for these clinics? These are real cuts.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, again, if the member opposite thinks the solution is to pay doctors more, I think he is absolutely wrong.

We have a very strong record on health care since 2003. The number of positions has increased by over 5,600 people. We have reversed the brain drain. More doctors are now moving to Ontario than leaving Ontario. Ninety-four per cent of us have a family doctor. We’ve got 24,000 more nurses working.

The Leader of the Opposition stood with Stephen Harper when he slashed health care transfers. That’s costing Ontario patients $8 billion—

Interjections.

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

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday in her response to my question, the Premier said that it was always obvious that her government was going to sell off Hydro One. In fact, she pointed to the fact that New Democrats were asking questions about a possible sale as far back as 2014. Well, she’s right. New Democrats were asking questions about the sell-off of Hydro One in 2014 and again in the spring of 2015, just as we are now.

On October 21, 2014, I asked the Premier a direct question about the possibility of the sell-off of Hydro One. Does the Acting Premier remember what the Premier’s response was to that question?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Throughout this process, we have been very transparent. We are committed to building the infrastructure that this province sorely needs. That is a commitment. In order to meet that commitment, we do have to look at the assets that this province already holds so that we can reinvest in the kind of assets Ontario needs today.

On April 11, 2014, we publicly announced the creation of an advisory council and their work to maximize the value of Hydro One. On April 11, 2014—our own news release—we put Hydro One in the headline. The headline read: “The Ontario government has appointed a council to recommend ways to improve the efficiency and optimize the full value of Hydro One.” It was in our 2014 budget—which, by the way, was introduced twice—and in our platform. The NDP used the same financial estimates that we used; they ran on it too.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, allow me to jog the Acting Premier’s memory. In response to a direct question on October 24, 2014—21, rather; the 24th is my birthday—on whether the Premier should sell off Hydro One assets, the Premier said that the leader of the third party “knows that we’re not selling off the assets.... She knows that we are keeping these assets in public hands.” That’s in the Hansard. The Premier said exactly those words. So even after the last election, the Premier was refusing to be straight up with the people of this province about her true intentions when it comes to Hydro One.

Will the Acting Premier admit that this government has never been upfront with Ontarians and commit to a full public review before the sell-off of Hydro One proceeds?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have been very upfront. I understand that it furthers their argument; the fact that it’s not true is a bit of a problem. The plan was in our 2014 budget. We introduced that budget twice. It was in our platform. Let me read from our 2014 OLP platform on page 4: “Our Moving Ontario Forward plan includes a balanced and responsible approach to paying for these investments. The funds will be from dedicated sources of revenue.” Asset optimization we pegged at $3.15 billion or 10.9% of the Moving Ontario Forward plan. Hydro One was mentioned three times in our budget.

In the budget, we said that our government will look at maximizing and unlocking value from assets it currently holds, including Hydro One.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: More than 170 municipalities across this province have expressed their opposition to the sell-off of Hydro One. Now Toronto city councillors are joining the chorus of voices against this sale. Municipalities are concerned because they were never consulted on the largest privatization in Ontario’s history and because there was no advance warning whatsoever that the sell-off was coming. No matter how much she may say it, the Premier did not campaign on this. Will the Acting Premier admit that the Liberals have no mandate to sell off Hydro One?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s clear and I think the member opposite knows, as I’ve said before, that it was in our 2014 budget twice. It was in our platform. We’ve been up front with keeping the public informed about the work of the assets council.

Let’s remember why we’re doing this. We have heard from municipal leaders right across this province that they need more investments in infrastructure, and that is—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The number one request from municipalities is funding for infrastructure, whether it’s natural gas expansion, whether it’s light rail, whether it’s rapid transit, rural or northern natural gas expansion, connecting links. The Ontario community investment fund has been a great advantage for municipalities. They want the investments. We have to pay for them somehow.

By-election in Sudbury

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Acting Premier. Gerry Lougheed Jr. is a loyal Liberal soldier. Mr. Olivier referred to him as a Liberal kingmaker in Sudbury. He has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Premier and Mr. Trudeau.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sorry, but the banter between members while the question is being put is not helpful on either side.

Carry on, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: He has raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Premier and for Mr. Trudeau.

When you talk to people in Sudbury, they know that Mr. Lougheed did the bidding of the Premier and the Liberal Party, and the taped conversations in the bribery scandal reinforce that fact. When will the Premier of this province accept responsibility for her role and the role of people in her office in this scandal, or is the plan now to simply throw Mr. Lougheed under the bus?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What the people in Sudbury are talking about—and I have to say the new member from Sudbury is in very close touch with the citizens of Sudbury. They are actually looking at the record investments that our government has made to improve the lives of the people of Ontario.

The Northern Ontario Heritage Fund: We’ve invested toward 954 projects in Sudbury. Throughout that process, almost 3,000 jobs were created or retained.

We’ve spent more than $70 million expanding Highway 69 from Parry Sound to Sudbury. We’re committed to four-laning the 152-kilometre stretch of Highway 69 south of Sudbury and the Maley Drive extension.

We have invested in a new hospital, the Sudbury Regional Hospital. Health Sciences North will receive $275 million this year. That’s an increase of 54%.

Sudbury is doing well—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier needed somebody to push Mr. Olivier aside so that the member for Sudbury could run unopposed. That somebody was Gerry Lougheed Jr., the well-known Liberal soldier. Now that Mr. Lougheed has been criminally charged, the Liberal Party can’t seem to distance themselves from him fast enough. The Sudbury Star wrote yesterday that “Ultimately ... responsibility for this farce lies with [the Premier].” We agree. When will the Premier of this province accept the responsibility of her role in this scandal, as well as the role of people from her office?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I find the question quite ironic, because I’m sure the NDP sent thank-you letters to Mr. Lougheed when he gave $500 in the 2014 election to the former MPP Joe Cimino. I’m sure the member from Nickel Belt also sent him a thank-you letter when he donated to her campaign another $500 in the same campaign in 2014—not to mention that I’m sure the Ontario NDP sent him thank-you letters and continued to invite him to events when, in 2008, he gave them about $600, and the list goes on and on.

I think the members opposite and the leader of the third party should be very careful in disparaging members of communities when they have accepted donations from the same individual in question.

Speaker, this matter is before the courts. Let’s respect that process.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The responsibility for the Sudbury bribery scandal falls squarely on the shoulders of the Premier of this province. The recording of the conversation of Mr. Lougheed and the Premier’s deputy chief of staff shows that everything was being done at the bidding of the Premier of this province. The people of Sudbury know that Mr. Lougheed is just a good Liberal soldier who does what he’s told by the Premier or Mr. Trudeau.

The Premier accepts no responsibility and her chief of staff continues to operate out of the Premier’s office.

My question, again, is this: When will the Premier of this province accept responsibility for her role and the role of the people in her office in the Sudbury bribery scandal?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Again, Speaker, I’m sure they were not saying no to Mr. Lougheed when he was coming to NDP events in Sudbury and Nickel Belt and giving donations to Joe Cimino, to the member for Nickel Belt and to the riding association year after year. All of a sudden, now they’re shocked and awed that somehow he was helping various political parties, exercising his democratic right in that process by making sure that his community was served well.

We are very proud of the kinds of investments we made in Sudbury under this government. From health care to education, millions and millions of dollars have been invested in that community so the people of Sudbury can enjoy the quality of life they deserve so much.

I respectfully ask the members opposite to—

Hon. James J. Bradley: Time to stop the smear campaign.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The deputy House leader, second time. There is a very old, ancient trick of using somebody else’s mike, and I would ask him not to do that.

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think he invented that trick, Speaker.

I respectfully ask the members opposite to respect the law and the convention of this House and not intervene in a court proceeding.

Health care funding

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Acting Premier. Acting Premier, Ontarians with chronic diseases should be concerned about this government’s actions today. Every day, Ontario’s 28,000 doctors go to work and put patients first, many of them with chronic diseases. For doctors, it’s simple: There’s no job more important than the health of their patients.

But this government is attacking those very doctors and their patients with heart disease, kidney disease and diabetes as they are seeing their health care cut in order to pay for Liberal scandals. Whether it be the gas plants, eHealth, Ornge or their failed diabetes registry, these scandals cost Ontarians billions.

You’ve cut over $800 million from patients this year alone to fund your scandals. In fact, this past spring, you secretly shifted $54 million from the federal health transfer to non-health programs.

Mr. Speaker, why is the government cutting health care services to the sickest in the province to pay for their scandals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite knows better than to ask that question. He knows full well that government has to make choices about where their dollars go. For example, when we saw that Ontarians were paying far too much for prescription drugs, as a pharmacist, the member opposite thought we should not cut the prices of those drugs. My question to him would be, do you still believe that we should now increase the price of drugs and increase the compensation to pharmacists? I don’t think so.

We have to make tough decisions. One of the tough decisions we’re making is that physician compensation has an envelope. We must live within that envelope. That does not cut patient care. All it does is cut compensation to physicians so we can expand care in other parts of our system.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I think the people at home should remember that everything this minister says equates to—she still claims that the gas plants scandal only cost $40 million. It’s all bunk, pure bunk.

Back to the Acting Premier: Your cuts to chronic disease management are not small. In fact, they don’t even make sense. Studies show early detection and treatment of complications is key to reducing costs and having healthier outcomes. However, the cuts to doctors will negatively affect treatment for diabetes and heart patients. Rural and northern Ontario will especially be hit hard because specialists are scarce.

This government has cut 35% to doctors who treat heart failure and 33% to doctors who treat diabetes. Wait-lists will grow, the sick will get sicker, access to doctors will shrink and health care costs will skyrocket due to the government’s imposed cuts to doctors.

Why are you trying to create a crisis in health care and why won’t you return to the table with doctors and seek a solution that achieves—

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

Interjections.

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

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, Ontarians are blessed. We have the finest doctors anywhere. We are enormously proud of the work that our physicians do, and they are paid in accordance with that. The report yesterday from CIHI demonstrated that, on average, a physician is billing $368,000 a year, the best in the country.

Your argument that we should increase compensation to physicians means we must take that money from somewhere else. I am not prepared—it would be irresponsible to take money out of home care, to take money out of drugs or to take money out of devices like hearing aids. That would be irresponsible.

We had a process in place that was mutually agreed upon between the OMA and government. We followed that process. We brought in our mutually-agreed-upon mediator and then a mutually-agreed-upon conciliator. The OMA didn’t like the answer, but, Speaker, we had—

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

Health care funding

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre par intérim. Speaker, people go into medical school because they want to help people, but right now, this government is bound and determined to paint every single physician in this province as money-hungry and opportunistic, and this is wrong. The actions of this Liberal government are damaging our health care system. They are creating—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

M me France Gélinas: The action of this government is damaging our health care system. It is creating—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If I could identify the person that said that, I would. When I stand, you get quiet. Even when I sit down.

Carry on.

M me France Gélinas: Do I go? Thank you, Speaker.

The actions of this Liberal government are damaging our health care system. They are creating barriers to care for people who need it the most.

The government can see the damage they’re doing to our system, yet they continue plowing right ahead. The government needs to recognize that physicians need to be compensated for the work they do, the care they provide, by working out a deal that doesn’t cause further damage to our health care system.

My question is very simple: Why won’t this government treat physicians with respect and negotiate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Today is a very special day in this Legislature. I’ve heard the member opposite stand up and fight for better home care, for nurse practitioners, for midwives, for PSWs, and today she’s standing up and arguing that we should increase compensation for a group of people who do fantastic work but who are already the highest-paid in the country and, arguably, the world. CIHI has recently come out with a report that shows that Ontario doctors are paid the highest in the country, earning $368,000 a year on average.

There are many demands on our health care system. I will be the first to admit that. But the compensation to our physicians is not in the top 10.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Today, more than 1.2 million Ontarians from across this province are speaking out against the damage the government is doing to patient care and to the health care system. But will the government listen? They’ve been having some problems with listening to Ontarians lately.

When the government makes unilateral decisions, it never works. They should know that by now. Negotiation is the key to progress. It’s not always easy, but it’s the way you get things done.

Most physicians’ practices are like a small business. Like every small business, they need to follow the rules, but when the rules keep changing, small businesses find it hard to keep up. In this case, physicians may close their practices, putting more of us without access to care.

The question is simple: Will the government agree to go back to the table and negotiate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We put a very high premium on having a strong relationship with the OMA, because it is through that work that we can really drive the quality improvements that we need to drive in this province. That’s a very important relationship.

In the 2012 agreement, we set out a plan on how we would get to an agreement if in fact we couldn’t reach it at the table. We negotiated for over a year. The OMA, unfortunately, rejected the offer that was fair to physicians and Ontarians, who need a sustainable health care system.

A jointly chosen conciliator, Justice Warren Winkler, looked very closely at the issue. His report is public. He recommended that the OMA come back and accept the deal. He recommended that the government continue to keep that offer on the table. That is what we have done. The OMA rejected it. We will continue to work with the OMA.

I do believe that we will have a stronger health care system when—

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

Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I have read a number of articles recently about fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, which is caused by the consumption of alcohol during pregnancy.

Statistics show that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is one of the leading causes of developmental disability in children across the province, including in my own riding of Davenport. In fact, it’s estimated that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder in Canada affects one in 100 live births, or 1% of the population. It can also lead to secondary and tertiary disabilities that require additional care throughout one’s life, care that can end up costing $1.8 billion in Canada across the health care, mental health and justice systems annually.

Can the minister please update the House on the initiatives her ministry is taking to support those with fetal alcohol spectrum disorder?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Davenport for asking a very important and timely question. I want to assure the member, through you, Speaker, that of course I’m very committed to providing the best possible start in life for our children and youth, and their development plays a very important

part in that.

Through screening, assessment and support services, our parent and child development programs help children achieve their maximum potential, including those children suffering from FASD.

We have a number of government-wide programs in place to assist. For example, my ministry provides $4.4 million to 20 aboriginal service providers and First Nations communities to deliver FASD programming to those communities.

I’m looking forward to providing more details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I’d like to thank the minister for her answer. But we know that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is not a developmental disability that affects just one community. It crosses all social, socio-economic and ethnic lines. While we know that there are many reasons why people drink alcohol, we also know that fetal alcohol spectrum disorder is preventable.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, has the government taken any steps to better understand the social and economic impact of fetal alcohol spectrum disorder on Ontarians?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Again, I want to thank the member for the question. My ministry has been working on this tirelessly. I’m very pleased to share with the House that my parliamentary assistant, the MPP from Durham, held 25 round table sessions across the province to engage our service providers, advocates, families, caregivers and especially those people affected directly by FASD. He listened to the challenges and what the priorities are.

Our ministry is also working with an expert group of FASD researchers and clinicians. We have conducted a number of interviews with key informants from across Canada to seek evidence to build our first-ever FASD strategy in Ontario. Of course, we’re working with other ministries, including health and education.

We’re committed, of course, to providing the best possible care to kids experiencing FASD. I want to again thank the member from Durham for a great job.

Probation services

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Attorney General. Last week, we all heard of the heartbreaking tragedy that struck the Ottawa Valley, where three women were senselessly and brutally murdered.

Basil Borutski now faces three counts of first-degree murder. Sadly, it was widely known that the accused has a history of assault and harassment convictions. In December 2014, Mr. Borutski refused to sign an order to stay away from one of his victims. This should have raised a red flag about his pattern of violence and his unwillingness to co-operate with authorities, who set those very parameters.

Can the minister tell the House just how many offenders she has released in spite of their refusal to sign their probation orders?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer that question.

First of all, let me offer my deepest sympathies to the victims’ families. Domestic violence is something that we take very, very seriously.

The Premier has asked us all to get together, all the ministries responsible, that have an input in this unfortunate situation, and to develop a program that will help to address this situation. We have a program—the PAR program is one of them that tries to address this situation, and it’s ordered by the court. They have to follow this program. We are in the process of re-evaluating if the program is serving the causes it needs to serve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: The Liberal government always assures Ontarians that their safety would never be jeopardized. Last year, the Liberal government cut the budget to the Victim Crisis Assistance and Referral Services, and now the Partner Assault Response Program has been cut, which the minister just referred to.

In Renfrew county, there’s actually only one single probation officer who visits the area once a week. He is very overworked. The Liberal government seems far too comfortable with leaving survivors of assault in precarious and violent conditions. This government needs to take a real, hard look at what happened to those women. How can the Attorney General assure Ontarians that offenders, especially those with a history of violence, will be more closely monitored?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’ll redirect the question to the minister of women’s issues.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m glad that this question has been raised. Unfortunately, it was a terrible tragedy, and both the Premier’s office and myself did reach out to the executive director of the sexual assault centre in Renfrew county and we thanked her for her presentation recently at our permanent Roundtable on Violence Against Women.

As I mentioned in yesterday’s question period, the Ontario Women’s Directorate has provided a number of significant investments to raise awareness of domestic violence and to support victims. I’ll also mention today that the Ministry of Health is investing over $1.1 million a year for the next three years in hospital-based sexual assault and domestic violence treatment centres—very focused on counselling.

This year, we’re making legislative changes to allow women to break residential leases when fleeing domestic violence, and there are other investments to follow.

By-election in Sudbury

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Acting Premier. Despite the talking points from the government House leader, the Premier could deny involvement in the Sudbury scandal if she feels so strongly about it. Instead, the Premier is letting Mr. Lougheed take the fall not only for her but for her deputy chief of staff and the member for Sudbury. People in Sudbury know that Mr. Lougheed did the Liberal Party’s bidding. The Acting Premier knows this as well because she was a Liberal campaign co-chair.

Will the Premier and the people in her office accept responsibility for their roles in this scandal, or will she just let the loyal soldier take the blame?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, Speaker, I’m surprised to hear the member, the deputy leader of the NDP, mentioning Supreme Court reasoning as talking points. I’m sure the justices of the Supreme Court will really appreciate the characterization of their reasonings in the Tobias case from 1997 as talking points.

Let me restate what the Supreme Court said in that case, and I quote: “A well-known rule of parliamentary practice holds that no member of the House of Commons should comment upon any matter that is pending before the courts.”

Speaker, with all due respect to the member opposite, that’s not a talking point. That is a principle of law that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada, and I urge the members opposite to respect that convention.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Gerry Lougheed raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for the Premier and for Justin Trudeau. He met with the member for Sudbury to entice him to abandon his principles and run for the Liberal Party. Mr. Lougheed was asked to make those tough calls on behalf of the Premier. As a result, he’s now facing criminal charges.

But it was clear that he was just doing what he was told. The Premier was the one who is prepared to do anything to win. The responsibility for this entire mess rests on her. Will the Premier finally accept responsibility for the actions of the people under her command?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Clearly, Speaker, the member opposite is bitter because he didn’t get a cheque from Mr. Lougheed. Mr. Cimino got a cheque from Mr. Lougheed. The member from Nickel Belt got a cheque from Mr. Lougheed. The Ontario NDP’s Sudbury NDP has gotten multiple cheques from Mr. Lougheed. The federal NDP riding in Sudbury and the federal NDP MP have continued to receive cheques from Mr. Lougheed. I guess that’s why he’s asking these questions. How come he didn’t get a donation from Lougheed?

Speaker, these questions are politically motivated. They are interfering in a court proceeding. They should respect the convention of this House and not intervene in a matter that is before the courts.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): New question. The member from Davenport.

First Nations

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, come to order.

Carry on.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Last month, Premier Wynne and Minister Zimmer met with aboriginal leaders here at Queen’s Park for the signing of a historic political accord. The accord provides a platform for First Nations and the province of Ontario to work together on common priorities.

I’m proud to be part of a government that is committed to working with aboriginal partners to achieve real progress towards developing improved outcomes for the First Nations people, and creating prosperous, healthy and strong communities.

The political accord marks a momentous moment for our government and its commitment towards mutual co-operation. Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us about what the signing of this political accord means for all of Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before you start, I apologize to the member. I incorrectly identified the member from Barrie.

The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.

Hon. David Zimmer: I’d like to thank the member for Barrie for that question.

Speaker, on August 24, I had the privilege of joining our Premier and newly elected Regional Chief Isadore Day for the signing of the political accord. The signing of this accord allows an opportunity for several things:

—further reconciliation between First Nations and Ontario;

—a strengthened political relationship with First Nations;

—a commitment to discussions on topics of common priority, such as resource benefits sharing and the treaty relationship; and lastly

—the creation of a foundation for self-government initiatives for First Nations.

Speaker, this accord presents a significant milestone for both parties and I am honoured to have been a part of the process. I’m looking forward to continuing our government’s work with First Nations leadership to continue to cement our relationship.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: It’s wonderful to hear that our government is doing such great work to build ties between the government and First Nations peoples in Ontario. I would like to thank the minister for his hard work to negotiate this accord with our First Nations partners. I offer my congratulations to the minister and Premier Wynne for working so hard to—

Interjections.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I’d like to thank the minister and the Premier for working so hard to ensure the accord came to fruition.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell this House what the next steps for our government are in working with the First Nations people to build a stronger, more prosperous Ontario?

Hon. David Zimmer: Speaker, the signing of the political accord is but the first step in a new, renewed co-operation between the government of Ontario and our First Nations. There are many further steps to come.

The signing of the accord will help us work with First Nations to implement the recommendations of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, including education and promotion of aboriginal history and culture. It will help us develop a new treaty strategy to facilitate constructive engagement on treaties, to revitalize existing treaty relationships, and promote improved social and economic outcomes for our aboriginal peoples.

Negotiating this accord has been a positive experience. It has fostered a positive dialogue that I hope and I know will continue into our future dealings with the aboriginal leadership. I am proud of my ministry’s role in this historic agreement and the Premier’s leadership to committing our government to closer—

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

Federal election

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Acting Premier. Apparently our Premier missed the Integrity Commissioner’s warning to all MPPs about participation in the federal election and partisan use of government resources.

Being Premier is a full-time job, yet since the election she has ignored the commissioner, posing for more pictures with Justin than working on the priorities of Ontarians. While 800,000 elementary students are impacted by strike action, she’s dancing with Justin. While they’re suspending Peel breakfast programs, she’s breaking bread with Bill Blair. While other Premiers keep their distance, this Premier blurs lines on partisan promotion.

Speaker, it’s one thing to have a horse in the race; it’s another to spend our resources to push it over the finish line. Can the Acting Premier tell us why the part-time Premier continues to flout the commissioner’s warning and use provincial tax dollars to get her favourite candidate elected?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, let me say that our Premier is the hardest-working person I have ever had the opportunity of working with. The energy that she demonstrates—she works so hard every moment of every day. She is a phenom; I don’t know how she does it.

Yes, it’s quite clear that—

Interjection: Superwoman.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Superwoman: I agree. She is a superwoman.

This election is a very important election for Ontario. The current government has made it very clear that they are not interested in working with this province. It took the Premier over a year to get a meeting with the Prime Minister. One would think that the Prime Minister of Canada would be happy to talk to the Premier of Ontario any time she wanted to do so.

The federal government—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —has tried to—

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

Before we begin, I’d like to bring the temperature down a little bit and try to stay focused on government business. Thank you.

Mr. Michael Harris: Back to the Acting Premier: The Premier’s bad habits are rubbing off on her caucus colleagues. Her members now think they can parade around, promoting their federal Liberal buddies at Ontario taxpayer funding announcements, while staff campaign on the provincial taxpayer’s dime.

While the Premier is on Justin’s stage, there’s the Kitchener Centre MPP and the minister—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: While the Premier is on Justin’s stage, there’s the Kitchener Centre MPP and the Minister of Agriculture handing out Ontario government cheques in my riding as they pose for pictures, shoulder to shoulder with a local federal Liberal candidate—provincial government announcements utilizing provincial taxpayer resources to arrange and execute, and there’s the federal candidate toasting with the MPPs and grant recipients.

Speaker, I’ve asked the Integrity Commissioner to investigate the actions of the Kitchener Centre MPP and the minister. While we wait, will they do the right thing, rein in partisan politicking and get the government back to working for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, we believe it’s our job to stand up for Ontarians, and that’s exactly what we’re doing. We need a new government. We need a new partner. We need a new kind of leadership in Ottawa. We need—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We need a partner that will work with us to build more opportunity and more security for Ontarians.

We ran in the last election on our Ontario Retirement Pension Plan. The Prime Minister and the federal finance minister have done everything they can to prevent us from building that kind of retirement security. We want to move forward on building a pension plan, so that Ontarians can retire knowing that they have enough income—

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

Executive compensation

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Acting Premier. It’s all the way back from 2010, and Ontarians are still looking for an answer.

In 2012 your government, the Liberals, committed to a cap of executive salaries, but earlier this week Ontarians learned that the executive salaries at the provincial community care access centres went up by 27% in four years.

The week before that, we learned that most of the executives of the Pan Am Games were to receive performance bonuses that would double their salaries, for simply doing their jobs.

Speaker, the vast majority of Ontarians find this offensive.

My question is this: When will the Liberal government stop the bonanza and cap public CEO salaries?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, this is a bit rich, coming from a man who is in a party that voted against Bill 8, the broader public sector compensation, accountability and transparency act. They voted against it, and now they’re not happy with our progress on it. We would have been further ahead if they had not triggered that election. Remember that election, Speaker. We had introduced the bill. We would have had that bill passed if you hadn’t triggered that election.

We are moving forward. It has been proclaimed. We are doing that work now to develop those caps and those compensation frameworks within the broader public sector. That work is happening. We are doing it in a thoughtful way. We would have been further along in this exercise had you supported it in the first place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: A bit rich? There’s a whole bunch of people getting rich under your watch. Just one, for example: Do you remember the guy who used to run Hydro One? He used to get paid $750,000. Now we find out, because we got the FOI, that this new CEO who’s being hired is going to get four million bucks—talk about getting rich.

Our party is putting forward a bill today under—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hate to do this, but—a reminder that you’re talking to the Chair. Third person, please.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker.

Again, I say that we as a party, the New Democrats, today are putting forward a private members’ bill that would cap CEO salaries at two and a half times the price of what the Premier gets. That is only fair.

I want to know: Are you guys prepared to do the right thing and move on capping CEO salaries so that we can get some justice in this world and we don’t have people getting rich on Liberal lands?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there is no question that Ontarians deserve a very clear rationale as to what people are getting paid and why they are getting paid that. We believe in that. That’s why we introduced legislation that accomplishes exactly that.

I look forward to speaking to the member’s bill this afternoon.

I can tell you that I’m happy to report on the progress we’ve made since that bill, Bill 8, received royal assent. We are collecting that full compensation information from organizations right across the broader public sector. We are covering everything from sabbatical pay to bonuses to health benefits. We are capturing all compensation. We are doing our homework. We are doing this in an evidence-based, thoughtful way so that we can create reasonable compensation caps while we manage those public dollars.

I look forward to the debate this afternoon.

Consumer protection

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. Last week, they updated the House on actions our government has taken to strengthen the real estate sector. This is an important priority, but buying and selling only makes up part of a homeowner’s responsibility.

The houses in Durham have a lot of character and vary greatly from place to place, from suburban in northern Bowmanville to cottages on the water in Caesarea to older farm homes on lots of land up near Zephyr.

So many Durham residents are getting creative and resourceful and looking to renovate their homes through work with our many quality independent contractors. Ensuring a level of accountability in this sector is thus extremely important to Ontarians.

Can the minister please speak to our government’s record in protecting consumers on home renovation projects?

Hon. David Orazietti: While I could probably turn around and give the answer, I want everybody to hear it, so here it is.

I want to first thank the member from Durham for asking about an important consumer protection issue.

Our government is committed to protecting Ontario homeowners and has a strong track record, through the Consumer Protection Act, to ensure a number of things take place:

—that Ontarians have a 10-day cooling-off period for any contracts that they enter;

—that the contractors must provide consumers with estimates on the services and stay within 10% of that initial estimate;

—Ontarians have a right to cancel a contract if services are not commenced within 30 days of the promised date; and

—that consumer agreements disclose all of the details and all mandatory provisions clearly.

Speaker, we’ve enforced these protections consistently. Several home renovation companies, unfortun