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

April 12, 2018

41st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2018-Apr-12 (PDF)

L012 - Thu 12 Apr 2018 / Jeu 12 avr 2018

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 12 April 2018 Jeudi 12 avril 2018

Orders of the Day

Pay Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence salariale

Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au rapport de solvabilité du consommateur et la disponibilité des ascenseurs

Wearing of jerseys

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of jersey

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Government accountability

Hospital funding

Dental care

Executive compensation

Labour dispute

Coal-fired generating stations

Labour dispute

Toronto Transit Commission

Tamil community

Mental health services

Tree seed services

Road safety

Social assistance

Deferred Votes

Time allocation

Pay Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence salariale

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Poverty

Labour dispute

Holocaust Remembrance Day

Holocaust Remembrance Day

Justin Jewell

James Barker Band

Tamil community

Wellington Advertiser

Service dogs

Muslim Welfare Centre of Toronto

Holocaust Remembrance Day

Introduction of Bills

Residential Tenancies Amendment Act, 2018 (Tenant Privacy) / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur la location à usage d’habitation (droit à la vie privée des locataires)

Walk to Work Day Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur le Jour de promotion de la marche pour se rendre au travail

School Boards Property and Development Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence en ce qui concerne les biens et les immobilisations des conseils scolaires

Petitions

Landfill

Water fluoridation

Casinos

Landfill

Water fluoridation

Ontario budget

Consumer protection

Government services

Respite care

Hospital funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Home Care and Community Services Amendment Act (Dan’s Law), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur les services de soins à domicile et les services communautaires (Loi Dan)

Youth Political Engagement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’engagement politique des jeunes

Liability for Climate-Related Harms Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la responsabilité à l’égard Des dommages liés au climat

Home Care and Community Services Amendment Act (Dan’s Law), 2018 / Loi de 2018 modifiant la

Loi sur les services de soins à domicile et les services communautaires (Loi Dan)

Youth Political Engagement Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’engagement politique des jeunes

Liability for Climate-Related Harms Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la responsabilité à l’égard Des dommages liés au climat

Orders of the Day

Correctional Services Transformation Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transformation des services correctionnels

Plan for Care and Opportunity Act (Budget Measures), 2018 / Loi de 2018 pour un plan axé sur le mieux-être et l’avenir (mesures budgétaires)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Pay Transparency Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur la transparence salariale

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 9, 2018, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 3,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment / Projet de loi 3, Loi portant sur la transparence salariale.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 11, 2018, I’m now required to put the question.

Mr. Flynn has moved second reading of Bill 3,

An Act respecting transparency of pay in employment.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

I heard a no.

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members—this will not be a five-minute bell, because it will be deferred until after question period today.

Second reading vote deferred.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act, 2018 / Loi de 2018 sur l’accès au rapport de solvabilité du consommateur et la disponibilité des ascenseurs

Ms. MacCharles moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 8,

An Act to amend the Consumer Reporting Act and the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000 / Projet de loi 8, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les renseignements concernant le consommateur et la Loi de 2000 sur les normes techniques et la sécurité.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ms. MacCharles.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I’m pleased to rise in the House and speak to second reading of Bill 8, Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act. The bill addresses two areas that, if passed, impact Ontarians on a daily basis.

Speaker, our government is committed to protecting Ontario consumers at home and in the marketplace. My remarks will focus on levelling the playing field to consumers accessing their credit reports, as well as this government’s commitment to developing a plan that addresses elevator availability and establishing a repair-time protocol.

The proposed amendments to the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000, would establish a legislative and regulatory framework for elevator availability. We know that out-of-service elevators can be a source of frustration for residents, especially for the elderly, expectant mothers, those with young children and people with disabilities. That’s why we have developed an action plan which would address areas such as elevator safety, availability, preventive maintenance and education awareness for owners and residents.

The action plan also looks at the labour supply of elevator mechanics and provides for better elevator access for first responders trying to reach patients in multi-storey buildings.

As part of the action plan, we intend to develop an elevator repair timeline, to make Ontario the first jurisdiction worldwide to do so. In order to develop the standard, we need to collect more data and fully assess potential costs and impacts. We’ll continue to work with all parties, levels of government and stakeholders through wide-reaching consultations as we move forward on our action plan. This, again, will make Ontario the first jurisdiction in the world to undertake such action on behalf of its residents.

Our government is focused on building a fair, safe and informed marketplace for Ontario consumers. If passed, this legislation would be added to an already impressive list of actions taken by this government to ensure that Ontario consumers are being protected.

One year ago, with the passage of Bill 59, the Putting Consumers First Act, our government moved forward with this vital consumer protection bill in the areas of home inspections, door-to-door sales and payday lenders.

More recently, with the passage of Bill 166, the Strengthening Protection for Ontario Consumers Act, our government set forth to protect consumers when they travel, when they purchase tickets to a concert or sporting event, and when they purchase a home or have a new home constructed. It should be recognized that Her Majesty’s loyal opposition did not feel that Ontarians deserved these latest protections and actually chose to vote against them.

As the Minister of Government and Consumer Services, the minister responsible for administering the Consumer Protection Act, I take very seriously the need to continue to enhance the rights of consumers while ensuring that businesses in Ontario are provided the opportunity to excel.

Minister Leal, our minister responsible for small business, also takes particular interest in ensuring that we strike this important balance. He and his office are dedicated to ensuring Ontario remains one of the best places in North America to set up and do business.

I would like to direct your attention, Speaker, to the timelines of this legislation as we mark World Consumer Rights Day. Every year, the consumer movement marks March 15 as World Consumer Rights Day as a means of raising global awareness about consumers’ rights and their needs. Celebrating this day is a chance to determine and demand that the rights of all consumers are respected and protected. We need to protest on that day market abuses and social injustices which undermine these rights.

World Consumer Rights Day was inspired by President John F. Kennedy, who sent a special message to the US Congress on March 15, 1962, in which he formally addressed the issue of consumer rights. He was the first world leader to do so.

As minister, I want to ensure that consumers have the tools and resources available to them to make informed decisions about their purchases and to be aware of what courses of action they have available to them. This legislation, if passed, aligns perfectly with our previous record on consumer protections and the aspirational goals laid out by the late John F. Kennedy.

When it first arose in the news and my ministry was looking at any possible negative impacts to Ontarians regarding consumer reporting agencies’ handling of personal data, we just found there wasn’t a level playing field. Ontarians were not being given adequate access to their information or the ability to ensure that their information was being protected.

If passed by the Legislature, it would provide stronger consumer protection tools by giving consumers easier access to their own credit information. The bill is aimed at ensuring consumer reporting agencies give consumers greater electronic access, free of charge, twice a year, to their own credit history, including any credit history reports and scores that were shared with potential creditors over the past 12 months. The bill would also give consumers the option of putting in place a security freeze that would prevent agencies from disclosing their credit information to a third party.

The changes would give consumers more access and control over their own information to help reduce the harm of identity theft.

As we continue to move forward to a more digital environment, where many people living in Ontario would choose to review their credit report online, we need to ensure that consumer reporting agencies are providing them with access to their own credit history.

If this bill passes, the ministry will consult with consumer reporting agencies, as well as businesses that use the services of these agencies, to inform the development of regulations needed to implement the legislative changes without incurring unintended consequences.

The government’s proposed amendments would create three major changes. First, when requested by a consumer, credit reporting agencies would have to provide consumers with their credit history and credit score electronically at least twice a year. They would not be allowed to charge a fee for this.

Second, agencies would have to provide, as part of a consumer report, any scores given to third parties within the past 12 months. This would help consumers to understand the information the agency has provided to the creditor.

Third, agencies would also have to give consumers the option to put in place, suspend or cancel a security freeze that would prevent agencies from disclosing information.

I should also note that my colleague sitting to my right this morning, the MPP for Beaches–East York, Arthur Potts, proposed many of these changes in his private member’s bill last fall, and I thank him for that.

If passed, Ontario would have the strongest and most transparent rules in Canada over how consumer reporting agencies share your credit information. We understand that this bill would mean changes to the way consumer reporting agencies operate. These are not decisions we made lightly.

We know that the information shared by these agencies trickles down to all sectors of the economy. That’s why we plan to consult with the public, including consumers, consumer reporting agencies, and businesses that use the services of the agencies, before forming the regulations that will allow us to bring the bill into force.

In particular, we know that many of the registered reporting agencies are small businesses. We want to make sure consumers are protected without creating undue burden to businesses, especially small enterprises. This would be a key factor in specifying the agencies that would be required to comply with the new rules.

These changes are being proposed to give consumers greater access to their credit information and the ability to limit when that information is shared with a third-party organization, like creditors.

Currently, the Consumer Reporting Act gives consumers free access to their consumer report but does not specify a timeline for the agency to provide it or electronic access. It does not require scores to be provided to consumers. It does not provide consumers the right to put a security freeze on their information.

The government believes that consumers need greater access to the information held by agencies, and more control over how that information is shared. These changes, if passed by the Legislature, would give consumers greater electronic access, free of charge, to their own consumer report and consumer score, to be provided upon request up to twice per calendar year, including any consumer scores that were shared with third parties, such as potential creditors, over the past 12 months. The option of putting in place a security freeze that would prevent agencies from disclosing their credit information, subject to some exemptions, would be set out in regulations.

The changes, if passed, would also improve enforcement by giving the registrar greater authority to issue orders. If the bill is passed, regulations will be developed, in consultation with consumers, business and the credit reporting industry, before the changes could come into force.

The proposed changes offer significant benefits to consumers. Consumers would have greater access to their credit information and, as a result, be better able to identify their credit standing and any fraudulent activity on their accounts.

Consumers would also be able to place a security freeze on their information. This provides consumers with an additional tool if they believe their identity is compromised.

The ministry has received input on changes to the act through informal discussions with the larger agencies. If approved, the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services would consult with consumers, businesses and the consumer reporting industry on the regulatory details. The ministry would likely begin consultations with the industry on proposed regulations in the fall of 2018 if the bill is passed this spring.

Now to expand on the security freezes, these are placed at the request of the consumer. A security freeze prevents third parties, such as a potential creditor, from accessing a consumer’s credit information unless the freeze is suspended or cancelled by the consumer. Security freezes are currently a consumer option across the United States. We believe that those living in Ontario should have this option available to them as well.

A freeze may help victims or potential victims of identity theft to protect their information. For example, it might be helpful for someone who lost a wallet where they kept sensitive information such as their social insurance number. This is why the ministry is proposing to require certain consumer reporting agencies to place the security freeze on an account at the request of a consumer.

A security freeze can help diminish the harm caused by identity theft. For example, if you believe your identity has been stolen, a freeze could help prevent someone from opening accounts like credit cards or a line of credit in your name.

The proposal includes regulation-making authority to determine fees for security freezes. The regulations could set out requirements to provide freezes for free following a breach.

A freeze would go further than alerts, which are already part of the act. A security alert is an optional service that consumers can choose that requires agencies to warn potential creditors to verify an applicant’s identity. It can be a useful tool if you believe your identity has been compromised, but it does not necessarily prevent a potential creditor from getting information. With the security freeze, agencies would be prohibited from providing any credit information, subject to any exemptions that we would build into regulations.

This is another area where we want to get detailed feedback from stakeholders to be sure that we avoid any unintended consequences. We know there might be concerns in the industry about the time this could add to granting credit, so we will be looking to the industry for their thoughts on how we can find that balance between consumer protection and ensuring efficiency.

In the past, consumers have highlighted concerns they have with credit reporting agencies. Over the past three years, there were 2,090 complaints, incidents and inquiries made to the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services regarding the Consumer Reporting Act, 2009. Complaints about consumer reporting are among the top 10 most common complaints the ministry receives. The ministry did not receive complaints about the data breach covered in the news. According to the ministry’s consumer protection data system, the ministry received 597 inquiries, incidents and complaints regarding the agencies between January 1, 2017, and February 28, 2018.

The most frequent issues about consumer reporting agencies are incorrect information, wrong individual, and a prohibited practice or missing requirement. This includes:

—consumers indicating that a bank, lender or person did not obtain permission to access their credit report;

—the credit grantor failed to notify a consumer that the consumer’s information may be divulged to a third party, including other credit grantors and consumer reporting agencies;

—the user of a credit report failed to explain denial of benefits, such as the granting of credit;

—the consumer reporting agency failed to notify creditors that a consumer’s report has been corrected after an error;

—a person or business knowingly supplied false or misleading information to a consumer reporting agency.

Given those examples, and many more, it was clear that something needed to be done to better protect consumers in Ontario.

I want to talk a little bit about the effect on agencies and business. The proposed changes do not specify which agencies will have to provide free electronic access to reports and scores or which agencies will have to implement security freezes. This will be set out in regulation. The ministry would, if the bill is passed, consult publicly on regulations to meet these priorities. The government’s intent is to capture only the largest agencies, as they deal with the most consumer files and have the broadest reach.

The government wants to ensure that the amendments will balance the need to protect consumers without imposing an undue burden on businesses, especially small and medium-sized enterprises. If this legislation is passed, the ministry plans to consult on proposed regulatory amendments and to better understand the impact on consumer reporting agencies and businesses.

The come-into-effect date will depend in part on the outcome of the consultations with the stakeholders about the regulations. The ministry’s intent is to have the regulations in effect in 2020.

As stated previously, I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, Mr. Dhillon. Mr. Dhillon will be elaborating more on different aspects of the bill before us. But I do want to touch just briefly on elevator availability before I turn it over to Mr. Dhillon.

I want to say that one of the true testaments to our government’s dedication to democracy is the seriousness with which we consider private members’ bills. This bill is comprised of government legislation drafted in response to two private members’ bills. MPP Han Dong and MPP Arthur Potts brought forth bills regarding elevator availability and consumer reporting, respectively. They heard the concerns of their constituents and identified them as a larger problem that needed to be addressed.

These two champions of consumer rights are joined by MPP Yvan Baker in continuously challenging this government to never wane in terms of consumer protection. This legislation, along with our recently enacted door-to-door protections, represents this government’s and my ministry’s answer to this challenge.

Having access to an adequate number of working elevators is neither a convenience nor a luxury; it’s a necessity and, in some instances, a lifeline. If you have mobility challenges at your residential building and it’s without elevator service, where does that leave you? Too often we hear stories of those with disabilities and those with mobility challenges becoming prisoners in their own homes due to elevator breakdowns and slow repair times.

Many are also caught outside of their residences when the elevators cease functioning and become burdened with unforeseen costs associated with locating and paying for alternative accommodations. For many with health issues, the lack of elevator availability can represent a significant health and safety risk.

With the growing number of multi-level residential buildings being built in this province, this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Our government has growing concerns with seniors and people with disabilities or other mobility issues being unable to get in and out of their condos, apartments, long-term-care or retirement homes because of unreliable elevators. But it isn’t only those with disabilities who are impacted. This impacts expectant mothers and those with young children as well.

Many of our high-rise residences have 40- and sometimes 50-plus floors. Even the most athletic among us would falter at the prospect of having to climb up and down those stairs. I encourage all Ontarians, of course, to engage in regular exercise, but 40 flights of stairs before going to work or coming home from work is not a reasonable thing to ask people to do. People should not have to worry about how to get to their homes from their lobby. This should be a quick and easy process.

In March 2017, MPP Dong introduced a private member’s bill, Bill 109, Reliable Elevators Act. MPP Dong’s bill received second reading and was referred to the Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills. It’s for this reason that our government requested that the Technical Standards and Safety Authority—the TSSA—study the state of elevator availability in Ontario and come up with some solutions. The TSSA, in turn, commissioned an independent study, led by the Honourable John Douglas Cunningham, to develop a report identifying key challenges and proposing solutions.

Mr. Cunningham’s report outlines 19 recommendations aimed at improving elevator availability. Madam Speaker, our government plans to take action on all 19 recommendations outlined in this report.

In January of this year, I was pleased to stand beside MPP Han Dong and announce Ontario’s action plan on elevator availability. Many of the main points of MPP Dong’s bill are addressed in this current bill before the House and in the province’s elevator action plan. I want to thank MPP Dong for taking the initiative to introduce his private member’s bill which informed this proposed legislation.

Speaker, I have been informed that unfortunately my parliamentary assistant is not here. I know the rain was challenging for the commute this morning for myself, so that may be what’s holding him up. I’ll proceed to read his remarks, if that’s appropriate.

So, on behalf of MPP Vic Dhillon: Speaker, one of the key roles of government is to protect residents in areas where it’s difficult to protect themselves.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Brampton West.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Sorry, it’s Brampton West. I’ve been corrected: the MPP for Brampton West. Thank you.

This is why the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services and the Ontario consumer protection branch exist. It’s there for Ontarian consumers. We want to ensure that we educate Ontario consumers on their rights and help them through situations where they may have been taken advantage of by a company or not given everything that they’re entitled to.

One of the areas in which Ontario consumers find it difficult to protect themselves is, as we’ve discussed, credit reporting and how it impacts their credit rating. Typically, this is not something they think about on a regular basis. It’s not until they’re faced with circumstances where they need to go to a credit reporting agency that they come across situations where they would have benefited from the type of legislation that we are introducing here. Examples of this are when you’re trying to get a mortgage to purchase your first home, applying to rent an apartment, or being assessed for your dream job. At this point, your credit history may all of a sudden come into full focus.

The integrity of your credit rating also becomes front and centre when something goes wrong; for example, an error on your credit report. Credit report mistakes can cost consumers higher interest rates and even prevent some of them from getting loans. Or, even worse, identity theft can destroy your credit rating and may even take a heavy financial toll. This can have a negative effect on an individual and their family, and can at times take a very long time to try to resolve. I remember when that happened to my husband. It took a long time to deal with an identity theft issue.

Madam Speaker, many people in Ontario lead busy and at times stressful lives. They do not need issues related to credit reporting agencies to add to this.

In 2009, the Canadian Anti-Fraud Centre received identity fraud reports from 11,095 victims, totalling a loss of more than $10 million. It’s important for Ontarians to understand their credit rating and the information that consumer reporting agencies hold about them. This includes knowing how this sensitive personal information is shared and used. Madam Speaker, this is why our government introduced a bill that, if passed, would give Ontario the strongest and most transparent rules in Canada over how consumer reporting agencies share information.

It would give consumers more access and control over their credit information, and it may help reduce the harm of identity theft. The people of Ontario deserve to be protected.

Consumer reporting agencies are private sector organizations. They collect personal information on consumers, including debt, credit and bill payment history, and other information used to assess a consumer’s credit score.

Agencies collect information about a consumer’s debt and payment history from organizations like phone services, banks and many other organizations. In Canada, Equifax and TransUnion are the largest and most well known. Consumers who have received a loan or credit from a financial institution in Ontario are likely to have a file with a consumer reporting agency.

Many organizations, including banks, insurance companies and residential landlords access credit information about consumers held by consumer reporting agencies, to help them inform their decisions. This can include whether to grant an individual a mortgage or not, or to rent someone an apartment or not.

The information contained in a consumer reporting agency’s credit files can have a huge impact on whether that consumer can get access to credit, or the interest rate they will be asked to pay on a loan. Under the Consumer Reporting Act, agencies must take steps to ensure that information contained within the consumer credit reports is accurate and the contents are kept secure and only released for specific reasons.

As I mentioned, Equifax and TransUnion are the largest agencies in North America. They are also the two primary national consumer reporting agencies in Canada. But there are about 40 small consumer reporting agencies registered in Ontario which operate on a limited scope. Smaller agencies tend to specialize in providing information to landlords, employers or other niche areas.

It’s possible that not all agencies will be subject to the proposed new provisions of this act. If the bill is passed, regulations would be developed to make consumer reporting agencies that collect a wide range of information in multiple sectors of the economy subject to the new rules.

In this respect, we believe that regulations should be developed in consultation with consumer reporting agencies as well as businesses that use the services of agencies. We believe this is the best way to get the job done without creating unintended consequences. We want to make sure that the regulations are fair and reasonable for everyone.

Since we know that many agencies are small businesses, their concerns will be top of mind. Our government is taking steps to make changes to strengthen consumer protection in this area.

The amendments we have proposed in the Consumer Reporting Act through this bill were developed in order to improve consumers’ access to their own information, and to give them the ability to control when and how their personal information is disclosed by agencies.

If this bill is passed, the proposed amendments to the Consumer Reporting Act would do four main things. First, it would give consumers the right to get their consumer report electronically for free at least twice per year.

Second, consumers would also be given the right to get their consumer score for free at least twice per year.

Third, consumers would be able to place a security freeze on their credit file. This could be used in circumstances, for example, where the consumer may be concerned about identity theft. A freeze means that a consumer reporting agency could not release information about the consumer except where permitted by the consumer or where otherwise authorized under the act.

Fourth, the amendments would give the registrar enhanced enforcement powers and protections to help resolve disputes between consumers and consumer reporting agencies.

Madam Speaker, I’d like to outline to you why we have proposed these amendments.

With respect to consumer credit reports and credit scores, we know that some consumers may be unaware of the information contained in their credit report, or may be unaware of their credit score, until they seek credit or, unfortunately, something does go wrong.

Under the current rules, all agencies are required to give consumers access to their own information. Agencies are currently required to give consumers a written copy of their credit report for free when they request it. However, these reports do not contain consumer credit scores and are typically provided by mail. In some circumstances, it’s far more difficult to get a free copy of the report using the mail route, and therefore, many consumers look to get their credit report online.

Considering that the average consumer conducts many, many transactions online these days, it is reasonable for them to want to do the same when they’re trying to obtain their credit report. However, this is not currently done free of charge. In this respect, many agencies currently charge consumers to obtain a copy of their consumer score or to get their report in electronic form. The proposed amendments will give consumers the right to get their consumer score and an electronic copy of their credit report for free, at least twice per year.

With these new proposed amendments, consumers would no longer have to pay a fee for convenience and—

Mr. Arthur Potts: Timely access.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: —timely access. Thank you.

If the Access to Consumer Credit Reports and Elevator Availability Act is passed, agencies would be required to provide electronic credit reports to consumers requesting it within two days and, again, at least twice a year.

Currently, consumers can ask for unlimited free copies of their credit files. However, consumer reporting agencies are only required to provide information in hard copy, as I mentioned. There’s no maximum time requirement for them to do this; it can take several weeks for consumers to receive their credit reports. This is reasonable, as usually when someone is looking to access their credit report it’s with the intention to do a straightforward transaction; however, that’s not the case for other types of transactions.

If, for example, a house is up for sale and someone wants to be approved for a mortgage, they do not necessarily have the time to wait a few weeks in order to get their credit report. This may result in them being unable to go through with, in this case, a purchase of a home. With how it is currently, however, they would be left with no choice but to pay and then go the online route.

In addition, if this bill is passed, agencies would have to provide credit reports that include previously generated scores, upon request. Currently, as I mentioned before, the only requirement is to provide the reports, not the scores. Twice a year, a consumer can ask for a newly generated score.

A credit rating or score is not part of a regular credit report. It’s a mathematical formula that translates the data in a credit report into a three-digit number that some lenders use to make credit decisions. Credit scores typically range from 300 to 900. The higher the number, the more likely you are to get the loan or mortgage that you are applying for.

The changes we’re proposing, if passed, would mean that consumers would have timely access to the details in their credit report. Consumers would also be entitled to see any score that an agency has provided to any third party in the past 12 months as part of their credit report. This would result in increased transparency from the agency.

Madam Speaker, I believe that putting information in the hands of consumers is, indeed, a powerful tool. If consumers have ready access to the information in their credit reports, they are much more likely to spot errors or unusual activities that might indicate they have been a victim of identity theft. It’s far easier to prevent these unfortunate situations than trying to remediate the situation after the fact.

If consumers have ready access to the information in their credit reports, it could also be a way for them to correct inaccuracies or to understand their credit rating and how it might affect them down the road. It would be a way in which they could make themselves self-aware of their financial situation so that they could choose to learn more about how to improve their credit rating and what their credit score would mean for them. This would be especially helpful to those who are considering purchasing a property or renting a place in the future. The added awareness could translate into dollars and cents on loan payments or in other types of situations that I mentioned earlier.

We do not believe the current situation is fair to consumers, who may be anxious to access their credit report and to understand their credit standing or ensure its accuracy. So we are committed to strengthening consumer protection in the credit reporting sector. This is part of what we do at the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services and Consumer Protection Ontario, and we want to continue doing that.

We also believe that the proposed amendments to the act and giving consumers the right to a security freeze would be an important new consumer protection tool. The act currently provides that a consumer may require an agency to include in a consumer’s file an alert warning people to verify an applicant’s identity. Many people use this, particularly if they think their identity has been compromised. While it puts additional onus on a potential creditor, it still allows an agency to release credit information.

A security freeze would give the ability to intervene and prevent agencies from releasing information about their credit history. An agency would have to give consumers the option of a security freeze and prevent information from being provided to a third party unless the consumer lifts the freeze, and some exceptions would apply.

I understand my colleague from Beaches–East York is willing to speak to this bill and share the remainder of my time. I want to thank him for doing that and thank him for bringing this private member’s bill forward. I know he’s very expert on this bill. I’ll be very pleased to pass the floor to him at this time. Thank you very much.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Arthur Potts: It does give me great pleasure to have an opportunity to stand and speak to Bill 8.

I want to start by thanking the minister and the minister’s staff for the incredible support that I received in the course of putting together the bill when I first introduced it as a private member’s bill last fall. It was something that came about as a result of conversations I’d had with many people, both in this House, with staffers around here, and people in my community on the aspect of the bill relating to credit reporting scores, and particularly in relation to when we saw a breach of data from a credit reporting agency.

The kinds of responses that we as Canadians were getting to respond to that breach—we realized that in the US, consumers were getting far more privileged rights in how to address that breach than we were receiving here in Canada. It just triggered an awareness that, in fact, we should be doing something about this. I did bring the bill forward and worked very closely with the minister’s office and her staff to get a better sense of what could be done. One of the focuses we had, of course, was on protecting people against fraud, credit fraud and identity theft.

I remember the previous member from Toronto Centre, the honourable Glen Murray. He’d had a situation where his identity had been stolen. It was an interesting way they went about doing it in that his information was stolen and they got a credit in his name to go to the Brick. They bought a whole bunch of material. As you know, you have these “Don’t Pay a Cent” events—maybe that’s Leon’s—where you don’t pay for a year. For a year, somebody had stolen his identity, bought consumer goods, and they didn’t have to pay for a year.

So it wasn’t until after the year was up and suddenly the retailer was expecting to get paid for these goods and services that they defaulted on those payments. The fraudulent operators defaulted on those payments. As a result, they came back after him to pay for these things. He said, “Well, I don’t have that television set. I don’t have that electronic equipment. That’s not me.”

“Well, prove it’s not you”: All of a sudden, it seemed like the onus had been reversed on Mr. Murray to prove that it wasn’t him who had acquired these things. The retailer was saying, “Maybe you bought these things, sold them off, and now you’re just trying to escape paying for them.”

Normally, when you find someone has breached your personal information as identity theft has occurred, you would have a chance to go back to that retailer and see the video evidence of whether, in fact, it was you who purchased those things. That’s often used in order to rectify a credit card fraudulent situation. But in the circumstances where you don’t pay for a year, where you’re not expected to pay for a year, all that security data has disappeared. It became impossible to use that kind of information to prove it.

It became a very lengthy process in order to clear Mr. Murray of his personal debt. He spoke to me about this numerous times, on how we could address that. It may be another amendment we might contemplate. Maybe this is another private member’s bill at some point; I don’t know. But maybe it can be addressed in regulation that any agency, any retailer that has no payment for a lengthy period of time, like a year, should be required in law or in regulations to hold on to security tapes until the payment part gets triggered; maybe hold on to it six months after the payments are expected to start. That would alleviate a lot of the credit fraud.

What we discovered as we were going through the opportunity here to protect people’s identity was that if we could simply just freeze their credit information—by freezing it, nobody can access it. I know that at the moment, I’ve got all the credit I want and need at this particular moment in my life. My mortgage is in place; I have a line of credit for extraordinary expenditures I may need; I’ve got a few credit cards. I don’t want any more credit. If I had the ability to go on and just freeze my score so that no other agency—no bank, no retailer, nobody—would have permission to use this, then that would go a long way to protecting people against identity theft or identity fraud.

In a way, who is really benefiting from this? We’re actually, in many regards, protecting credit card companies and protecting retailers so they don’t get caught up in this whole debate about “is it your purchase, or is it not your purchase?” This goes beyond just protecting consumers; it’s actually protecting retailers and those high-interest-rate credit cards that may be excited and encouraged to give people credit that suddenly they have to charge, right, because the rate of default might be so high.

That was what I thought was one of the most important pieces of this legislation that we had to get, and I’m so delighted that the whole freeze aspect has made it into this piece of government legislation, as it did before we prorogued the government earlier. This piece that allows people to freeze their credit scores is an extraordinarily important point.

I remember that Mr. Murray’s chief of staff also had almost an identical situation. Maybe this is something that happens in downtown Toronto; I don’t know. It was devastating because it took so long to clear up their credit history that opportunities where they may have needed credit went missing. They weren’t able to, maybe, buy a property or rent a condo and this type of thing. So it’s extraordinarily important that we have this freeze in place.

Now the other piece associated with getting free copies of your credit report: Part of this, I realize, was that I had a friend whose brother—we were trying to get him into a rental accommodation. The landlord insisted on having a credit report. Now, this particular person flies a bit under the radar. He doesn’t own a car with a loan. He doesn’t have credit cards. He has never really had to access credit as part of his way that he lives his life. Trying to facilitate this, I went online to see, and I was surprised.

I was actually quite shocked to see that in order to get this information it would cost $36 to get the kind of report that the landlord needed in a speedy way. I went online and triggered the payment, because we were somewhat desperate. We needed it, and he needed to get this place in a hurry.

As it turned out, they had no credit reporting score on this person, my friend’s brother. He doesn’t exist in the system—no driver’s licence, no car. He doesn’t exist, and so the report spat back nothing. So I had just spent $36 to get nothing. I thought, “That’s not fair.”

What I found really intriguing about this, Speaker, is that they hold your information. They track your credit card expenditures, your mortgage payments and your car payments. They track all this material without you really knowing about it. You might sign a waiver with a bank because you want to get that loan, but they are tracking everything. This is your information. They don’t do this out of the goodness of their hearts, I can assure you, Speaker. They do this because they want to make money on it.

They make money by providing the service to the people, the retailers, the banks and all these other agencies and financial institutions that want to do business with you, that want to give you that 28% Capital One credit card, which, by the way, I suggest you not take, because of your spending habits, particularly when you go down the US side and get to all those discount warehouses.

They want you to have this credit, and they are holding your information. You should have the right to see your information and not have to pay for it. Under the current act, you do have the right to get that information, but you have to trigger it with a written request. It takes weeks until you finally get it, and maybe the need for why you wanted it, as the minister very eloquently identified—you want to buy a house. In this housing market, you’ve got to trigger these things in a hurry.

Getting an apartment, you’ve got to trigger in a hurry, because you could lose out if you don’t have the information you need up front. Having the right to get it for free by writing and getting it in the mail? That’s just old school; right, Speaker? Canada Post is an honourable institution that has worked so well since the days of the Pony Express, but we have moved past that. Now we’re in an environment where we can do things online and we can do things electronically, and we should allow people to do that.

In my private member’s bill, I suggested that people get five copies. Maybe I was being a little overly exuberant. And who was going to do this five times a year? I got that. In the current bill, we have put it back to two, and I am sure that has to do with the input that we received from the credit score agencies that maybe two is going to be sufficient.

Speaker, that is how the bill came about that I wanted to move forward with. We also know that Mr. Dong, in his elevator act—and this is the second part of this bill. Again, I want to thank the ministry and I want to thank our side of this Legislature for the fact that they listen to us in the backbenches. They listen when we identify problems that we’re hearing in our community. We identify it, we bring it forward and we react to it.

The member for Trinity–Spadina, he probably lives in the densest part of Canada with all the high-rises—particularly down in Liberty Village and all the other areas that he represents, Harbourfront high-rises, 40- or 50-storey buildings. This is probably one of the number one things he is hearing in his constituency, how difficult it is sometimes to get these elevators fixed in a hurry so that people don’t have to walk up 20, 30 or 40 flights of stairs in order to access their residence.

So he brought that bill forward, and again, I am delighted that the minister’s office and the ministry were so responsive, that we do need to put some additional protections. I have these same issues in my riding. I represent an area called Crescent Town: five big, tall buildings owned by Pinedale. Three of them are rentals; two of them are condominiums. Something like 12,000 people live in, I think, five acres. Some 12,000 people: a very, very high density. It becomes a very serious problem for people to get to work, to get to school and to go shopping and come back when elevators aren’t running.

Even if one of the three in a bank isn’t working, it means lineups. What happens—and we’ve experienced this on days where there’s mass movement in the building, for instance, to get to Eid prayer—is that everybody wants to leave at the same time so the elevators sometimes get overcrowded, and in getting overcrowded, the elevators stop working and it compounds the problem. It’s very important that we put in place the kinds of protections to ensure that elevators are going to be repaired in a timely manner.

What else do we want to talk about here, my friend? The elevator act is important for all people who live in dense urban environments. I know that the Consumer Reporting Act is important to constituents that I have who need to access their credit reporting on a timely basis.

What else am I going to talk about at this point?

Interjection: The Leafs.

Mr. Arthur Potts: The Leafs. I do have a little bit of ways to go.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Turn the page.

Mr. Arthur Potts: Turn the page? Well, there’s actually not much here that I could sort of—well, you know, this elevator act, what it does if it’s passed, it amends the Technical Standards and Safety Act, 2000. They will start to collect elevator data. You know, Speaker, that if you don’t measure it, you can’t fix it, so it’s very important that we collect the kind of data that’s necessary.

We also have a problem in the industry and we’re trying to address that through apprenticeship rules, which is a second approach at the same problem in that we don’t have enough technical experts in elevators. It’s an area of labour shortage. I’m very proud that in our budget, we have added a whole bunch of new revenues to encourage people to get into job categories where there’s a demand in the marketplace and to open that up: skilled tradespeople who could be fixing elevators.

We are going to ensure that elevator performance is published so that prospective residents can make better informed decisions before they rent or buy. You need to know if you’re in a building that consistently has elevators that are failing. It might be that they’re old, they need to be retrofitted. This is part of what we need to do to ensure that properties are kept up to a proper standard.

If there is data collected and I want to—if someone says, “You’re going to pay a lot of money for this apartment on the 31st floor,” and you can ask and there will be a place to go and find out that, in fact, this building has a history of elevator issues, you might rethink that decision. You might rethink that decision on whether or not you are going to rent in that particular building.

I had a wonderful nephew—this is a bit of a sad story, but it’s quite relevant to the whole credit score issue. My nephew Arthur Tevlin, who died quite young at, like, 22 of a heart attack—quite suddenly. He had just graduated from high school, he was at college and he was getting jobs and he was very active in the community. When he started to get that sense of independence, the first thing he did was he went out and got himself a credit card. It was a very high-interest credit card and he ran up a fair bit of debt.

We were all concerned about it, but unfortunately, when he died—it was such a tragedy because he was such a young and incredibly vibrant person. We used to say that his heart was too big, Speaker. He died of a heart attack in his sleep; quite painlessly, we suspect.

But he left a debt of about $18,000 in credit card bills because he had been encouraged to get this credit and do stuff with it. I recognize, again, that this is part of the industry where they want to give people, even when they may not be in a position, more credit than his job would have possibly allowed him to pay back in a reasonable time. Typically, credit card companies will just forgive debt in that kind of example, and that’s part of the reason we have high interest rates attached to those. They just forgive the debt. And they did.

But as a family, we didn’t feel great about that, so we all got together at the Becel Ride for Heart. We all signed up and got sponsorships as a team in my nephew’s honour. We went out and we raised about the $18,000 that he owed so we could give it to the Heart and Stroke Foundation. It’s something we’ve done in his memory a number of times since.

I guess we were saying earlier, about how we do need to collect the studies and the data associated with it.

I want to go to another area.

Interjection.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’m doing my best.

The overall goal of the action plan with elevators, of course, is to protect public safety. You need this elevator service in multi-storey residences in Ontario because it will help address the inconvenience and the potential harm that residents experience. Improvements in the availability of elevators will help people make informed decisions.

It will also help—and this is important, about the public safety. What happens when you have a fire on the 30th floor of a building and the paramedics, the fire service arrive or there’s an accident, and there’s no way to get up there? When you have a big fire, of course, you’re not supposed to go in the elevators but in order to respond quickly to get up there, you have to make sure—it’s important that elevators in the province are going to be in use. It’s almost part of the Fire Code. There should be a requirement that if one is down—you can never have all down at the same time, for instance, so education awareness for elevator owners.

I also understand that a lot of the work we have to do still is going to be in regulation, particularly in the credit reporting area. We need to sit down with the big players and make sure that we craft regulations that will be workable.

I met with a group of people shortly after I introduced the private member’s bill, and they asked the question of me, “How are you going to monitor this? How are you going to know that a credit agency is actually getting back in a timely way?”

They were offering up a solution where they would act as an intermediary between the consumers, the ministry and the reporting agencies so that they could, on real-time data, track whether people were fulfilling their obligations. When you, as a consumer, put in a request to get a copy of your report, for instance, it would trigger a timeline in a blockchain-secured environment so that once it’s fulfilled, you would know that you got the report in a timely way, as is required in the act and the regulations.

I’m hoping that we can spend time with the large credit agency companies to ensure that they are working in a way that keeps this thing open and accountable and transparent for users across the province.

One of the things I had also put into my bill initially—and it can be addressed in the regulations—is the requirement that credit agencies correct improper data in a timely manner. We had a timeline of two weeks, during the course of regulatory development. If you go online and see your credit, and it has a whole listing of things that aren’t yours, you need to correct that, and you need to be able to correct that quickly. I had put a two-week window in my private member’s bill, and we’ll see where that ends up.

Speaker, you probably don’t know a lot of Arthur Pottses, but in the course of my life, I’ve got to know quite a few. My grandfather, in fact, was an Arthur Potts, a major general. My father’s twin brother was an Arthur Potts. He was a lieutenant colonel in the Canadian Armed Forces, and he had a son named Arthur Potts. So just within our own family, there were four Arthur Pottses.

I recently met an interior designer who works for Holiday Inn—he helps decorate the Holiday Inns—and his name is Arthur Potts. It was interesting, because when I met him for the first time, and his male partner, I told him the story about how I was dating a young lady and she said to her friend, “I’m going to bring my boyfriend over. His name is Arthur Potts.” She looked at her a little askance and said, “Are you sure?” Because she knew the other Arthur Potts, who was the interior designer, and didn’t think that he would be dating her. So there’s an Arthur Potts.

Then I had another Arthur Potts. You’d wonder, if his information showed up on my credit reporting score—

Mr. Brad Duguid: Are these real people or are they just fictions?

Mr. Arthur Potts: These are true stories.

It’s funny: I’ve just got on to a line that I’d forgotten about. There is another Arthur Potts, who is an artist. He’s actually a really talented modern artist, a painter, who operates out of southwestern Ontario, I think, in the London area. I was at the Cumberland movie theatres, and I was admiring this very beautiful painting. I said, “Wow. That’s really good.” So I walked up to see the name and what it was called, and the price tag. It was $24,000. It was a beautiful oil, with lots of dimensions in it. I’m standing there and I look at the name, and it’s Arthur Potts, the artist.

So I’m thinking, “This is kind of interesting.” I step back. My wife had gone to the facilities, and she came back out, and I said, “Look at this. We should buy this.” She was admiring it, and she said yes.

Then a gentleman came over, and he was looking at it and admiring it. I gave him my business card, and he said, “Why are you giving me this?” I said, “Well, look at the name.” He said, “Oh, my gosh. Is that you?” I said, “No, but if you want to buy it, I’ll give it to you for half-price.”

So we know that there are many people with the same name, and it can affect their credit score if the wrong information gets attached to it. That’s why we need to have this bill and get it in place, so that we can protect consumers in Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim McDonell: It gets awful worrisome when we hear how many Pottses there are around in the region, especially Arthur Pottses.

It’s always a privilege to get up and speak on behalf of the residents in Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry.

The name issue rings a bell. In Glengarry county at one time, about 60% of the population was McDonalds and McDonells. Identifying people was somewhat of a problem, so everybody had a nickname. If I go back to just when I was growing up, at a younger age when that was not as much of the case, we would have four or five James A. McDonells within just a couple of concessions. We would all have the same address of RR 1 North Lancaster—or Dalhousie, at the time, probably; Dalhousie, Quebec. Then we would go by Jim Gill or Jim Alex John or Jim Alex.

Typically, what they would do is they would go to your father and then your grandfather in the nickname, unless you had—there were many others. There was Alex the Fool. There were different nicknames that the family would carry on, and others that aren’t so funny. But it does speak to the issues with credit and mailing, especially with the tendency sometimes for a family to use all the same initial, which causes problems for different post offices.

I know that when we had a chance to speak to the credit group, they were somewhat concerned because they hadn’t been consulted on the bill yet. I know that they talk about consulting before the regulations, but I think that if you’re going to craft legislation and do the best you can, you have to consult with the stakeholders. So I was somewhat surprised when we heard that that hadn’t happened yet. I know the ministry said that they have plans to do it, but when you rush out legislation—it’s maybe not planned. I’m not sure why you would not be discussing the issue with either one—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Right now, as we’re hearing, Facebook has had information given to agencies that people are completely unaware of. So protections are certainly warranted and I’m glad to see there is that piece where a consumer can initiate that freezing of their information. That’s really important.

When I was in the insurance industry, through the years, it evolved that we offered identity theft coverage because we’d just seen that happening more and more, and people would be put at a financial disadvantage because of identity theft. That was also discussed earlier, that when your identity is taken, it affects you financially, and to go through that web of undoing all that misinformation is very difficult.

If you had the identity theft insurance, that also protects you for some of the losses with respect to financials and then also recovering documents, because, as someone talked about, when you’re looking for documentation, there are fees included in those things as well. This bill is certainly welcome, that we are here having this discussion.

I’m glad to hear more debate on this and look forward to it.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. James J. Bradley: I’m particularly pleased when I see consumer legislation coming before the House, because it’s that which we hear from our constituents, very often, that prompts private members’ bills and ultimately government bills.

I look at a list of some of the consumer legislation that is associated with this. We have legislation that enhances protections for consumers using home inspectors when purchasing their homes. We have legislation to protect consumers from aggressive door-to-door contracting tactics for certain goods and services. All of us have had complaints about that and there has been legislation brought in that will go a long way to ending that.

We’re moving forward with many of the recommendations from the Honourable Douglas Cunningham’s review of the Ontario New Home Warranties Plan Act and Tarion Warranty Corp. to improve consumer protection for new home buyers and owners, and we’re undertaking a review of the rules that real estate professionals are required to follow to strengthen professionalism and further protect consumers when conflict-of-interest scenarios arise in multiple-representation situations by allowing for heavier fines for code of ethics violations.

Philosophically, I want to say that there is a difference in approach that is taken by people in politics. There are some on the right who believe that the less intervention we have in our society—this, for instance, in some cases would be bothersome to business. So they would say—it’s one of the particular mantras out there—that somehow you should not be putting red tape in the way of business, and some businesses might well consider this to be red tape. But I think there’s a pretty good consensus in our society that the protection of consumers should be paramount over the annoyance of some for the protection that that does provide.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Questions and comments?

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: It’s always an honour to contribute to debate. I want to thank the Minister of Government and Consumer Services for her speech this morning, and also I must say, as we approach the end of the legislative session, I’m sure I’ll miss for several months the good Thursday morning debates and discussions that we hear, especially from the member for Beaches–East York, who always has a personal anecdote to lend a bit of flesh to the situation and give a little more substance when we’re talking in abstracts. I think the situation that he brought up was important, talking about something that the member for Glengarry—Prescott? Dundas?

Interjection.

Mr. Sam Oosterhoff: South Glengarry. There’s a bunch of eastern Ontario included in there.

But I wanted to just say that I think it is important that we recognize the need for consumer protection and the need to do so in a responsible way. I know the member for St. Catharines spoke about particular philosophical differences that we might have in the approach to free enterprise and the free market.

Although I would have to agree that indeed there needs to be a free market that understands and is able to respond to the needs of consumers and respond to the needs of society, particularly as it pertains to providing services, we do have to look at how we can protect especially those who are vulnerable in our society, when we think of seniors who are prey to door-to-door salesmen. I think that there have been some actions taken that are steps in the right direction. I think red tape is not necessarily regulation; I think it’s fair to say that we all support some forms of common-sense regulation.

At the same time, I do want to just touch base that the concern that I have with this legislation is, as well, the lack of accountability of the TSSA. Stakeholders have expressed frustration with its practices for years, so we have to take that into consideration with this legislation as well.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I return to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services to wrap up.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: First, of course, I want to thank the member from Beaches–East York for sharing time with me and bringing that colour and those personal stories to life, so thank you for that. But he should also be credited for his work not just on this bill but other important consumer protection bills. There were more points—one comes to mind and I know he has another one coming up.

There are two other MPPs who are really strong advocates for consumer protection and safety in this province. One is the member from Trinity–Spadina, and of course we spoke to his important work in his riding on behalf of all Ontarians regarding elevator availability.

And then there’s the MPP for Etobicoke Centre and his work on, I think, Bill 28,

an act to prohibit unsolicited phone calls. More recently, he joined me when we finalized the legislation and made the announcement about banning unsolicited door-to-door sales. That legislation actually came into effect last month, on March 1. We’re seeing already an immediate difference in terms of complaints by vulnerable customers who have been faced with the bad actors out there, in terms of whether it’s water heaters, appliances of other kinds or furnaces. That was a top complaint for consumers in our province.

It’s really important that I acknowledge those three MPPs very strongly. The ideas for much of our consumer protection legislation have come from them in this term. I’m very appreciative of the work they do. It’s been a great collaboration. I’m very pleased our government has been able to introduce so much excellent, progressive—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing that it’s 10:15, the House will be recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030

Wearing of jerseys

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent that everyone be permitted to wear sports jerseys in the legislative chamber today in memory of the victims of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The government House leader is seeking unanimous consent that everyone be permitted to wear sports jerseys in the legislative chamber today in memory of the victims of the Humboldt Broncos bus crash. Do we agree? Agreed.

Just so that everyone is aware, all of the Legislatures in the entire country have made the same motion and we’re very proud of that.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will say that I would have worn my 99 jersey, but the Speaker is to remain absolutely neutral. But my heart goes out to the circumstances.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise today to recognize a great group of Oxford constituents who are here to visit Queen’s Park and have lunch with their MPP. In the gallery today are some of my nieces and nephews: Andrew Malcolm and his wife, Debby; Art and Janet Fuller; and Dean and Brenda Wood.

Welcome to Queen’s Park. We’re glad you could join us today for lunch.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to introduce Louise Russo, who is here today. She’s an advocate for victims’ rights, anti-bullying and women’s rights.

Louise Russo, thank you for being here.

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to introduce two constituents of mine who are here for the Attorney General’s victim services awards. I’d like to welcome two of my close friends: William Stevenson, who I’ve always called Willy, and his wife, Kelly. They started the Do It for Aaron Foundation. They’re great people.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to extend a very warm welcome to a constituent of mine, Dorothy-Jean Evans, who was also acknowledged by the Attorney General today for the victim services awards, and her sister Jaime Jensen.

I would also like to welcome Dawn Lavell-Harvard, the president of the Ontario Native Women’s Association, who was acknowledged for the same reason—congratulations—and her mother, Jeannette Corbiere Lavell.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Tamil friends of mine in the gallery above us: Shan Sahathevan and Chezhian Bahavatsingam.

Thirty-five other people are coming from the Tamil community to see us place a motion on the desk today calling for the removal of the terrorist designation from the Tamil Tigers.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m very pleased to welcome Joel Hertz, former trustee for York Region District School Board, for Thornhill, as well as Peter Hominuk. Bienvenue encore. Il est souvent ici.

And I want to thank my son Josh for giving me his hockey jersey to wear. I think he wore it in grade 3.

Hon. Marie-France Lalonde: It gives me great pleasure this morning to recognize a constituent of mine: B.J. Tycoles, who has been selected as a recipient of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Award of Distinction for 2018.

Also in the House is a proud person from Hamilton, Deputy Chief Dan Kinsella, who’s here to recognize another recipient from Hamilton, Gaye Yachetti, who is here today.

Et, aussi, je sais qu’on a reconnu la présence de Peter Hominuk, mais Peter n’est pas ici pour l’AFO. Il est ici comme papa, monsieur le Président. Sa fille, Émilie Hominuk, est une page avec nous. Je remercie Peter de son dévouement comme papa.

Mr. Bill Walker: I’d like to welcome Ed and Anne Hahn from Hanover in the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, who are in the upper gallery. Welcome. They’re having lunch with me at In Camera.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I would like to welcome my good friend Suze Morrison, formerly of London, who is here today for the victim services awards and is now the proud NDP candidate in Toronto Centre. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I too want to welcome two recipients of the Victim Services Awards of Distinction who are joining us today: Sureya Ibrahim, who’s from the Centre for Community Learning and Development, as well as Joanne Green, representing the Shape Your Life boxing program. Welcome.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today Faye Cassista, who is a recipient of the Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction this year, from the Victim Services of Renfrew County. She is joined today by Lisa Oegema, who is the executive director of victim services. Welcome.

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: The page captain is Ekroop Walia from the great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. Her mother, Manpreet Kaur Walia, her father, Randhir Walia, and brother Keerat Walia are here to watch question period. They will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Welcome to the Queen’s Park.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to welcome several people here today from the 2018 AG award recipients: Simone Bell from the anti-human trafficking services of Voicefound, and her partner, Philippe Gibeault; also, from East Metro Youth Services, Carly Kalish and her husband, Jonathan Laski.

I’ll also put a welcome out to Stephanie Alves from the Gatehouse Child Abuse Investigation and Support Site and all of the award recipients today. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Reza Moridi: Please join me in welcoming Mr. Joseph Antony, father of Cynthia Antony, who happens to be the legislative assistant to Mr. Yvan Baker, MPP for Etobicoke Centre.

Mr. Bill Walker: I would like to welcome Tamara House, a Lyme disease advocate from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, who had a very informative meeting with me this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: On behalf of my seatmate, the member from Trinity–Spadina, I would like to welcome the family of today’s page captain, Rhys Hoskins. Please welcome—they will be coming shortly—Dr. Samantha Nutt and our good friend Dr. Eric Hoskins.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I would like to welcome in the gallery today Dr. Lavell-Harvard, who was a recipient this morning of the victim services award. I couldn’t be at the ceremony, but we certainly welcome a very distinguished person from Peterborough riding.

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

Today in the public gallery—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh. Introductions?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Yes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I also want to ask the House to welcome and congratulate all of the recipients of the Ontario Victim Services Awards of Distinction. These are incredible, remarkable Ontarians who are doing inspiring work, so please give them a big round of applause for the work they’ve done.

Applause.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I will highlight two recipients from my community of Ottawa and particularly Ottawa Centre. I want to congratulate Simone Bell of Voicefound and Sunny Marriner of the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre. Congratulations to both of you.

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Like many members here today, I want to welcome my award recipients from Halton: Diane Beaulieu, the executive director at Halton Women’s Place, who is in the members’ gallery today, joined by Caroline Hogwood. They were both awarded the Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As I was saying, in the public gallery is an individual from the riding of Brant. Not only is she special because her name coincidentally is Brant—Joanna Brant—but also because of her career of supporting survivors of sexual violence and fighting for change in our riding and in the province. She has been the executive director of the Sexual Assault Centre of Brant and Nova Vita for the last 20 years. Welcome, Joanna, and thank you for the hard work that you’ve been doing.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a couple of quick announcements, just before we get started. After question period, we are asking all those people who are wearing the jerseys of the Ontario Legiskaters to return them to either the member from Prince Edward–Hastings or the member from Mississauga–Streetsville. They’re quite concerned that they might go missing.

I also would advise you that we do have a photographer available for the entire Legislature who are wearing jerseys who wish to go down to the main staircase to have a picture taken. I will assure you that the picture will be shared with Saskatchewan.

I thank you very much for what you’ve done today. It’s very meaningful, and it lets people know who we are.

Applause.

Wearing of jersey

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Mr. Mike Colle: I ask for unanimous consent that the member from St. Catharines be allowed to wear a Maple Leafs sweater, because I know he burned his Sabres sweater. So let’s get him to wear the Leafs sweater.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have to follow the rules. There has been a request for unanimous consent that the member from St. Catharines, our dean, wear the Toronto Maple Leafs jersey. Do we agree? Agreed.

It is therefore now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Ontario budget

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Just hours after the government tabled its election document last week, the minister appeared on TVO’s The Agenda with Steve Paikin. His comments, quite frankly, were shocking. It actually seems to us that the minister had not read the budget document. Five times—five times—the minister made statements that weren’t accurate. In fact, the polar opposite of those statements were actually true.

The most egregious of those was to suggest the deficit was “slayed” when he’s forecasting six straight years of deficits and $32 billion more in deficits. How can that be “slayed”? Speaker, to the minister: Who does he think he’s trying to fool?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We underwent a great recession, the largest in the world at this time. Many Ontarians fought hard to continue to provide some stimulus, and we partnered in that stimulus. We invested heavily, contrary to what they wanted us to do, which is to do across-the-board cuts and put the economy in harm’s way. We went from a $19-billion deficit at the depth of the recession—so did the Conservative federal government. They had a 50-some-odd-billion-dollar deficit. We then fought hard to invest and to bring down that deficit. Not only did we bring it down to zero this year, we have a $600-million surplus.

We’re proud of the work that the people of Ontario have done to fight hard to bring our economy to lead Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Well, just as he repeated here, the minister on TV tried to claim the books were balanced when he first had to use the reserves. Good luck trying to convince the Auditor General of that, by the way, who has three different versions for him.

But let’s continue with the inaccuracies. The minister also claimed job creation numbers will “be 140,000 every year.” However, when you turn to page 193 of the budget, it shows declines in job creation every year, from 121,000 this year all the way down to 60,000 jobs in two years. It’s no wonder that people think the minister did not read his own budget.

To the minister: Why would Ontario voters trust him when he’s making such blatant comments?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Not only do we have a $600-million surplus this year, and third-quarter results show it, and that’s an independent review of the books of the government—that is what is provided. Furthermore, it’s independent economists and those outside of government who are saying this. We have a solid economic performance. Ontario’s economy has grown more than Canada’s and other G7 countries.

We also have the quality of those job gains: over 800,000 net new jobs since the recession, the majority of which are full-time, high-paying jobs in our province.

Thirdly, the proof is in the numbers. Our unemployment rate is the lowest it’s been in two decades. We’re going to continue fighting for Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: The Auditor General quotes his numbers as “bogus.” The minister insisted we are “the top” in “foreign direct investment”; well, Speaker, we’ve fallen to third. He knows this, because I remind him in this Legislature many, many, many times.

He seemed to be trying to calm the jittery markets by saying Ontario’s debt to GDP is remaining “the same,” and then “tapering down.” The budget clearly shows our net debt to GDP is going up by half a point, not remaining the same and not tapering down. It’s growing from 37.1% to 37.6% this year, all the way up to 38.6% in 2021. That’s just absolutely, blatantly wrong.

So I would say to the minister again: Why would Ontario’s voters trust this minister, this government and this Premier when they’re making such blatant comments?

Hon. Charles Sousa: There are 50 states, 13 provinces and territories, and Ontario this year is number three of our foreign direct investment in North America. That is pretty much top of the heap when it comes to supporting economic growth and investments in our province.

Our debt to GDP is an important number to assess. When we compare Ontario to other provinces, Quebec, for example, is still hovering close to 50%. Ontario is indeed, as mentioned, 37.1%, down from a high of 39.3%, and it was estimated to be at around 41%. We have indeed reduced our debt to GDP, and we are indeed taking the necessary steps to benefit future generations from the investments we’re making. Three quarters of the debt that we are taking is for capital improvement: roads, bridges, hospitals, public transit—things that enable us to be competitive.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, we’re in warnings. I’ll get a handle on it.

New question.

Government accountability

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the judge in the gas plant scandal had some damning words in his sentence.

My question is simple: Does the Premier condemn the Liberal government’s “affront to, and ... attack upon, democratic institutions and values”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I have said before in this House, and all members know, our Premier and our government take the responsibility around transparency and accountability very seriously.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Huron–Bruce is warned.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That doesn’t make any difference.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We are committed to being an open, accountable and transparent government. As a result, from the moment the Premier came into office, she made sure that we strengthened the laws around accountability to ensure that there are good policies in place for document retention and to train all staff, including the chiefs of staff to ministers, so they know exactly what their responsibilities and obligations are under the law.

Speaker, that is how the government should always operate, and that is how our government is very much committed to openness and transparency, as demonstrated by our Premier and this government.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m not surprised that the Premier doesn’t want to answer, because the gas plants scandal has her fingerprints all over it. The Premier was the campaign co-chair. She signed the order in council, and then her first order of business after the 2014 election was to shut down the gas plants committee.

Speaker, isn’t the Premier just as responsible for attacking our democratic institutions?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier has always worked hard to make sure that our government is open and accountable. She promised and delivered on completely opening the government, and we have done so in an unprecedented manner. We have done things like sending directives to all political staff. We have developed mandatory training programs. We have appointed chiefs of staff who are accountable for record-keeping. We have improved archiving requirements. We have also brought in an accountability act that would prohibit the wilful deletion of records and will create a penalty for doing so.

We have also worked very closely with the Integrity Commissioner and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. They in fact have endorsed the steps we have taken, and we continue to work with them to enforce these rules.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Premier: Mr. Livingston attempted to thwart the core values of accountability and transparency that are essential to the proper functioning of a parliamentary democracy. Justice Lipson said—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Durham is warned, and the member from Barrie is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Speaker, I want the Premier to answer, and so do Ontarians: Does the Premier condemn this Liberal operative’s actions?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier and the government are absolutely committed to accountability and transparency. That is why the Premier and her government have taken concrete, decisive steps to ensure that we have the rules—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: The Premier and the government have taken decisive action so that we have the laws, the rules and the appropriate training—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the training is in place to ensure that document retention is taken seriously and the rules that are put in place are fully complied with.

I want to quote, for example, what the Information and Privacy Commissioner at that time said: “I have appreciated the co-operation I have received from Premier Kathleen Wynne and the Minister of Government Services.... The Premier issued a directive in accordance with the recommendations made in the report and committed the government”—

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

Hospital funding

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday I asked the Premier a really simple question, but I couldn’t get an answer, so I’m going to try again. Does the Premier believe that Ontario has a hallway medicine crisis?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have demonstrated in our budget that we recognize that, because of growth and because of aging demographics, there is a need to make a substantial investment in hospitals in this province: $822 million, which is the quantum of funding that the Ontario Hospital Association has identified as needed. That’s a nearly 5% increase.

We recognize that hospitals need support in order to be able to get health care to people more quickly. That’s why that is in our budget.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: For years, the Liberal government froze and underfunded hospitals. The hallway medicine crisis that we’re facing right now was absolutely, totally predictable. Overcrowding is the direct result of Liberal decisions.

Yesterday, the Premier said to me, “Why would the Premier of the province of Ontario want to create a health care crisis in hospitals?” That’s a good question. Why did she, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I didn’t, Mr. Speaker.

In terms of the funding, every single year it has increased in health care, Mr. Speaker. With every single budget, health care funding has increased, every year. In this budget, we have absolutely recognized a number of things, like the hospital funding that I just talked about of $822 million.

But Mr. Speaker, mental health supports are critical. You can’t have good health if you don’t have good mental health. Quite frankly, as a society, we are catching up; 20 or 25 years ago there was not nearly the awareness of the mental health challenges that there is now. So we’re putting $2.1 billion into mental health.

We also recognize that, with the aging population, there needs to be a continuum of supports. We have been investing billions of dollars into home care. We recognize that more is needed there.

Also, we have committed to building 30,000 new long-term-care beds. There is a range of supports that we have put in this budget in recognition of the importance of the health care system.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is cause and there is effect. The Liberals froze and underfunded hospital budgets. That is the cause. And now we have hospitals packed to the gills, and people are being treated in hallways. That’s the effect. Hallway medicine didn’t just happen; it was caused.

Why did this Premier cause today’s hallway medicine crisis?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let’s look at what some of the external analysts have said about what’s happening in Ontario. There are a number of third parties that have validated our health care system as one of the best in the world.

Most recently, the CIHI report has come out. CIHI, the Fraser Institute and the Wait Time Alliance have all agreed that wait times in Ontario are the best wait times in the country, Mr. Speaker. That is not the result of an underfunded health care system. That is the result of a health care system that has been funded, that has been nourished, that has worked in partnership with government to make sure that the investments are there when they’re needed.

The fact is that we have an aging demographic. The fact is that the health care system is going through a transformation. More people want care in the community. We have funded that care, but we know that there is more to do. That is why our budget has the supports in it that it does.

Dental care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Last week in Chatham I met a young woman named Christine. She’s a dental hygienist who owns and operates Bright Smiles, a community dental hygiene office. She saw how many people in her community couldn’t afford dental care. They couldn’t get dental care, so she set up days when anyone could come in for a free cleaning.

People like Christine are incredible, and I congratulate her for her big heart, but we can’t build dental care on people who are willing to offer care for free. Why doesn’t the Premier have a plan to get people the dental care that they need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, again, I appreciate that the leader of the third party is now starting to talk about dental care.

We’ve been working on putting in place supports through the Healthy Smiles program, expanding that program, working with the dentists in this province to fill what is, quite frankly, a gap in medicare. As I’ve said many times, if we were building a medicare system today in this country, pharmacare and dental care would be included. They were not, and so what we are doing here in Ontario is we are taking steps to make sure that people get the care they need.

Last year, with OHIP+, we made the biggest step forward in expanding medicare in a generation. All children from birth until their 25th birthday receive free prescription medication—all medication, 4,400 medications that are on the formulary; not a few medications, but all of the medications on the formulary.

I’ll speak more about the dental plan in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, when I was at Bright Smiles, I met a gentleman named Justin, who was there with his daughter. His daughter had five cavities. The Premier’s plan to give Justin 50 bucks for five fillings doesn’t fix the problem, but Justin told me that dental care for everyone would. Here’s what he said: It means “an end to the terrible stress we feel every time the kids need medicine, a checkup at the dentist or a filling.” That’s what Justin told me.

Why is the Premier ignoring the dental needs of Justin’s daughter?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: That quote is very telling, because the stress about medicine is no longer something that Justin has to worry about.

I have every sympathy for a family that can’t afford to get prescription medication or dental care for their children. It’s a good thing that now that family doesn’t have to worry about paying for prescription medication.

Mr. Speaker, let’s be honest about what the plan is that we’ve put forward. It’s $700 for a family of two adults and two kids, and that $700 can be used to offset costs. I know it’s not perfect. I know that a full, national dental care plan would be perfect. I know that a full pharmacare plan would be perfect. But we’ve taken huge steps forward, and we will continue to move forward in this province as we work to fill that gap in medicare that does need to be filled.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Getting your mouth looked after should not be a luxury. It should be a fact of life in our province. As a country, we’ve decided that everyone should be able to see a doctor when they’re sick, not just when they can afford it. I think people should be able to see a dentist, too, Speaker. Why doesn’t the Premier?

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

Hon. Helena Jaczek: As the Premier said, we do welcome the third party coming to these conclusions in the recent past. Of course, we have, as we’ve said so many times, our new Ontario drug and dental program, but we’re building on what we’ve achieved over the last many years: our Healthy Smiles program, some 470,000 children who can access important dental services. Of course, this number continues to grow because we continue to expand the program. Since 2016, the number of children enrolled in the Healthy Smiles program has increased by some 45,000 children.

We have more to do. We also support public health units, some 200 clinics that public health actually provides for dental care across this province.

Executive compensation

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. The CEO of Hydro One has been handed a $1.7-million bonus. All in, his take-home pay is now over $6 million. This is unacceptable at a time when seniors are fearful of heating their homes, when businesses are shutting down, when taxpayers are suffering, all due to skyrocketing hydro bills.

Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier continue to support her six-million-dollar man?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the leader—not the House leader, but the leader, Mr. Ford—is talking about firing the CEO of Hydro One and firing the board. I think that is something that he has said he is going to do. I have no idea how that will help any person in the province of Ontario. The reality is that that will not take one cent off anyone’s electricity bill. You know, there’s a guy to the south of us, Mr. Speaker, who is governing by firing, and I’m not sure that’s going so well.

The reality is that we need to know what this party is talking about when they’re talking about how they are going to run the electricity system in this province. What’s the plan? How’s that going to work?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the Premier: Our PC leader Doug Ford’s first action as Premier will bring an end to this outrageous Hydro One contract. The PCs will use every power at the disposal of this government to remove the six-million-dollar man, as well as the entire board.

Mr. Speaker, does the Premier support removing her six-million-dollar man?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It must be a bit galling for the member opposite to have to stand up and put that out as policy. You know, Mr. Speaker, policy is about how things actually work. Policy is about how you get supports to people. Policy is about how we build this province up so that it has a bright economic future. That’s not policy, Mr. Speaker. That’s a slogan masquerading as policy. We need to know what Mr. Ford stands for.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Warnings are still in effect.

New question?

Labour dispute

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Speaker, 3,000 York University TAs, RAs and contract faculty are still on the picket line. They’re taking a stand against insecure academic jobs and the chronic underfunding of our post-secondary system, even if this Liberal government is not.

When the member for Welland raised this issue earlier this week, the minister said she was urging both sides to get back to the table. One side is at the table and has been for the last six weeks, yet York University, a publicly funded institution, sat down for just one day of bargaining. Now, instead of negotiating with their employees, they have requested binding arbitration.

Will the Premier step up, show some leadership and direct York University to get back to the table?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is a situation that is concerning, Speaker; it involves our students. We know that the priority has to be to settle this agreement and focus on students’ education.

My call to both sides in this situation is that they get back to the table and recognize that compromise is needed on both sides. If we put the needs of the students first and their learning—I ask both sides to do that and to come to an agreement that is fair for both parties.

Collective bargaining is something that we support on this side of the House. We’re really calling on both sides in this instance to come together, to come to the table and discuss an agreement that is fair to both sides. That might require compromises on both sides so that we prioritize the needs of our students so that they can complete their learning. That is what we’re—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: The integrity of the bargaining process is not the only issue at stake. The root of the problem is years of underfunding of post-secondary education in Ontario, now the lowest in the country, which has led to an explosion of insecure, unstable and low-paid academic jobs and undermined the quality of post-secondary education.

It’s not only Carleton and York where these issues have come to a head. Western graduate teaching assistants may soon be on strike and other universities may follow. Ultimately, as we know, it is students who are most affected by these labour disputes.

After 15 years in office, why has this Liberal government allowed Ontario to sink to the bottom in terms of per-student funding for post-secondary education?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: My primary concern in this situation is for the students. It’s very important that we focus on getting both parties back so that they can come to a fair agreement, and the best agreements are done at the bargaining table.

The member opposite is simply wrong when she talks down our post-secondary education system. Ontario has a world-class, recognized education system at the post-secondary level. And do you know what, Mr. Speaker? We have made, under the leadership of our Premier, historic investments with the new transformation of OSAP. Some 235,000 students are going to school with free access to tuition under that program. It’s creating more access: 34% more indigenous students are accessing post-secondary through the new OSAP; we have more lone-parent households accessing. We’re going to continue to build up our education—

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

Coal-fired generating stations

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is for the Minister of Energy. This weekend, Ontario will celebrate its four-year anniversary of the phase-out of coal-fired power plants. This move remains the single largest greenhouse gas reduction initiative completed in all of North America. The elimination of coal-fired plants has been a major contributing factor in improving the quality of the air that we breathe.

Thanks to clean air and clean energy, Ontario has saved more than $4 billion in annual health and environmental costs. We also saw the number of smog days drop from 53 in 2005 to zero in 2017. Can the minister please explain how the elimination of coal-fired plants places Ontario at a competitive advantage?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I want to thank the member from Barrie for that question and, of course, for all of her hard work. Mr. Speaker, our government is proud to be a leader in the global fight against climate change. As of last year, the electricity we consume is over 95% carbon-free, thanks to the early action we took to close coal-fired power generation plants.

The overwhelming consensus from climate and health experts, both in government and in independent organizations, is clear: This has resulted in significant reductions in air pollution and improves the lives of the people of Ontario.

Just earlier this week, the Environmental Commissioner released a report in which she praised our government’s action on eliminating coal, saying, “Taking coal out of electricity dramatically reduced Ontario’s greenhouse gas emissions, and has improved air quality and public health.” As you can see, unlike the official opposition, our government is taking concrete action to ensure that our kids and grandkids can breathe clean air.

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

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. It’s wonderful to hear that our electricity generation in 2017 was over 95% free of the emissions that cause climate change. I understand that this is thanks to the nearly $70 billion that has been invested to modernize the system since 2003. This benefits the people of Ontario today by ensuring that we have clean air. In 2012, the last year of coal-fired power in the province, we had 30 smog days. In the six years since, we’ve only had three.

These investments have also provided good jobs and opportunities to invest in future generations. I understand that the Lakeview Generating Station, a former coal plant, has been sold. Can the minister please provide details on what the sale of this land means to the province?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’m very pleased to talk about the sale of the Lakeview lands. Not only does this 177-acre site give us a chance to transform those industrial lands into a waterfront destination where people can play and work and raise a family, but the former coal plant—the Four Sisters, as it was known—was the worst polluter in a generation of pollution. Now it’s generating over $200 million to the Trillium Trust, money that will be reinvested in public transit, transportation and infrastructure right across Ontario. This is part of our $230 billion over 14 years to build Ontario up.

I’d like to also acknowledge that Inspiration Lakeview, to revitalize this precious waterfront, will enable mixed use and enable our local community to do better. We’ve had over 30 to 40 smog days in the past. As a result of these initiatives, we’ve had zero this year.

The late Jim Tovey, who just died a few months ago, was a champion for Inspiration Lakeview, and I want to acknowledge his efforts in our community as well.

Labour dispute

Mr. Lorne Coe: My question is for the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development. This is the sixth week that more than 51,000 York University students are not in class. The Liberal government failed to act last fall when they let the community college strike go on for five long weeks, putting the students’ semester in jeopardy. Yet again, the Premier and the minister have failed to show leadership for Ontario’s post-secondary students. How many more weeks of class will York University’s 51,000 students have to miss before the Liberal government takes action?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: This is a very challenging situation. I know that students are feeling the effects of the strike, but the university has worked to keep the school open so that a portion of their students can continue while the strike is happening. I know this is difficult on all parties, but the school has remained open.

What we are asking here is that both sides return to the bargaining table, that they think about what compromises can be made on both sides so that they can come to a resolution that is fair to all parties, that is fair to both sides. The best deals are done at the collective bargaining table. That’s what we believe on this side of the House. We respect the bargaining process, and at this point we’re asking both sides to come back and to strike a fair deal that is fair.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lorne Coe: Back to the Minister of Advanced Education and Skills Development: On April 10, 2018, the president of York University wrote a letter to the Canadian Union of Public Employees asking that this matter be sent to binding arbitration. The letter said, “In just over one more week, we will be facing a possible loss of the summer term, with even further consequences for our students.” Speaker, will the Liberal government act now to save the semester of 51,000 York University students?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for the question about York University. Speaker, it’s at times like this that we need to remember that Ontario has got one of the best track records when it comes to collective bargaining. Between 98% and 99% of agreements year after year are reached without either of the parties having to resort to a strike or to a lockout.

This is an exceptional circumstance. Both sides, obviously, are availing themselves of their rights under the process. I would ask members to remember that the process needs to be respected. The best deals, the best long-term deals in the interest of the students, in the interest of the employees and in the interest of the people who run the administration at York University are best reached by all of those parties coming to an agreement around the table.

We’re confident, Speaker, that if the right attitude is brought to this, that agreement can be reached and the students can be put first.

Toronto Transit Commission

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. In her new budget, the Premier proposed that the province assume ownership of Toronto’s subway lines. This is the same idea one former Conservative leader floated back in 2014, which was roundly condemned at the time by Toronto city councillors, the TTC, transit advocates and the public. It is also the same idea that the Conservatives are floating in their current plan, which again has been roundly condemned. Why would the Premier even consider breaking up the TTC?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: I appreciate the question from the member opposite. Speaker, the TTC subway system has been an incredible bonus to many, many residents in Toronto. This is very much a world-class transit system, and we continue to operate it and collaborate with the city of Toronto to make sure that we can continue increasing service and continue to increase world-class service on this line.

I know that, with the increasing costs, as we continue to build this system out, there has been some discussion amongst all of our different stakeholders regarding the cost of running the subway and how best to offset it. These discussions are just starting to see if it is feasible that we will be entering into any agreement with the city of Toronto. But these discussions are worth having in the short term. I’ll answer more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When the TTC is properly funded, Speaker, it works. When the province paid 50% of the TTC’s operating costs, it was the envy of the world. The TTC works because the buses, streetcars and subways all work together in an integrated network. But now the Premier is proposing to take a page from the Conservatives, the same people who filled in a hole where the Eglinton subway should be and then cut off provincial funding for TTC operations.

The Premier is proposing to break up the TTC. Will the Premier stop listening to the Conservatives and start listening to transit riders who want their transit system to be properly funded, not broken up?

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: We are continuing to move forward with an unprecedented transit build in the GTHA, much of which is taking place right here in Toronto. And if the member opposite was listening correctly, she would hear that some of the announcements with the integrated fare announcement, with the continuing transit build of SmartTrack as well as GO stations and RER—unprecedented, historic build-outs.

But specifically, the province will begin discussions with the city of Toronto to determine whether provincial ownership of TTC subway lines could provide better transit services for residents in the GTHA, but also allow for a better sharing of costs for transit expansion between the province and the city of Toronto. We are very happy to have those discussions.

I want to be clear: At this time, we’re engaging with the city to consider what options are available and what could lead to the best results for transit users. Any decision that we make will be based on evidence and will happen in collaboration and consultation with the city of Toronto.

While we appreciate the NDP’s ideas on support for multiple transit operations, the NDP prove once again that they have no real plan for helping to build the much-needed transit in this city.

Tamil community

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Minister, the Tamil people of Sri Lanka have suffered persecution by their government continuously since independence in 1948. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam were created as a military body to protect the Tamil people. The Tamil Tigers were a strong fighting force. The Canadian government was persuaded to place a terrorist designation on the Tamil Tigers in 2006.

The civil war in Sri Lanka ended in 2009, with the complete decimation of the Tigers. The terrorist designation is not needed anymore.

Hon. Laura Albanese: I’d like to thank the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills for the question. The member is correct: This is an issue that is solely under federal jurisdiction, as public safety falls under their purview.

I sympathize with the community for the tragic, decades-long conflict, which ended in 2009. The tragic war in Sri Lanka resulted in the unnecessary loss of tens of thousands of civilians’ lives, many within the Tamil community.

As Canadians, we remain committed to the values that we cherish—justice, human rights and fairness—both in Canada and in Sri Lanka. Countries like Canada have all recognized that grave atrocities took place during the war in Sri Lanka; Ontario does as well.

Our focus as a government is our engagement with the Northern Province of Sri Lanka, as well as the vibrant Tamil community here in Ontario, and I’ll elaborate in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: Minister, the terrorist designation on the Tamil Tigers still exists. It is like a black cloud hanging over the heads of Tamil Canadians. The terrorist designation effectively causes a social stigmatization of Tamil people in Canada. Tamil people cannot even publicly mourn and remember their fallen people at their Maaveerar Naal remembrance services on November 27 of each year.

The Tamil Tigers no longer exist. They will never be a fighting force again. Minister, will you come to Parliament Hill with Tamil Canadian leaders and me to ask the Canadian government to remove the terrorist designation?

Hon. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the member for the question once again.

Our Premier was the first head of government in Ontario to host the Chief Minister of the Tamil-dominated Northern Province of Sri Lanka during his January 2017 visit to Canada. This was an opportunity for the Premier to convey Ontario’s strong interest in seeing and supporting further progress in strengthening this relationship.

Following their meeting last year, there was a continued dialogue between our two jurisdictions, and just this week, the Premier sent a letter to the Chief Minister proposing a possible memorandum of understanding on women’s economic empowerment.

Mr. Speaker, one of Ontario’s greatest strengths is the diverse mosaic of our people. We are proud of our vibrant Tamil community and the contributions that they have made and that they continue to make in all fields throughout our province.

We were also the first to declare, as a Legislature, Tamil Heritage Month.

Mental health services

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: My question is for the Minister of Education. Our government is investing more in the care and services that people across Ontario rely on. I’m proud that our government is committed to easing the pressure families are facing by taking action to improve mental health supports in schools. We know that nearly one in three Ontarians will face a mental health or addictions issue over the course of their lifetime. This includes the two million young people in our schools, reflecting the future of this province.

In my riding of Kingston and the Islands I represent a diverse group of people who have courageously shared the stories of themselves, their friends or members of their family facing mental health challenges.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is our government doing to support well-being and a better, brighter future for the students of Ontario?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the member from Kingston and the Islands for this very important question.

We know that our fast-paced lives mean that our young people today are dealing with increasing demands and pressures. Those challenges can mean our students are dealing with serious stress and anxiety in their lives. That’s why our government recently announced an additional $2.1 billion for mental health and addictions services in Ontario. This is the largest provincial investment of its kind in Canadian history.

Just think about that. For our students and educators, these funds mean more support in our school community, and more help. In fact, our budget adds 400 mental health workers to high schools across the province; enhances our educators’ and school staff mental health literacy; and equips our students with social-emotional learning skills beginning as early as in kindergarten.

Speaker, our students can’t learn or be successful if they aren’t happy and healthy and well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I’m proud to be part of a government that is driving student success with more classroom supports. I know that we are doing more to better prepare children for the future by investing in care, not cuts. We can’t afford to cut vital services that mean so much to students, their families and staff. One billion dollars in cuts from our schools will mean that at least 7,000 teachers, early childhood educators and educational assistants would be fired, putting all of this progress in jeopardy.

Adding 400 new mental health workers in schools is part of our government’s plan to support care, create opportunity and make life more affordable for the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please tell us more about what our government is doing to support student well-being in our schools?

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thanks again to the member for the question.

We know mental health challenges can begin at an early age. In fact, experts say up to 70% of mental health and addictions issues begin in childhood. That’s why it’s important to make sure supports are there when students need them most. In fact, educators can often recognize if a student might be struggling with a mental health concern, like panic attacks, anxiety or depression.

That’s why our plan puts direct supports in place in the classroom, in the curriculum and on school boards. We want to ensure that our young people get the tools and resources they need to be able to meet their mental health challenges. We’re adding 2,000 more educators to our schools, including psychologists, social workers and guidance counsellors, and increasing education funding by $625 million, starting next year.

Mr. Speaker, we heard from students that these are the supports they need to be successful, and that’s why students are at the centre of this historic announcement toward mental health supports.

Tree seed services

Mr. Jim Wilson: To the Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry: Industry experts as well as environmental advocates in my riding and across the province tell me that they continue to receive template responses from this government when it comes to concerns raised over the closure of the Ontario Tree Seed Plant.

The decision to close the facility was made by this government without any consultation with the industry or the broader community. The government talks about a supposed new tree seed archive, but we’ve heard nothing about it.

What we do know is that a new archive will not support tree planting of any sort and that with the closure of the tree seed plant, the government is divesting the province of expertise, facilities and a network of people that will be gone forever.

Without the Ontario Tree Seed Plant, how does the government plan to ensure a sufficient supply of high-quality, source-identified seed for dozens of native tree species throughout the province?

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: Thank you for the question. Actually, the program that we are putting forward is to modernize the way in which tree seeds will be distributed in Ontario. It will be a better program that will be cheaper for Ontarians and will respect the quality that we want in the tree seed plants. We are committed to biodiversity and ensuring our natural heritage and committed to ensuring that Ontario seeds continue to be used in forest planting.

We knew that, indeed, 80% of the seeds were provided by the private market, and we are actually moving forward and creating a better program for Ontarians in that respect. I’m happy to provide more details in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Back to the minister: Tree growers across the province remain concerned about where they will find appropriate seed needed for future crops. They say the consequences will be an influx of unidentified seed sources into the Ontario market that favours cost over quality and adaptability. This works completely against the minister’s new seed transfer policy.

They asked me to ask you: How will the government ensure that the private sector develops the capacity to plan for, collect, process and bank enough seed to respond to catastrophic events in Ontario, such as beetle and forest fire devastations, and can the government assure growers that the private sector will readily replace seed in time for normal annual reforestation projects?

Hon. Nathalie Des Rosiers: Thank you for the question. Actually, there are two instruments that the government has at its disposal: First of all, there’s the seed zone policy that ensures that you provide the seeds in the appropriate zones in Ontario, ensuring that the appropriate trees are being planted. We want to preserve the natural heritage in doing so.

We also have what we have called the new genetic archives that are under way. I will certainly continue to work with you in trying to ensure that it does meet the needs of Ontarians.

I think the government is actually quite involved in ensuring that we have a modern system that responds to the range of needs for Ontarians in seed planting. We continue to be committed to ensuring biodiversity but also respecting our natural heritage in Ontario.

Road safety

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. On Tuesday, the Minister of Transportation claimed that this government has already passed vulnerable road user laws, but road safety advocates across Ontario, including Friends and Families for Safe Streets, Cycle Toronto, Walk Toronto and Bike Law Canada, have repeatedly pointed out that this is not true. They have pointed out that in the vast majority of cases, a driver who seriously injures or kills a cyclist or pedestrian would not even be charged with the new careless driving offence but will plead down and escape any meaningful consequences for their actions. This happens every day.

Will the Acting Premier or the Minister of Transportation, or anybody on that side of the House, commit today to fast-tracking Bill 37, which is a true, comprehensive vulnerable road user law?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you for the question. It’s amazing to me that even with the information I gave this member on Tuesday she has not recognized that we passed a bill that our law enforcement officers were asking us to, in order to increase the penalties for careless driving causing death or bodily harm. It comes with up to a $50,000 penalty, up to two years’ imprisonment and a licence suspension