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

December 2, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-02 (PDF)

L129 - Wed 2 Dec 2015 / Mer 2 déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 2 December 2015 Mercredi 2 décembre 2015

Health Information Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Health care funding

Privatization of public assets

Automobile insurance

Housing Services Corp.

Violence against women

Climate change / Changement climatique

Nuclear energy

Social Assistance Management System

International trade

Long-term care

Forest industry

Organ and tissue donation

First responders

Visitors

Annual report, Auditor General

Deferred Votes

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Protecting Condominium Owners Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des propriétaires de condominiums

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Mike Bradley

Events in riding of Niagara Falls

Events in riding of Etobicoke North

MetricAid

Santa’s Parade of Lights

Organ and tissue donation

Climate change

Mississauga Santa Claus Parade

Johnny Lombardi

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Social Policy

Introduction of Bills

Mining Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les mines

Motions

Private members’ public business

Visitors

Petitions

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Ontario Retirement Pension Plan

Health care funding

Lung health

Environmental protection

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Health care funding

Gasoline prices

Lung health

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Orders of the Day

Sexual Violence and Harassment Action Plan Act (Supporting Survivors and Challenging Sexual Violence and Harassment), 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le Plan d’action contre la violence et le harcèlement sexuels (en soutien aux survivants et en opposition à la violence et au harcèlement sexuels)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Health Information Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 19, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, to make certain related amendments and to repeal and replace the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004 / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements personnels sur la santé, à apporter certaines modifications connexes et à abroger et à remplacer la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements sur la qualité des soins.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When we last had this bill, the member from Nickel Belt had the floor.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Speaker. As you remember, I was interrupted in mid-flight explaining what Bill 119 was all about. I will do a quick recap and then carry on.

Basically, Bill 119 has three main parts to it. The first part of the bill has to do with protecting a patient’s private information. I will explain why this is very important. The second part of the bill has to do with electronic health records: How we make sure that we have strong regulations in place for the use of electronic health records, because our personal information is on those records. The third part has to do with accountability and transparency when medical errors occur.

I said it before, but it’s worth repeating: In order for care to take place, there has to be a trusting relationship between the care provider and the person who receives that care. There has to be a really good human relationship between those people; otherwise, quality care cannot take place.

We are all human beings, and when we are sick, sometimes the treatment plan and the care that you have to go through is really not obvious and comes with substantive side effects. You really have to be able to trust your care provider that this is the best course of action for you; otherwise, it is not obvious that this is the path to health.

I repeat this, and I have repeated it in this House many times, because this is at the core of our health care system. At the core of it is this trusting relationship. With a trust account, you have to make many, many deposits into a trust account, but you will only make one withdrawal. If you lose that trust in your provider, in the agency, in the hospital or in the system as a whole, then nothing else matters, and there will never be quality care taking place for that person.

So how do we ensure that this trust is always there? The role of government, as the steward of our health care system, is really to put methods, frameworks, laws and regulations in place to protect that trust. How do we do this as legislators? We make sure that all of the agencies that provide care have oversight. We make sure that the agencies do their work in a way that is transparent, so we put regulations in place that allow transparency. We do this in making every single care provider—care agency, hospital, CCAC, LHIN, mental health agency, primary care agency—accountable.

We make sure that they have to stand and account for what they have done. This is how, at a system level, you work toward that trust—that trust that is at the core of our health care system.

Everybody knows that when you go see a care provider, whether it be a midwife, a nurse practitioner, a physician, a dentist, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a social worker or a dietitian—it doesn’t matter who it is—they will ask you questions. They will ask you very personal questions. They’ll ask you questions about yourself, about your age, your date of birth. They’ll ask you questions about your health. They’ll ask you questions about your state of health at that particular time, if you have had any surgery before, what kind of medications you take.

They will ask you questions about your personal choices in life: Are you a smoker? Are you a drinker? Do you use recreational drugs? They’ll ask you very, very personal questions and they will write this down in a record so that they and other members of your team get to know you better and can put forward a treatment plan that will help you stay as healthy as possible or help you cope with a disease if you are facing a disease at the time.

You can see how you have consented to share this collection of personal information with your care provider, but you certainly did not consent to share that information with the world. That very personal information, in this particular setting, you were comfortable with sharing, but in many other settings, this is your privacy and you are allowed to keep information about you private. This is what privacy is all about. This is why it is so important to set the right laws and regulations to protect all of that.

I’m at the 40,000-feet level. I will go down and dig more into the bill, but I just wanted to set the tone. Right now, we have seen a huge push by the government to—basically, programs and services that used to be in our hospitals. Our hospitals have layers of oversight. They have layers of transparency and accountability, because remember, this is how you ensure trust. Well, a lot of the programs that used to be provided in our hospitals have now been privatized into the community. Hospitals have had tight budgets, flat-line budgets, for the last four years.

They are being told by the government that if it is not acute hospital care, it is okay to stop doing it and somebody in the community will go on with it.

The problem is that those out-of-hospital clinics have no accountability, they have no transparency and they have no oversight. Remember, those are the three pillars as to how the government mandates, as the steward of the system, to ensure this trust. This is how, at the system level, we make sure that the trust is there. Well, I’m telling you right now that at the 40,000-feet level, there is a major gap in this bill.

It is all fine and good that we are putting transparency, oversight and accountability measures in place to protect people’s privacy, to make sure that those protections extend to electronic health records and to make sure that if you are done wrong, you gain access. But as more and more procedures and services that used to be done in our hospitals are now done in those out-of-hospital clinics, none of what we’re talking about applies to them. This has to be corrected. You can expect the NDP to bring amendments forward to make sure that the out-of-hospital clinics will be covered by those new and amended pieces of legislation that we are putting forward.

Let me tell you, Speaker, that it was a shock to me that during estimates—I sat in for the estimates for the Ministry of Health. We had a deputation from Cancer Care Ontario, an agency that I have nothing but respect for, a very top-notch agency. They are the ones who told us that 50% of the colonoscopies that are done for the program aimed at detecting colon cancer early are done in out-of-hospital clinics. Later on, I will go into more detail as to some serious breaches that have happened, specifically in out-of-hospital clinics that do those colonoscopies.

Cancer Care Ontario is working really hard so that this never happens again, so that the trust is maintained in these very important programs that they do, but they’re asking for help. We have to do our part. We have to make sure that we include those out-of-hospital clinics in the bill that we are talking about, Bill 119, the Health Information Protection Act. Right now, they are not.

You also have to look a bit at the broader context. I’ve talked about hospitals having a flatlined budget for the last four years. All of them are expecting a fifth year. They have managed expectations very well. Most hospitals expect a fifth year of flatlined budgets—that is, no new money coming in, but the expenses continue to increase.

Already, after four years of flatlining, we have seen a lot—we have heard about a lot of layoffs. Right now, there are 625 registered nurses’ positions that have been eliminated since January 1 of this year. That’s 84 jobs at the hospitals in Belleville, Trenton and Prince Edward county. That’s 150 jobs in North Bay—and the MPP from North Bay has brought those forward, as have the NDP—and 21 layoffs at the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences in Whitby.

We also see that whenever the Minister of Health delivers what I would call a “read speech”—if he reads a speech for any group—the word “transformation” comes non-stop.

When you listen to Ed Clark, the guy who told us that privatizing Hydro One was a good idea—he turned his sights away from hydro and booze for a while and started to look at health care, and what are the words coming out of his mouth? Greater private sector involvement in the health care system.

Of all the provinces in Canada, we are the province that has the most private sector involvement in long-term care. More than 60% of all the beds in Ontario are private beds; that is, they are operated by private operators. We’re talking over 65,000 beds.

When we look at home care, our home care system is completely dominated by the for-profit sector. If you look at all of the contracts and all of the money—and our Auditor General did a very good overview as to how the money is spent in our home care system—we are the most heavily privatized of all, bar none. The next province doesn’t even register, compared to how privatized our home care system has been.

I would venture to say that those two areas of our health care system are the two weakest ones right now. Our home care system fails more people than it helps. Our long-term-care system is so plagued with patient-on-patient violence that the Office of the Chief Coroner wants to do a review of homicide in our long-term-care system, because year after year, the number of murders within our long-term-care system doubles. We used to have only two, then it became three, then it became five, and last year it became eight. Those are just the murders that have been reported.

If there was any other town of about 75,000 people where there had been eight murders in the previous year, the resources would be pouring in to help that community, to make sure that we have grassroots support in place so this kind of violence never happens again. But this is happening right here, right now. This is happening in our long-term-care homes, and it doesn’t trigger any action and it doesn’t trigger any influx of resources. Those people are cast aside, I’m guessing, because of stigma, because they’re old, and this is wrong.

I’m bringing this forward because I wanted to set a bit of the context as we bring in this new bill, the Health Information Protection Act. It doesn’t come out of thin air. It comes with a transformation in our health care system that has seen massive privatization of big areas of health care. Those massive privatizations have been accompanied by very poor outcomes, by very poor quality of care, where more people are failed by our home care system than are helped. So I wanted to set the tone.

Of course, as I said, the bill has three parts. The first part has to do with personal health information and protection. In my neck of the woods, we call this PHIPA, the Personal Health Information Protection Act. What does it do? It basically sets rules as to how we collect, use and disclose personal information. I told you at the beginning of my speech that people voluntarily give a lot of personal information to health care providers. The bill will set out how we collect this, how we use it and how we disclose it.

Personal information could be from your mental health, your physical health, your family health history, your care providers, your plan of care, your drugs—you get the picture. So why do we need this? We need this because that information has been looked at by people who should never have. Don’t get me wrong. I’m not a big fan of Rob Ford, never have been and probably never will be. But while he was undergoing chemotherapy for his cancer, hundreds of people accessed his records. Those people had no right to access his records, but yet, not a single one of them has been prosecuted or held to account because our laws are too weak. Bill 119 would hopefully allow us to do that.

Other high-profile cases: A man I do love and have loved and respected all my life was Jack Layton. When Jack was sick and undergoing treatment, the same thing happened. Hundreds of people accessed his medical records. Those people had no business accessing his medical records. Those people were not part of his circle of care. Those people broke the sacred trust that allows us to have a good health care system. And yet, nothing was done.

The last cases that have gone through court were actually dismissed because of the length of time it has taken. Those are high profile, but there are many, many what I would call people like you and I, many, many Ontarians who have also had their records looked at that shouldn’t have. In 2011, test records for 12,000 Ontarians who were screened for colon cancer were lost in the mail. Lost in the mail, Speaker: We don’t know who got those letters. The privacy commissioner at the time said, “I am astounded that such a loss could take place.” So am I.

That’s 12,000 people for whom the trust in the colon cancer check has been broken. You know how hard it will be to re-motivate those people to go for their colon check next time? It will be next to impossible. That means an opportunity to catch colon cancer early will be lost.

In 2013, a secure USB data key was lost at Montfort Hospital containing information on 25,000 people. The personal information of 25,000 Ontarians was lost because a USB key was lost.

In 2013, a memory card containing the names, addresses, and birth and marital status of 18,000 people was stolen from a Peel region employee’s car. The information belonged to people who were part of the Peel Public Health Healthy Babies Healthy Children Program. Again, the privacy commissioner said, “I call on all Ontario health care organizations to review their practices immediately.”

Go on to 2013: Data storage sticks went missing containing medical information on 18,000 patients at Toronto Western Hospital’s eye clinic. This prompted an apology from the chief doctor and, again, an investigation by the privacy commissioner.

Again in 2013: A private clinic in Toronto, which charges $2,595 for every health assessment they do, actually sold their list of 7,700 clients and patients.

In 2014, personal information of 8,300 patients at Scarborough’s Rouge Valley Centenary hospital was leaked by a hospital employee who was being paid by an outside company to leak that information. That employee actually went into patients’ records.

Ms. Soo Wong: She was convicted.

M me France Gélinas: Yes, this one was convicted, as the member has said.

In 2014, a Sarnia woman was contacted by a private cosmetic surgery clinic after she had already booked that surgery at a public hospital. She was quite puzzled as to how that private cosmetic surgery clinic could have known that she had been wanting cosmetic surgery. Obviously, information was leaked.

I share this information, Speaker, to really give the scope of the problem. This is a problem that the government has known about for a long time. This is a problem that has hit the front page of the papers on numerous occasions, with always the same reaction: How could that be? And why is it that so few of the people who commit those breaches are ever held to account?

Well, in part, because the laws that we have in place are too cumbersome, too weak, and they need to be tightened. This is in part what this will do. It will do things like mandate a notification to the privacy commissioner. Right now, oftentimes the privacy commissioner finds out about such a breach by reading the paper or by seeing it online or by seeing it on the television. Now, the people who have made a breach will have to notify.

Everybody who holds information—they are called health information custodians—all of the custodians, the people who own the data, who own the computers where that information is stored, will be held responsible for improper use and they will have to inform the professional college if the person who is implicated in the breach of privacy holds a licence. There are 27 regulated health professions in Ontario: think physio, OT, physicians, nurses, midwives, pharmacists. All of those people—27 different professionals—hold licences. So if you hold a licence, your college will know about it.

Then again, although the bill aims to go in the right direction, it has some serious flaws. One of them is that the reporting relationships are not the same if you keep that information in an electronic format or if you keep that information on the old paper chart that used to be. Don’t get me wrong, Speaker: There are still plenty of paper charts throughout our health care system. Why is that?

Why is it that you have a reporting relationship to the privacy commissioner and to the college if there is a breach on an electronic format, but you don’t have the same reporting relationship if there’s a breach on a paper format? That makes no sense. It has to be better harmonized. A breach is a breach. It doesn’t matter if you read a paper record or if you read it on your computer screen; you still did something that was wrong. It should be reported to your college and it should be reported to the privacy commissioner so that we have an investigation.

There are a number of clarifications that need to be made about how this will really work in a clinical setting. That brings me to the electronic health record. Some people, throughout history, are willing to share information with one particular care provider but not with the entire team. I will take an example that happened very often in primary care. In primary care, you may feel comfortable telling your nurse practitioner that you are a recreational marijuana user—because you’re starting to have lung problems or because you have stress and you use it for whatever reason.

But you don’t want everybody within the care team to know about this because, let’s face it, it is still illegal. You basically told your nurse practitioner that you are doing an illegal act, but you have shared that information because that information is relevant to the care that he or she will provide to you.

In the old days, when somebody shared something like this that was illegal, you would show them—you have to keep a note. You would put the note into a brown envelope, seal it, sign across the seal and the patient would sign across the seal. Everybody was very comfortable, because here it was: You knew that it had been written down, but you had seen the piece of paper go into the envelope, being sealed, and you had your signature on it. You knew that if somebody opened it, it would be pretty easy to see.

The same type of consent has to take place in the electronic format. That is, you may want part of your record—the drugs that you’re on and the surgeries that you’ve had—to be available to all, but you may not want part of your mental health history to be available to all. So the same thing that we used to do with the envelope and the signature across, this choice that you have to consent to part of your record being shared within your care team—not with the world, just with your care team—is still available to you.

The other part that is still available to you is that you can exclude some of the providers in your care team. So if you go to an aboriginal health centre, there is a care team that looks after you, which includes a traditional healer and physician, a nurse practitioner, a social worker and a health promoter, but it happens that the nurse on your care team is also your sister-in-law. She’s very good and everything, but you don’t want your sister-in-law to have access to your record.

Well, it was quite easy: When you went in, on the old paper chart it was clear that this person was not allowed to have access to that particular record. This was respected so that the patient felt at ease to share some very personal information with the rest of the team. Those conditions on consent still have to exist in the new world of the electronic health record.

This bill will still give you the right to withdraw consent to share information on part of your record or to withdraw consent to share information with specific providers. The problem is that the technology does not exist to do that in the electronic format. So we have this beautiful law that you can read to your patient in front of you that says, “You have a right in the law that is passed by this very esteemed Legislative Assembly of Ontario,” but come to the ground floor of the things, where it matters, we don’t have an electronic health system that allows us to do that. You have to trust the goodwill of people that your wishes will happen.

But there were tangible things that you could see before. There was this envelope, it was sealed in front of you. There was this chart that was flagged with different colours to show that a certain provider could not—well, none of that exists anymore because your electronic health record is electronic and we have to trust the goodwill of people that your wishes will be respected.

This is a big issue. To pass a bill that is going in the right direction—and I fully support what we want to do—knowing full well that it cannot be implemented with the electronic health records that are presently available in Ontario is a bit of an issue with me because I don’t want to give people false hope. I don’t want to pretend that we can do things that we are not able to do. This will need a bit of work.

As much as I fully support what we are trying to do with this part of the bill that deals with the electronic health records, do we need regulations about electronic health records? Absolutely. I wish we had an electronic health record that functioned properly within Ontario. I wish that if you need a lab result that comes from the health unit, the health unit would not have to print it, fax it to you; once you get it at the other end, you scan it and put it in your electronic health record. Do I wish that we had something better than what we have now? Absolutely.

Do I wish that we had a functional electronic health record? Yes. Do I wish that in this electronic health record we can respect the directives of patients regarding their private information? Yes, absolutely. But none of this is happening in Ontario right now.

So we are passing a bill and talking about wishes that everybody wants but that technologically do not exist. Am I the only one uncomfortable with giving people false hope? Am I the only one uncomfortable with passing a bill when I know full well it cannot be implemented in the real world, that the government will be able to say, “We passed a bill that guarantees you that only the people in your circle of care, who you designated, are allowed to see your records, and only the part of your record that you want shared, and we will be able to say that because we will have passed a bill that says just that”?

It cannot be implemented. We don’t have the technology to do that. I think it needs a little bit of a reality check. Let’s not give the people of Ontario false hope. Let’s not pretend to do things that are not feasible. Do we want to get there? Yes, 100%, absolutely. I want to get there. I want an electronic health record that functions—that would follow you if you are at your primary care provider, at your midwife, at the hospital, at the lab, at the pharmacy. I would love to have that. It would change health care for the better. It would change the way that we are able to provide care.

It would give us data to do health promotion and disease prevention that we have never been able to do before. I want to get there. But I don’t want a bill that pretends that we are there when we are not. So, here again, there are issues.

I hope this bill won’t be time-allocated and I hope that we will give everybody in Ontario a chance to be heard in committee, because there are already many, many stakeholders who are reaching out to us to say that they have issues. They all support the direction that the bill wants to go in, but they want to make sure that we have the technology to make it happen in real life.

The third part of the bill has to do with quality-of-care information. This is a part where, when the bill was first introduced way back, I was able to predict the future. Basically, it is a bill that says that if health care providers are having a conversation to improve quality, then this conversation is shielded from anyone. What had I predicted back then? The health care system has a culture in which it has a really hard time admitting that it has made a mistake.

Don’t get me wrong, Speaker. People in the health care system try really, really hard not to make any mistakes. They put systems in place to make sure that they don’t make mistakes. But health care providers—physicians, nurses—are human beings, and like every other human being, they make mistakes. When they make a mistake, it is us, our family members or friends or neighbours who live with the consequences of those mistakes.

So what has happened? Well, exactly what we had predicted was going to happen: When somebody makes a mistake, the first thing they do is they say “Oh, this conversation is to improve quality.” And if you say that this conversation is to improve quality, that means the information that is shared will not be FOI-able, will not be shared with the patients or family, will not be shared with other health care providers so that they learn from the mistake. A mistake that has been done in one hospital or one clinic should serve as a red flag for everybody else.

I must say that some hospitals are pretty good. If they have made a mistake, they will have a meeting, they will talk about how the mistake has happened and they will share that information with the family who is affected or with the patient affected by their mistake. But there is also a large number of them who do not, who use that piece of legislation not to improve quality—I suppose it does improve quality because they talk about it. But the main reason why they use that piece of legislation is so that nobody will ever know the mistakes that they have made. They will know. They will have a meeting.

They may point fingers at one another. Having been part of some of those meetings, believe you me, sometimes it’s not a pretty sight. But the learning that comes out of this is all kept under lock and key. All you have to do is say that you are working under the quality-of-care information law, that you’re having a meeting to improve quality, and then you don’t have to share anything.

What does that mean, Speaker? That means that people don’t have closure. As I’ve told you, the health care system tries really, really hard not to make mistakes. But when they do happen, we are the ones who suffer. The patients, the families are the ones who suffer. Those families want to know: Where did things derail? What happened? Why is it that he went in to have an amputation of his left leg and it’s now his right leg that is gone? She went in to have a mastectomy to have breast cancer removed and it’s the wrong breast that has been taken off—some very, very obvious mistakes.

And when people try to get answers as to what went wrong, they get complete silence because the debriefing—don’t get me wrong: The health care providers feel horrible and terrible about the mistake they have made. They know full well that they have completely failed at their basic responsibility of helping people and have made a horrifying mistake. But they will take the bill that has been there and shield themselves, without the family ever knowing what went wrong. For that family, it means that they will never reach closure. They will never know exactly what went wrong. They will never know that things have been put in place to make sure that it never happens again.

With QCIPA, that’s the name of the bill—they all have cute acronyms. The Quality of Care Information Protection Act—part of the bill is still very weak. It leaves to regulation what will actually be done to make sure that, when this bill is called upon to shield information for quality purposes, a lot of it will be left to regulations later on down the road. That’s not what we wanted. We wanted the changes to be done within the law; that the law be clarified.

Everybody and their brother has come forward with medical errors and critical incidents that continue to be a serious problem in our health care system, and they’ve wanted that piece of legislation to be clarified so that we don’t leave it to the 147 different hospitals—because these are the people who use this piece of legislation the most, but it applies to others—so that we don’t leave it to 157 hospital corporations to decide.

There are errors that should never occur. Actually, this September, Health Quality Ontario and the Canadian Patient Safety Institute published a report called Never Events. These are, basically, events that should never occur in our hospitals. Unfortunately—and I will read through some of them—every single one of them still happens in Ontario hospitals right now.

The number one thing that should never happen: “Surgery on the wrong body part or the wrong patient, or conducting the wrong procedure.” Unfortunately, those happen.

“Wrong tissue, biological implant or blood product given to a patient.” You all know that, if we do a blood transfusion with the wrong blood product, drastic things happen.

“Unintended foreign object left in a patient following a procedure.” Those usually make the front page of the paper. You have this X-ray that shows you that you have left a foreign object in a patient.

“Patient death or serious harm arising from the use of improperly sterilized instruments or equipment provided by the health care facility.” We’ve had a number of cases—remember the colonoscopy clinic in Ottawa that had not been sterilizing their equipment properly but had done thousands of colonoscopies, putting all of these people at risk.

“Patient death or serious harm due to a failure to inquire whether a patient has a known allergy to medication, or due to administration of a medication where” the allergy has been identified, but you give them that medication anyway. The list goes on.

“Patient death or serious harm as a result of ... pharmaceutical” errors. The number of pharmaceutical errors in our health care system continues to grow. They should not be happening.

“Any stage III or stage IV pressure ulcer”—better known as bed sores—“acquired after admission to hospital.” Unfortunately, many frail elderly still develop pressure ulcers after they’ve been admitted to a hospital. The list goes on and on.

The bill has to be tightened. When those events happen—I wish they wouldn’t, and health care professionals work really, really hard so that they don’t happen. New procedures, lists and frameworks are put into place so that those incidents never happen. When they do happen, everybody feels horrible. They know that they have failed. They know that they had a

part in that failing. The entire team just feels horrible.

But we have to take it a step further so that the patients and their families are allowed into those discussions and allowed to know what went wrong, how come it happened and what will be done so that it never happens again.

There have been some high-profile cases in the Toronto Star investigation, including a newborn baby who was wrongly declared dead, only to be discovered alive an hour and a half later. The hospital interpreted the law in a manner to prevent the release of the internal hospital investigation’s findings and recommendations to both the family and the public.

At the time, Ontario Hospital Association president Tom Closson publicly said that he disagreed with the hospital’s

interpretation of the act, and said, “There is nothing under (the act) that says he can’t tell everybody what he is doing to improve the situation so something like that doesn’t happen again.”

We know we have problems with the bill. The bill has some steps that clarify, but leaves a lot of the clarifications to regulation. There are problems with that.

Let me give you another example: the suicide of a 20-year-old man who died while under psychiatric care. The family was unable to learn what happened because the hospital investigation was carried out under QCIPA—this is the bill that we’re trying to change—and the family is now suing the hospital for $12.5 million.

In 2014, it was reported that St. Joseph’s and the University Health Network are the only centres in Toronto that keep all internal investigations into critical incidents secret. How do they do this? They do this using this piece of legislation.

UHN held 96 of 96 hospital investigations under QCIPA for the fiscal years 2010 to 2013. Not one of those critical incidents was ever shared. That is 96 families that will never be able to have closure, that will never be able to turn the page. In contrast, Mount Sinai Hospital held only five of their 59 critical investigations in private, and Toronto East General had never used it in five years.

I’m giving you this, Speaker, to show you that it is all over the map. It is up to us, as legislators, to clarify how this piece of legislation can be used, and the sooner we do this, the better.

Unfortunately, some of those concerns have been going on for a long time. The bill that was in response to all of those high-profile cases that were highlighted in our papers is the reason to change the bill. Minister after minister has said that they understand the need to clarify, yet the bill, as we have it in front of us, does not quite cut it.

I see that my time is running out. That happens sometimes. I thought an hour was a long time, but here I am, running out of time.

There is a committee that has basically put out a report that says “strive for a ‘just culture.’” What does a just culture mean? For patients, it means they will be included in the process and informed of the results and changes that will be made following a critical incident.

The intent of QCIPA remains valid. You have to give people an opportunity to share information in a way that they’re not going to be brought into court, and it’s not going to be used against them; it is going to be used to improve the health care system. The part of QCIPA that needs to change is the sharing of information with the families and the people affected, so that they have an opportunity to gain closure and turn the page.

Unfortunately, Speaker, it looks like I’m going to be out of time. I want to repeat some of the stuff that I said at the beginning. There is a huge flaw in this bill. More and more services are not provided in our hospitals anymore. Whether you talk about cataract surgery or breast screening or colonoscopies or minor procedures—the list goes on and on—they are done in out-of-hospital clinics. Those out-of-hospital clinics are not covered in this bill. They have to be included in the bill.

The number of people who want those three pieces of legislation—the ones about how we safeguard personal information, how we use electronic health records and how we make sure that the results of critical incidents are shared with the people affected—have all been in the media. There are a whole lot of people out there who wanted those changes. Many of the changes are going in the right direction, but there are some big holes.

I want to make sure that this bill is not going to be time-allocated, that this bill will have a chance to go into committee, that people—agencies and stakeholders—who want changes to this bill will have an opportunity to be heard. We owe it to all of the people who have been affected, especially with some of it being retroactive, so that those families can finally get closure.

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

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise to follow the member for Nickel Belt to support Bill 119. Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively and passionately to the comments made by the member from Nickel Belt. I am sure that she will agree with my comments. Both of us come from previous lives as registered health professionals under the RHPA.

This proposed legislation, if passed, will amend a number of pieces of legislation. I have such a short period of time to talk about the bill, but I wanted to acknowledge both the current Minister of Health and the former Minister of Health, now the President of the Treasury Board, as well as my colleagues, the members from Halton and Ottawa South, because they have been advocates and strong, supportive champions of protecting health information records.

There are two sections the member from Nickel Belt talks so passionately about. One is amending the Public Hospitals Act. The number of tragedies she shared with the House—with all of us—and all of us as members here have heard those stories from our constituency offices. I have heard some very sad cases in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt.

But the other piece of information the member opposite talked about earlier is the divulging and disclosing of personal health information when health professionals are not practising professionally. The amendment to the Personal Health Information Protection Act is critical because we have heard tragedies such as those involving the former mayor of Toronto and the former federal leader of the New Democratic Party. That information is privileged. When you have health professionals who are not conducting themselves professionally, Mr. Speaker, there must be consequences to ensure those records are protected.

The other piece of information that we also need to be speaking about is the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, because that particular act deals specifically with the disclosure of information during critical investigations.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s a pleasure for me to comment on the address this morning by the member from Nickel Belt. I want to first of all commend her for the tremendous work she does as a critic in health care. I don’t think there are many people who could say she isn’t one of the most thorough critics in this Legislature—everything we’ve had, quite frankly. She does her research. She does her homework. I may not always agree with how she feels about specific issues but I do commend her for the work that she does in that regard.

She has obviously done a whole lot of work in researching Bill 119, and she has pointed out some of its weaknesses and some of its attributes as well. That is, in fact, what our job here is, as opposition: to point out where we believe that legislation could be improved or where there are some inadequacies that need to be either withdrawn from the bill or stepped up in regard to the strength that they apply to the bill.

When we’re talking about health care information and records, that is one of the most vitally sensitive issues that people can ever have. People are very, very sensitive about their health information. The reality is there is definitely a stigma out there. If you have an issue with regard to certain kinds of health care, it can affect a lot of things in your life, so guarding that information is vital. That’s why we have such strong protections on health care records, and it is absolutely imperative that we continue to do so. This bill looks to perhaps strengthen protection in some of those regards. I’m hoping that at the end of the day, it will actually succeed in that.

I’m only speaking for a couple of more seconds here, but we’re looking for the opportunity for all members of our caucus to have an opportunity to speak to this bill. We hope the guillotine doesn’t fall on this one, because it’s a very, very important piece of legislation.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s always a privilege and an honour to be in the House and listen to the member from Nickel Belt. She has championed many, many of the files within her critic portfolio; from CCACs to LHINs to Ornge she raised the alarm bells, she raised the flags and she raised the concerns. It’s because of her tenacity and her tireless work that we actually get some results here at the House. She needs to be recognized for that amount of work that she consistently puts in.

She raised one big issue that resonated with me through all of the points she raised this morning: that the core of our health care system is trust. Once that trust is gone, it’s very difficult for us to bring it back.

She talked about protecting patient information through electronic records, through accountability and transparency. At the core here, again, what she raised was making sure that these issues are protected and that they have the proper opportunity or that there are proper regulations, laws and institutions in place to make sure that that information is not made available to those who shouldn’t have that information. By opening up that information, we’ve opened up services to privatization. What that has led to is lack of accountability and less transparency, and that takes the trust out of the system.

She also talked to great extent in regard to the challenges that hospitals are facing as well with flatlined budgets for the last four years, and that won’t be changing next year as well.

She also talked about the home care sector, which is heavily privatized, along with long-term-care beds. Again, greater transparency is needed in that field. And privatization, what happens? It leads to lack of transparency and accountability; it leads to lack of trust.

She talked about personal protection of information, particularly the medical one and the fact that we don’t have the proper technological advances that are going to be there to protect that information. We need to have that because we’re giving false hope to individuals.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: It’s quite a privilege to be able to rise today and make a few comments about the proposed legislation, the Health Information Protection Act. I’ll echo the comments of a number of speakers previous to me in saying that when the member from Nickel Belt stands to speak on a topic such as this, we pay attention, because she is very passionate and has done her homework. Although we may not always agree with her conclusions, we certainly listen and we certainly pay attention. I thank her for the work that she has done in today’s presentation.

I just wanted to touch briefly on a number of things that the amendments will make to this legislation; specifically, that the proposed legislation will require that custodians report privacy breaches to the Information and Privacy Commissioner as well as to the regulatory college when breaches result in action. It removes the six-month limitation for the prosecution of offences and doubles the maximum fines for individuals to $100,000 and organizations to $500,000.

I think that’s extremely important as over the past few years we’ve become aware of some horrific breaches of privacy with regard to medical records.

It modernizes the definition of a privacy breach. It establishes rules and regulations for the shared records and establishes a consent management framework for patients through regulation. As well, it creates an advisory committee to make recommendations to the minister on privacy matters. So, clearly, some very positive steps are being taken in moving this forward.

I know that some of the related amendments on non-hospital-care facilities, when we’re looking at those, a number of associations have indicated their interest in working with the Ontario Hospital Association and Health Quality Ontario to train members on how to appropriately use the legislation.

Thank you for your time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member from Nickel Belt. You have a two-minute response.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you for the comments from my colleagues.

I think everybody agrees that we want to protect personal information. We want our electronic health records to work. And we want to make sure that health professionals have a safe place to talk about adverse events that went on while they were offering care, at the same time finding the right balance to share with the people affected so that they can gain closure.

The aim of the bill is good. It is in the details of the bill that sometimes good intentions derail because of a loophole or because of a part of the bill that is poorly written. In this particular piece of legislation, we have both.

I think we can all agree that if we take our time, if we take the time to listen—and for this particular bill, finding the right balance will only happen if we make sure that we take our time, that at second reading we allow everybody who wants to talk to us to come and talk to us for more than four minutes on the clock. I ran out of time to tell you everything I had to say about this bill and I had an hour to do so. We have to have meaningful consultations with our stakeholders, with the health care professionals affected and their colleges so that we can move forward.

Each and every one of them agrees with the direction, but the bill leaves big areas unclear, areas such as: Why is it that the reporting is different if it’s a paper chart rather than an electronic chart? Nobody can make sense of that in 2015. A chart is a chart; the requirements should be the same.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you very much, Speaker. Good morning to you. I’m glad to have the opportunity to have our leadoff on Bill 119. First reading was back in September. We’re now in December and we’re finally getting the chance to start debate on this legislation.

I find it quite interesting that if you look at the original date of this bill, it’s 2004. It’s 2015 and we’re doing an amendment. I’m glad the amendment has come forward, although I feel with the way technology is continuing to expand, it should be occurring more often; to increase the frequency of having these amendments in order to keep up with evolving technology and how we have an understanding of how data is stored and accessible.

If you look at how our lives have changed over the years with regard to how we’re online all the time—no matter if we want to be or not. The young pages who are here today probably never knew a time when there wasn’t a cellphone, let alone a smart phone, and the access to data and technology. When I was your age, there were no cellphones. That’s kind of weird to think about. Mr. Speaker, I’m sure—I was going to go down the line of, “There were probably no TVs when you were younger,” but I’m just joking. I’m sorry.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): He’s aging me.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: You can shut him down, you know. You have that right.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Anyway, I find it very interesting, the fact of how much of our lives are no longer our own anymore and how much is actually created into some form of data either online or in the cloud. It doesn’t take much for us to lose our privacy and our autonomy through a slip-up in the protections we have in our technology. You just look at the group Anonymous that’s out there. When they want to go to work and find out secrets of people, they’re able to get the access and to break the barriers that are out there in order to reveal information.

I’m glad for Anonymous in one aspect; they’ve decided to take ISIS to task and have begun fighting them on the technology front. We see how important that is if organizations around the world are fighting terrorism through going after their technology and data.

We realize that we need to have proper legislation in place in Ontario to protect the data that is accessible in our daily lives. Look no further than the health system and how we are evolving from a paper-based health system into a technology-based one. I think it’s great. I come from the pharmacy world, and pharmacists were probably the first health professionals to grasp hold and utilize technology and move everything into the computer world. That started 30 years ago.

I remember working in my father’s pharmacy on weekends because I was not of age to work during the week. My dad would take me up on Sundays to help do the chores in the store. I’d fill chocolate bars, sweep, clean, make price changes. During that time, our store bought a computer system and a lot of Saturdays were spent transcribing all the personal data of people onto the computer system. At that time, there was no thought whatsoever to having any encryption or protections for the data in the computer system as there are today.

So pharmacy moved into utilizing technology years ago and they’ve grasped that. Now we have other medical professionals, health care professionals, grasping hold of the technology sector. You look no further than eHealth, which has been created, and the fact that doctors are now transcribing patient information into the computer system. I’ve seen the process myself. Again, I’m going to refer back to my pharmacy. Five or six years ago, I’d say 80% of the doctors were still writing out prescriptions.

It did give me a special skillset; I was able to read anybody’s handwriting at any time and figure out what they wanted. But it wasn’t a safe way to deliver information to the pharmacist, because sometimes you had to call the doctor and go, “What the heck are you writing here?”

But now, today, I’d say the majority of doctors have moved on to a technology that prints out the prescriptions, but also keeps all of the information on their database. That is what we need to protect. Some doctors’ offices are able to talk to hospitals and transmit information back and forth. As eHealth develops, there will be all the hospitals online and all the doctors talking to each other, and then we’re going to have to include the labs and we’ll have to include the pharmacies and other allied health professionals into accessing this data, which is important and why we need to continually maintain and update our Personal Health Information Protection Act.

As I said, 2004 was quite a while ago. In the technology world, that was billions of years ago, really, when you think about how fast technology advances and grows. So it is very important that we look at how we can protect it, because we have to look no further than certain cases of people accessing data. I don’t think a lot of people do it maliciously; I think that some people—because it’s easier now; you don’t have to go into a filing system and pull out someone’s file or have a special key to unlock a cabinet.

You can be in front of a computer and you might be thinking, “My neighbour has just come into the hospital; I just want to check on them,” and you can access all of their information. There may be something in that data that they did not want people to know, or only certain people. That is what you need to ensure you safeguard. One access of somebody’s data without that person’s permission is one too many.

I hope that, as we go forward with the legislation, we continue to relook at ensuring that protections are in place. The people of Ontario deserve to know that they are protected in the health care system. Hopefully this bill, and future bills down the road, maintain a system that’s accountable, that’s transparent and that ensures the privacy of each and every Ontarian in this province and, I would include, across Canada. As we grow, I imagine the databases will eventually be linked throughout the country. We need to ensure that we’re at the forefront of ensuring protections for Ontarians.

It can happen down the road. We have a health care system which is fairly fragile. It has a ton of money going into the system but small amounts for certain areas. We have over $51 billion spent in the health care field; however, that is stretched pretty thin. We’ve seen that with cuts that are going on in the health care system in order to maintain its growth, and also at the same time to make up for lost money in other sectors of the government.

From what I’ve read in this legislation, in 2014 there were 439 cases of information breaches reported to the privacy commissioner’s office. That’s 439 too many cases; I would say that even one case is one too many. It seems unfortunate that, although we’re doing this update now, the province of Ontario is the last province to actually update the legislation to ensure that we’re taking care of our health policy.

That’s why I went back to how fragile our health care system is. We’re last in the country to make the changes necessary to protect our privacy. Probably it’s not because it wasn’t important; I think they prioritized where the money and resources have gone—and I know this government has spent themselves into a corner and they’re having difficulty making ends meet—I’m sure this got bumped. And we can’t let this continue to be bumped because technology is going to be key to delivering cost-effective, quality health care.

We need to utilize it as it expands and grows, but we also need to make sure that we have the protections in place to ensure that data is safe and secure and Ontarians can be assured that when they go to their doctor, the hospital or the pharmacy, their health care data is only accessible by those who have the permission to do so.

Hopefully at the end of the day we have an understanding in the province of the importance of having this data accessible to improve patient care, and we also have an understanding that privacy is ensured, much like we know privacy was ensured in doctors’ offices pre-computer, when they were in files and only certain people had access to it. It couldn’t necessarily be your neighbour, friend or whoever. Perhaps it’s a foe in your life wanting to find some secret information about you and bring that out to the forefront. We need to ensure that privacy is protected and, hopefully at the end of the day, convict those who do break the rules.

In 2004, when they brought out the Personal Health Information Protection Act, we wanted to protect the privacy of patients. There has not been a conviction of a privacy breach in this regard.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Michelle Saunders from FCPC, taking in question period today. Welcome.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: The mother of page Megan Faith Ally is in the visitors’ gallery, and I just wanted to recognize that she’s here.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to welcome my LA, Emily Kirby; her mother, who had a birthday yesterday, Karen Hunter; and her dad, Philip Kirby, to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Today, our page captain is Brooke Westwater. Joining us this morning in the members’ gallery are her mother Susan Westwater and her father Bruce Westwater. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I want to welcome to the Legislature Francesco Filice, who is the grandson of Frank Filice, the long-time inhabitant of this building also known as Frank the Barber.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I’d like to introduce two incredible members of my constituency office staff who are here at Queen’s Park today. First of all, Crystal Caputo has been working with me for a long time and does an amazing job, and the newest member of our staff who we welcome warmly is Vicki Plouffe. Welcome to both of you.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Just speaking to the leader here—together we’d like to welcome Judy Duncan, who is here to visit us today. Welcome.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to welcome my constituent and friend, Donna Lajeunesse, to the Legislature today.

Hon. Jeff Leal: In the east members’ gallery today, we have some directors from Beef Farmers of Ontario: Arden Schneckenburger, who is a director; Rob Lipsett, who is a director; and Richard Horne, who is the manager of policy. We certainly welcome them to Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Jim McDonell: This morning I want to welcome Arden Schneckenburger and Richard Horne. They’re here from the Beef Farmers of Ontario. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a good pleasure to welcome the student leaders from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance visiting the House today. Please join me in welcoming them.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure this morning to introduce a former colleague of mine—we worked together in London—Judy Duncan. Welcome, Judy.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I would like to welcome to the Legislature St. Matthew Catholic School from the great riding of York South–Weston. Welcome.

Mr. Michael Harris: Watching from home is my son Lincoln. He’s turning two today. I want to wish him a happy birthday.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m delighted to introduce this morning representatives of the Ontario Principals’ Council: Brian Serafini, who is the president; Ian McFarlane, the executive director; Kelly Kempel; Steve Toffelmire; Mary Linton; Mary Edwards; and I see Peggy Sweeney hiding in the corner over there somewhere, from the OPC staff. Welcome, everybody.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to welcome some of my guests here today: Mary Linton, the former principal of North Bridlewood Junior Public School—welcome to Queen’s Park—as well as Captain Rick Zelinsky, Captain Deana Zelinsky, Captain Michael Ramsay, Patricia Elkerton, Major Chris Rideout and Major Tina Rideout. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. David Zimmer: Page captain Taylor Dallin, of course, is here today, but also her mother Gloria Yoon and her friend Hyunju Kang are in the gallery. Welcome.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: On behalf of my colleague the MPP from Davenport I would like to welcome to the Legislature page Michelle Lewis; her brother, Peter Lewis; and a friend, Serena Chiu. Also, friends and former pages Misha Davies Gedalof and Gabe LiVolsi are here in our members’ gallery. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I’d like to join my colleague the MPP from Scarborough–Agincourt in welcoming members of the Salvation Army who are here in the east members’ gallery today. I had the pleasure of attending the Scarborough Citadel on Saturday for the Scarborough Philharmonic presentation. I know you do outstanding work in our community in Scarborough, so thank you.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I have two people to introduce this morning: Edward Callighen, president of the Canadian Tooling and Machining Association, and Carol Hochu, president and CEO of the Canadian Plastics Industry Association. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): With us in the Speaker’s gallery are friends of mine. I welcome Albert, Mary Beth and Trevor Duwyn. We’ll be having lunch today. Thank you for joining us today.

There being no further introductions, it’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: The Auditor General’s winter road maintenance report stated that the cost for taxpayers for new plows and sanders was $15 million a year. However, the minister keeps saying the government is paying for a service.

I’m going to be blunt: Services are intangible. Plowing the road: That’s a service. Plows and sanders are tangible; they are equipment. If the government added 158 new vehicles, as they claim, they paid for equipment, not a service.

Did the government pay for plows and sanders, and if they did, why do the taxpayers not own them?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I believe that the most important thing that we can do as a government is to keep roads safe in this province. That’s the whole point of having these services. So if the Leader of the Opposition is proposing—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ensure that I hear the questions today.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If the talking continues even when I’m standing, I’ll go into warnings.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If he’s proposing—

Mr. Steve Clark: He’s asking you a question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —that the services that are provided by the contractors are not critical, then I think he needs to look again at what’s needed on our roads.

Our government has the highest level of standards. Our record is of having either the safest or the second-safest roads in North America for the last 13 years. That is the point. We’re ensuring that the roads and highways that our families in the province rely on are well maintained and safe.

We made changes to the maintenance contracts that required contractors to improve service levels and to add equipment. That was part of the contract that was signed with the people who provide this service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: As usual, the government is scrambling to get their story straight.

The Minister of Transportation is a lawyer and would know the difference between a contract for a service and a contract to purchase equipment. So let me put it this way: I’ve never heard of anyone who hires a contractor, like a carpenter, who also has to buy a hammer for them to get the job done. It makes no sense for the government to have hired snowplowing companies to plow the roads, then to have to purchase for them the plows and the sanders to do the job.

The government took the lowest bidder when the next-highest bidder had enough equipment to do the job. Why didn’t the Liberals require the winning bidders to have enough equipment to do the job? It’s such a basic concept.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We made changes to the maintenance contracts, as I said, that required contractors to improve their service and to add equipment. That was part of the contract. The improved service levels mean that new contracts will have the same amount of equipment, if not more. That is part of the contract; those are part of the terms of the contract.

Our highway maintenance action plan is our next step in making road conditions better: improving the Ontario 511 website; launching a Track My Plow program in the Owen Sound and Simcoe areas, with further expansion, so people can know where the plowing is being done; and increasing the use of anti-icing liquids before winter storms.

Mr. Steve Clark: It all started with the new transportation minister—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville, second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say to the member opposite, again, the level of service is what is critical. The standards are what is critical. We have ensured in the contracts that the equipment levels were increased and that those equipment levels stay high.

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s on you, Premier.

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

Interjection.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you want to talk while I’m asking you to stop, then that’s what you’re going to get. Anyone else that decides to do that gets it today.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: The snow job of spin doesn’t add up. The Auditor General’s report showed—

Interjection.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: —that the cost for new equipment was nearly $15 million. On Monday, the transportation ministry said that they didn’t buy plows. Yesterday, they claimed that they added 158 new vehicles.

Your story changes by the day. Once again, we see that when the government gets caught red-handed, they can’t get their story straight. Last time, it was money taken out of the classrooms; this time, it’s money taken from road safety.

Hon. Liz Sandals: We haven’t taken any money out of the classrooms.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: It’s time for the Premier to clear up the confusion that her transportation minister has caused.

Will the Premier tell us, was the Auditor General wrong when she said that the Liberals paid for new equipment, or did the Liberals mislead the Auditor General?

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The standards that are in place are among the highest in North America, which is why our roads, for 13 years, have been the safest or the second safest in the province.

There are children in the galleries today, and I want to say to those children—because I have grandchildren. I was the Minister of Transportation. I ensured that the standards that we have in place are the highest possible. We have stuck to those standards, and I will say—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m moving to warnings.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want those children to be safe on the roads, whether they’re in cars or whether they’re in buses.

Let me tell the member opposite, one of the conversations that we had—

Mr. Randy Hillier: No one is safe from your—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the conversations that we had when I was Minister of Transportation is in fact that we are adapting to new weather conditions—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I hear the heckling from the other side: “Oh, new weather conditions.” The reality is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are seeing the effects of climate change across this country. We are working. Why? It is very important that we have the right equipment, that we have the right amount of de-icing fluid. Things are changing in the north, in the south and across the globe. If the people opposite don’t want to acknowledge that, the children in the gallery certainly do.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Health care funding

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: Since I can’t get a straight answer on the transportation file, let’s try health care.

I want to share with you the effects that the Liberal government’s cuts are having on doctors. I will share with you what was written by Dr. Priya Suppal, a family doctor for the last 22 years, in Brampton. She says that patient care will be compromised; patients will have to wait; patients will not hear a familiar voice at the other end of the phone—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. The Deputy Premier is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: They will no longer have a dedicated person at each office doing referrals, to ensure patients are seen in a timely manner.

She said, “If the Ministry of Health thinks the cuts” will not affect “patient care, they are wrong.”

Is Dr. Suppal of Brampton wrong when she says the government’s cuts are going to affect patient care?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say to the Leader of the Opposition—I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to want to weigh in on this because he is in conversation with the OMA—that we value our doctors in this province. That’s why we have increased health care funding every year, increased health care funding across the board. We know there are challenges that are faced by the health care system. We know we have an aging demographic. We know doctors are obviously a fundamental part of the delivery of health care.

We’ve engaged with doctors. The Leader of the Opposition is asking that and believes that we should be paying doctors more. They are the highest-paid physicians in the country. That is evidence of how much we value them. We will continue to work with the OMA because we do value them so highly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: What I’m saying is that you can’t take $800 million out of the health care system and think it doesn’t affect patient care.

Dr. Suppal continues: They will not be able to offer blood work to their patients. They will no longer be able to call patients to remind them of their upcoming appointments. They will no longer be able to deal with prescription renewals over the phone or fax. The staff will be rushed and appear not to care. But unlike the Premier, Dr. Suppal and her staff do care. They care about patients.

What does the Premier have to say to Dr. Suppal and her patients? Should they ignore your cuts? And don’t pass the buck to the health minister. There’s not a single doctor in this province who supports these cuts—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The deputy House leader is warned.

Carry on.

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m extremely proud of the fact that since we came into office in 2003, we’ve increased the supply of physicians in this province by 26%. More than 5,000 new doctors are practising here. When you compare that with the growth in population, the growth in population over that time has been roughly 10%. We’ve been adding doctors and continue to add doctors at the rate of 700 net new doctors each and every year. That’s important, so we continue to provide that important front-line care.

Consistent with that increase in flow of doctors providing that front-line care, every single year since we have been in office we have increased the budget for physician services, as we should, to take into account the growing population, the changing demographics. We increased the budget last year for physicians, this year, next year. I expect that will continue into the future.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: To hear this spin again and again and again—what I have not heard is an example of a single doctor. There are 26,000 doctors in Ontario. Give us one doctor outside this Legislature who actually supports your cuts. It’s bad enough what this government has done to family doctors, but they’re hurting entire regions.

Linda Silas, president of the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions said, “In North Bay, and across northern Ontario, we are seeing ... severe cuts.” North Bay Regional Health Centre was forced to cut almost 160 positions and close more than 30 beds in an attempt to stave off the flood of red ink. Sudbury and District Health Unit laid off four more employees just last month. Dr. Andrew Touw from Timmins has warned that doctors will leave the city because of the cuts.

You think this is all a joke. You are hurting and damaging health care. How do you defend it? How do you justify it?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s true that after a more than 60% increase in their compensation over the last decade, we have asked our doctors to take a modest compensation change so that we can make that difficult but important choice to invest in home and community care, to invest in mental health services in the community, to invest in increased wages for our PSWs. Those are difficult decisions to make, but I believe that they’re the right decisions for this province.

It’s in the context that there is no cap on any individual doctors’ billings. We are never going to ask them to work for free. We’re going to pay them for every single service that they provide. There is no impact on health services because we’re asking for that modest change over this difficult time so we can invest in those health care issues in the province that I know our doctors support. Many of them come to me and express their support for those investments.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. Today, Ontario’s Auditor General will be reporting on Hydro One. Sadly, because of this Liberal government’s decision, this will be the very last time it’s going to happen because when the Premier decided to sell off Hydro One, she changed the rules so that the Auditor General of Ontario can no longer report on Hydro One. Can the Premier explain why she thinks that Hydro One doesn’t deserve independent, public oversight?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows full well that there are other oversight mechanisms that are in place for a publicly owned company, which Hydro One will be once we broaden its ownership.

In terms of what the auditor is or is not going to say, I’m not going to weigh into that. She will be tabling her report around 11:30, I believe.

The job of the Auditor General is to look at government and to look at the way services are provided and to look at the way government functions and to provide a critique of that. We welcome that. We will work with the Auditor General, whatever her report says. It is a healthy aspect of democracy that we have that kind of objective assessment of how government operates.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: That healthy part of democracy is something that this Premier is stripping from the province of Ontario.

Ontario has an Auditor General whose job it is to make sure that public money is properly spent and to raise alarm bells when it’s not properly spent. Sadly, the Premier decided that public, independent oversight of Hydro One is no longer necessary. Will the Premier tell the people of Ontario why her commitment to transparency doesn’t extend to Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, as I said, the member opposite knows that a publicly traded company has different oversight mechanisms in place than a crown corporation. Hydro One will remain regulated but there will be different oversight mechanisms. What will be in place is an ombudsperson. In fact, the person who has been hired to do that is Fiona Crean. I know that Ms. Crean will report directly to the board of directors in order to ensure independence and to allow the board to provide strong support for any recommendations made.

I think that there are members of the third party who have lauded Fiona Crean in the past for work that she has done, so I’m sure that they’re supportive of that appointment. We’ve also asked Denis Desautels, former Auditor General of Canada, to oversee the establishment of the ombudsperson’s office to ensure that transparency and accountability are in place.

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

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: None of this oversight that the Premier is talking about is publicly funded by the people of Ontario, and that’s why it’s unacceptable.

It’s ironic that the auditor is reporting on Hydro One today. It’s ironic because it was six months ago that the Auditor General and seven other legislative officers responsible for oversight called on the Premier to stop this process of eliminating the public oversight of Hydro One.

Ontarians can count on the auditor to give them the facts that the Premier would rather never see the light of day, whether it’s the cost of the gas plants, the Ornge air ambulance scandal, the waste of $8 billion for sweetheart P3 deals or the truth about privatized road maintenance.

Why did the Premier eliminate public, independent oversight of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that we remain committed to Hydro One’s continued regulation, to accountability and transparency. It will be a different kind of organization; there’s no doubt about it. It will be a publicly traded company, Mr. Speaker. It will continue to be governed by Ontario laws, including the Business Corporations Act and the Securities Act. It will continue to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission. In addition, Hydro One will annually disclose its compensation of the CEO, every member of the board of directors, the chief financial officer and the three other highest-paid executives of the corporation.

We are making a change. There is no doubt about that. We are making this change because we need to invest in infrastructure in this province. The third party does not support the investment in infrastructure in the province. That’s the reality, because they don’t support funding it. If you don’t support funding it, you don’t support the investment in the building.

Automobile insurance

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My next question is again to the Premier. It’s been almost one year since Bill 15, the Fighting Fraud and Reducing Automobile Insurance Rates Act, passed in this House, but many people in Ontario will tell you that they’re certainly not paying any less for insurance.

The Liberals made a promise—a commitment—to Ontarians to reduce auto insurance rates by 15% by last August. They haven’t even reached half of that target. They’ve broken that promise, Mr. Speaker. They’ve broken that commitment. Our insurance system is broken, and the government has not prioritized fixing it. They simply can’t be trusted to fix this problem.

When will the rates come down by the 15% promised by this government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite knows—and I know that the Minister of Finance will want to weigh in on this—the member of the third party knows that, on average, insurance rates have come down over 6%. We are still working with the industry to make sure that we do everything we can to continue those reductions. But those reductions are on average. They are across the driving population. So, in fact, there are people who have seen their insurance rates go down. I have had people in my own constituency office who have come in and told us that their insurance rates have gone down.

But one of the things we know is that when there’s an average, not everyone will see exactly the same impact.

We’re going to continue to work to remove fraud from the system, to make sure that people continue to get the protections that they need, but it does take time. It is on average across the whole driving population, and we’re working with industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The Premier knows that a promise was made to reduce insurance rates by 15%. The Premier knows that this promise was broken. The Premier knows that this promise was not even achieved by half. The Premier knows that they cannot do the job of fixing this problem.

In addition to this problem of not reaching the 15% reduction, the government has thrown the insurance industry into chaos. When the problems with Bill 15 were raised—that without clarifying when a certain clause would apply, they plunged the system into chaos. There are hundreds of thousands of dollars in court challenges of a simple clause: whether or not Bill 15 applies retroactively or whether it applies from January 1 moving forward. This government purposely excluded this clarifying point, plunging the system into chaos.

They’ve withdrawn our services, withdrawn coverage, cut benefits, and have now plunged the system into chaos. When will the Premier follow through on the promise to reduce insurance by 15%?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Just this spring, and despite strong objections as are coming right now from the opposition, we have passed new rate-reducing legislation that will benefit drivers soon—notwithstanding the fact that they have initiated delays in enabling us to actually get those rates reduced.

In the meantime, reductions have occurred. They are continuing because of some of the very programs that we’ve put in place, including trying to expedite matters more quickly for the benefit of those who are victims, those who are requiring the benefit. That’s exactly where we want the money to go and that’s exactly what we’re doing. The member opposite voted against those measures, Mr. Speaker, and now he has the audacity—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To make it clear: My resolve has not changed from this morning.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This government has plunged the insurance situation into chaos by not clarifying when the regulatory changes will take effect. They’ve created increased courtroom expenses.

From 2010 to 2014, insurance premiums rose dramatically, accident benefits were slashed and the benefits were clawed back even further as a result of Bill 15.

Independent studies show that the Liberal changes to the insurance regime in Ontario have resulted in drivers overpaying by $1.5 billion. The same report also shows that insurance profitability has reached nearly double the levels deemed reasonable.

It’s clear that by slashing benefits, by cutting coverage, the insurance industry is benefiting tremendously because of this Liberal government, but Ontario drivers are not seeing any of those savings. Is the Premier giving up on her promise to reduce insurance premiums by 15% and instead continuing to benefit insurance companies and not the drivers of this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Rates are going down. They would have gone down a lot faster and a lot more dramatically had the members opposite supported the initiative from the beginning.

Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we have a competitive system. There are a number of companies already providing reduced rates. As a result of winter tires and so forth that we’ve provided, there are a number of them that are already providing 50% reductions. We encourage those who are watching and elsewhere to make those calls and do a competitive analysis, because there are opportunities available.

But, once again, we have conditions. We have to lower the cost. The member opposite and his party have obstructed the very initiatives to reduce costs in the system to enable premiums to go down. We’ll fight for the drivers and we’ll fight for the people of Ontario to have reductions in those costs by initiating the very measures that we put in place, notwithstanding that they’re voting against those very measures.

Housing Services Corp.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister says he hasn’t heard any complaints about the Housing Services Corp., but he received Mayor Tory’s letter this year that said that it cost Toronto Community Housing $6.3 million more for natural gas.

The minister says I won’t acknowledge their independent review, but I’ve talked about that review and pointed out that it didn’t solve the problem, and it didn’t look at how much HSC is costing housing providers. He says the problem is history, but housing providers are still paying too much for natural gas insurance this year, and the Housing Services Corp. is spending money on trips to Europe this year.

Could the minister tell us why he is still forcing social housing providers to waste money that could otherwise provide housing for people in need?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’ll try again, Mr. Speaker. This was a bill that was originally fronted by the party opposite. They put—

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It’s this year.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Did I detect a challenge to the Chair?

Carry on.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We changed it to make the bill and the operation of the HSC more accountable. We discovered as part of a review that we put in place that there were some problems. We conducted an independent review. That review came back and made a series of recommendations, all of which are being implemented.

We, on balance, are satisfied that we’re making very good progress on the HSC front. By the way, I should remind the assembly through you, Mr. Speaker, that it’s an independent corporation that makes independent decisions; notwithstanding that, they did work with us around an independent review, and we’re satisfied with the results.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Prince Edward–Hastings.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is clearly a problem right across the province. If the member wants to stand up and blow his own horn, he should join a brass band, because clearly the program isn’t working for communities across Ontario.

This year in Hastings county, they would have saved $40,000 if they didn’t have to buy natural gas through the Housing Services Corp. A couple of years ago, the Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus reported that they would have saved 31% if they didn’t have to purchase through the Housing Services Corp.

You can do what this government always does, and we just heard what this government always does: They set up a framework to establish a review and have three press conferences. What they really should be doing is delivering some action for communities across Ontario.

Minister, when are you going to let these communities opt out? Counties like Hastings can and want to deliver better, lower-cost social housing for Ontario’s most vulnerable.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, Speaker, I already belong to a brass band so I don’t need to join one.

But I do want to say that the foundational argument of pooling so that, ideally, everyone benefits together, not at the expense of one benefiting at the expense of all, is a sound principle; it’s one I applauded the government opposite for.

You can take a snapshot—and these are snapshots that are being taken by members opposite—at any point in time to show what you want. But if you look at it over the whole scope of the activities and you speak to the service managers directly, as I have done on several occasions, you discover something that you may be surprised to hear: They’re relatively satisfied with the job HSC are doing.

Violence against women

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, respected violence-against-women experts and front-line agencies came to Queen’s Park. They warned that arbitrarily reducing the Partner Assault Response Program from 16 weeks to 12 weeks is unethical and puts the safety of women and children at risk. In response, the Attorney General said 12 weeks is better than zero weeks.

Violence-against-women advocates and women who want the abuse to stop deserve an apology for these shameful and insulting comments. Will the Premier ask the Attorney General to apologize? Will her government finally listen to experts and leaders across the sector, who are unanimous in calling for an immediate halt to the changes to PAR?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to make it clear that everyone on this side of the House is very, very concerned about the services that are provided. We’re concerned about the issues that lead to the need for these services. Obviously, we want to have in place services that will help people to stop these behaviours. We want effective services and programs that will allow women to live free of violence and allow perpetrators to change their behaviours. Those are complicated but very, very important programs.

The fact of the PAR Program—we know that it has had success, and we are looking at the evidence. We are looking at what we need to do to make sure that we continue to deliver those services in the best way possible, so that these behaviours will stop.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Speaker, reducing the only government program for men who abuse—without any evidence to support the change—is a failure of leadership for women and children.

Yesterday’s comments by the Attorney General completely undermine the government’s credibility on ending violence against women.

If the only justification for reducing the length of the PAR Program was to create additional spaces, can the Premier explain why 2,000 of the 2,200 new spaces remain unfilled? Why is she using flawed data to push through these changes and ignoring the advice of experts, and her own Roundtable on Violence Against Women, who are calling for meaningful consultation on a review of PAR?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, the member opposite knows that there was not a cut to the funding of the PAR Program. There was a change—

Interjection.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I’m quite happy to acknowledge that there may be a problem. I’m quite happy to acknowledge that there may need to be a change. But I am not going to engage in a discussion when the facts are not on the table. There has not been a cut. There was a reorganization of the program.

There is a review going on. If we need to make a change to that, if we need to change the decision, to make sure that the right processes and the right services are in place, then we will do that.

Mr. Speaker, remember, this is the government that has brought in the toughest policy on sexual assault and violence in the history of the province. We’re going to continue on that record.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Climate change / Changement climatique

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Ma question est pour la première ministre dans sa capacité de ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales. Mr. Speaker, the world has turned its attention currently to Paris, France, as the United Nations climate change conference unfolds. Leaders from all over the world have come together to work towards a common solution to one of the biggest—if not the biggest—challenges facing the global community to date. Because of the leadership at the federal and provincial levels, there is a real opportunity to take action in the fight against climate change.

Au Canada, le premier ministre Trudeau a signalé clairement aux chefs des nations que nous allons reprendre notre statut international de leader.

And here in Ontario, because of the work we’ve done to reduce our emissions, we are already seen as global leaders in the fight against climate change.

My question, Mr. Speaker: Can the Premier, who is leading the Ontario delegation, please inform this House on what is happening at COP21 in Paris?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Le changement climatique n’est pas un problème pour l’avenir; c’est un problème aujourd’hui. We have a responsibility in this province, in this country—all of us, as leaders of jurisdictions, have a responsibility to take on this great challenge.

I’m very proud of the steps that Ontario has taken so far, Mr. Speaker, like shutting down the coal-fired plants, the largest single action in North America to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

It was a privilege for me to be in Paris to work with Premiers from across the country and with the Prime Minister to talk about and to offer what we have done to the global community. That’s what COP21 is about. It’s about different jurisdictions coming together to share their experiences, to learn from each other and to encourage one another to take further action.

I’m very, very pleased to say that having a federal government that is now working with us on this challenge is a great, great boon to the project.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me Marie-France Lalonde: Merci à la première ministre pour cette réponse.

Ontario and Canada are certainly well represented on the world stage. An important component in the fight against climate change is making sure that there is co-operation among the global community. We know that this co-operation also needs to happen at the subnational level.

In Canada, provincial governments and municipalities have demonstrated strong leadership and an ability to make positive change when it comes to combatting climate change. That expertise at the local level needs to be shared with other jurisdictions and we have a great opportunity to learn from others as well. Because there is a shared global problem, there needs to be co-operation and collaboration among provinces, states, cities, towns etc.

Can the Premier please inform the House on how subnational governments are taking

part in the UN summit?

L’hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Comme j’ai dit, tous les États, toutes les provinces, tous les territoires et tous les pays doivent travailler pour améliorer le changement climatique.

It is not up to one level of government. What we need is all of the federal governments and all of the subnational governments, and by that I mean states, provinces, cities and communities. We all have a responsibility and there is always something that we can do.

I had the opportunity to listen to some of the leaders of very small island nations. They are already experiencing—as are jurisdictions in the far north in Canada—the impacts of climate change. They’re having to move people away from the coastlines of their countries in order for people to be safe from flooding.

Having the federal government working with the subnational governments, that’s the way that we can have an impact on global climate change.

Nuclear energy

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, last week, you released your much-ballyhooed save the earth climate change strategy. It’s 37 pages—long on self-praise and short on details, but barely a mention of the word “nuclear.”

Premier, nuclear provides 60% of our province’s power. It is clean, emission-free, reliable and affordable. But our nuclear units are aging and many of them are in need of refurbishment. We’re hearing nothing from your government on this issue.

Our ability to provide emission-free power depends on our nuclear fleet operating efficiently. Premier, when can we hear from the government about showing some support for the nuclear industry like you show for some of your other chosen forms of generation? When can we hear some support and a plan for ensuring that Ontario will have emission-free nuclear power for decades to come?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think this is a friendly question, because if you look at our long-term energy plan, the member opposite will see that nuclear forms the baseload well into the future. We have no intention of moving away from a baseload of nuclear. We know full well that that means the refurbishment of our nuclear stock.

I’m not sure exactly where the member opposite is going. Maybe he just wanted to be able to ask a question that had some notion of climate change in it, so he thought he’d throw in that word. We’re keeping nuclear; it’s the baseload of this province.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve asked for attention here.

Supplementary, please.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Premier loves to throw potshots at people who don’t necessarily agree with everything she says, but the reality is this: She can talk all she wants, but until they actually do something to ensure that our nuclear fleet will be operating well into the next several decades, then we have a problem. If that

schedule is not an efficient one, we will see—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry. The Minister of Economic Development is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We will see greenhouse gas emissions rise in this province dramatically. If our nuclear fleet has units taken down simultaneously, we will not be able to provide that emission-free power that Ontario depends so much upon. So it’s not just weasel words for nuclear. Stand up and put out a

schedule as to when refurbishment will take place, because that is necessary in this province.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Names, Premier. Tell us some names, Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, I would like to try to talk to the member, and that is to caution him on some of the language he was using. Now that he’s done what he has done, I just want to remind him that there are some Ws that are on my list of people who are already warned. I’ve twice heard now a word that is unparliamentary, and I won’t hear it again. If I do, they will be named. If you don’t trust my resolve, I’m telling you.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are moving ahead with refurbishment. That’s the answer to the member opposite’s question. In fact, the planned refurbishments will create almost 25,000 jobs and generate $5 billion annually in economic activity. We’re moving ahead with significant steps right now to ensure that the refurbishment of Darlington and Bruce are done right. That refurbishment is in the planning stages. The member opposite just has to look at our long-term energy plan to know that we’re serious. We’re in the process of putting that refurbishment in place.

I applaud the member opposite for supporting our support and our plan to refurbish and to keep nuclear as our baseload. The Minister of Research and Innovation was talking with the nuclear association this morning.

I would encourage the member opposite to take yes for an answer.

Social Assistance Management System

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. Premier, as you know, the Auditor General is releasing her report on SAMS today. New Democrats obtained, through FOI, the ministry’s internal audit of SAMS. From that audit, I’ll quote: “We were unable to obtain evidence that the SAMS project has addressed the 2009 Auditor General’s findings regarding deficiencies.” Another quote: “The 2009 AG findings may lead to the same findings being reported for SAMS in future AG reports.”

Speaker, my question is simple: Will the AG report find that the minister has failed to deal with any of the AG’s findings from 2009?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said earlier, the Auditor General has not yet tabled her report. We look forward to that.

I know that the Minister of Community and Social Services will want to weigh in on what has already happened with SAMS, but let me repeat what I said earlier, and that is that it is the Auditor General’s job to look at government, to look at the services, to look at the way services are delivered, and to have an opinion about the way money is spent. That is a very good thing. It’s very good in a democracy to have those objective eyes on what we do. But her job is to find problems that need to be resolved.

We look forward to working with the Auditor General, as we have in the past, to deal with the issues that she identifies and to work with her to make sure that we are providing services in the best way possible for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: According to the ministry’s own audit, the government has not dealt with the AG’s report from five years ago. The audit also laid out—

Interjection.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s their report that we FOIed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): To the Chair, please.

Miss Monique Taylor: The audit also laid out serious concerns about SAMS, meaning that the minister was well aware of the issues before its disastrous implementation. The audit references expected delays to the project timelines—sound familiar? We know that countless vulnerable Ontarians experienced these delays. Some faced evictions and others just straight-out cheque delays. We know that front-line workers were forced to shoulder the brunt of the technical problems of SAMS, and they’re currently still facing those problems.

Speaker, again, will today’s AG report show that the government continues to ignore concerns raised by the AG’s report five years ago?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are going to wait for the Auditor General’s report. The member opposite asks what the AG’s report will show us; we’re going to wait until she tables it. In fact, the member knows that the auditor has publicly published which areas she’d be reviewing as part of her report. She hasn’t tabled her report; she’ll be doing that after question period. Actually, she’s asked—she actually asked—that the briefing that is going on right now, that the issues not be released publicly, that they not be disclosed before she has a chance to table her report. So we’re going to give her that opportunity.

The fact is, it is her job to look at government, to critique, to bring objectivity and to look at what government has done. It is our job as government to respond, to work with the Auditor General, as we have in the past, and we will continue to do that.

International trade

Mr. Chris Ballard: My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and International Trade. Ontario’s trade strategy helps companies export to global markets, which creates jobs here in Ontario. To reach this goal, it’s important we reach out to the growing and emerging global markets.

Ontario has reaped great benefits from the government’s trade missions, which helped forge and strengthen trade relationships around the world. In fact, last fall the Premier’s mission to China secured almost $1 billion in investments and over 1,000 jobs for Ontarians.

I know the Premier and minister recently returned from another trade mission to China, along with the Minister of Economic Development. Can the minister tell us more about the results of this most recent trade mission?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for Newmarket–Aurora for asking his question.

Speaker, early in November of this year, Premier Wynne led a trade mission to China. We all know that China plays a critical role in the global economy and continues to outpace other emerging markets. Ontario has strong innovation capabilities in key sectors that are complementary to China. This is why the recent Premier’s trade mission to China has been such a huge, huge success. Over the course of the mission, Ontario delegates signed more than 100 agreements with an estimated value of $2.5 billion, deals that may create as many as 1,700 jobs.

It was a very successful mission, and I look forward to doing more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Chris Ballard: I agree with the minister: It’s critical to the growth of our economy to identify potential markets and promote Ontario abroad.

Attracting new investment and helping the province’s businesses compete globally is part of this government’s plan to boost Ontario’s economy. It’s also part of our efforts to invest in people’s talents and skills and to create a dynamic, innovative environment where business thrives.

I’m proud of our Ontario businesses, and the high-quality products that they produce. That’s why last year’s trade mission to China was such a success. It allowed Ontario’s businesses to connect directly with important international markets.

Speaker, could the minister please expand on how this government is connecting Ontarians with global markets?

Hon. Michael Chan: The member is right: Trade missions are the best way for us to connect Ontario businesses with international markets. That’s why we work to promote Ontario in many different countries.

Speaker, I also just returned from a trade mission to Germany. There, I participated in many, many key events that will lay the groundwork for successful future missions. I attended the Medica trade show; I was able to visit our sister province, Baden-Württemberg; and I met with Festo Automation as well as Bayer HealthCare, where an Ontario start-up from Kitchener-Waterloo won the Grants4Apps competition.

It is important to promote and sell Ontario around the world, and this government is working hard to do so.

Long-term care

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Your government has spent 12 years studying, reviewing and planning the redevelopment of long-term-care homes. You also promised to develop 30,000 beds, so as to ensure safe living environments for our frail seniors. Yet today, after years of shameful neglect and scarce funding, your government has left our long-term-care homes crumbling and 25,000 frail seniors without a long-term-care bed.

The associate minister keeps saying that despite all these facts, there really is a plan. So through you, Speaker, I ask the minister: How many organizations will be approved in the first round of the capital renewal program, when will construction begin and how many of the promised 30,000 beds will be built in round 1?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I thank the member opposite for this question because it certainly gives me an opportunity to talk about all of the good work that we are doing in redevelopment. As I have mentioned many times, Mr. Speaker, there are so many examples that I can share with this House about the redevelopments that are taking place as we speak. In fact, the last time I answered this question, I spoke about the brand new facility in Oshawa. I was there for the inauguration and what a wonderful event that was.

But we are not resting on our laurels. We are moving ahead. Let me speak about a brand new redevelopment that is taking place as we speak, in Thunder Bay. It’s a state-of-the-art facility with over 500 beds, including about 38 new beds and the redevelopment of over 450 beds. That’s just one example of the redevelopment that is going on in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: Back to the Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Enough with the platitudes. It sounds like your only plan for your government is to wheel the frail seniors out to the end of the curb and say, “We’re done with you.” Experts tell us the long-term-care system is creeping up to the brink of crisis, as the wait-list will double to at least 50,000 seniors in just six years. So not only is this government failing seniors today, but it’s also ill-prepared to meet this looming demographic crisis going forward.

Again, where’s the plan? Will the minister please tell the House, here and now, how many new long-term-care beds are going to be built in the next five years, and where in Ontario they will be built?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I think the proof is in the pudding, so let me talk about close to 500 new beds that we brought online in just the last three or four months. I was in Waterloo recently, along with the members from Kitchener–Waterloo, Kitchener–Conestoga and Wellington–Halton Hills, who were there to witness the opening of a brand new facility—brand new beds, right in Waterloo. Before that, I was in Windsor in the fall for the opening of another facility with close to 200 brand new beds. These are just examples of the fact that new beds are coming online as we speak, and will continue to come online as required.

Forest industry

Mr. Michael Mantha: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the Premier. Premier, as you know, the community of Hornepayne in Algoma–Manitoulin is about to be thrown into crisis. Some 146 workers at Haavaldsrud and Becker Cogen, approximately 40% of the town’s population, have received layoff notices just weeks before the holiday season—not to mention spin-off jobs with trucking companies, suppliers, and lumber and logging companies, that will also be devastated.

We’ve talked and talked and talked about the flight of badly needed jobs and industry in the north. What will this minister do to help the people of Hornepayne?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Natural Resources and Forestry.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the question. Obviously, anytime there is a layoff in any industry, on this side of the House we take it very seriously—anytime, within my ministry responsible for forestry, we take it very seriously. One of the reasons we do that, Speaker, is we also understand very clearly that most of the forestry operations in Ontario are in northern Ontario, and oftentimes those operations that are in northern Ontario are in very small communities. As a result of those operations being in very small communities, the layoffs tend to have a disproportionate effect on the communities in which they exist.

I would tell my colleague across the floor that we continue to work on the issue. There are partner ministries involved currently that are looking at potential solutions. I’m not here today to promise him in any way that we can find a solution, only that, like with all industries—forestry, in this ministry—we continue to work on it and hopefully we can find a resolution on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again to the Premier: Given the Liberal government’s commitment to green energy and the attention paid to climate change, one would think that projects such as this one would be given priority at the highest level.

The provincial government invested over $30 million just two years ago to open Becker Cogen and keep the Hornepayne mill up and running. Hornepayne depends on these jobs. These jobs depend on a viable long-term energy agreement.

Speaker, layoff notices have been issued. There’s no more time for talk. Hornepayne needs action. What will the Premier tell the people of Hornepayne leading into this holiday season?

Hon. Bill Mauro: I want to thank the member for the follow-up.

When I answered this question yesterday, I made general reference to the level of support that our government has provided to the forestry industry, something in the order of magnitude of $1.3 billion since the industry first had its challenges beginning in 2006-07. I also made reference to the significant level of assistance that we have provided to this company individually as well.

One example of a program of support that we’ve provided to forestry generally in the province of Ontario is the roads program. Since we’ve been in government, we have provided, from that one program, over $600 million of assistance to forestry-based companies in the province of Ontario. Speaker, that’s noteworthy, because that program used to be, historically, a government-run program, but that program was downloaded onto the backs of forestry industry partners by the NDP when they were in government in the early 1990s.

We’ve uploaded that program. We’ve taken responsibility for it back—over $600 million in assistance just on that one particular program. The forestry companies in the province—

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

New question.

Organ and tissue donation

Mr. Granville Anderson: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, this fall, the people of Ontario reached a very noteworthy record: More Ontarians than ever before registered their consent to become organ and tissue owners. That’s more than 89,000 Ontarians over three months who have made a selfless commitment to save lives—truly a great achievement.

I have registered to become an organ donor and I always encourage family and friends to do the same. I know that the residents of Durham understand the importance of organ and tissue donation and that it’s an easy way to potentially make a difference in someone else’s life. I am glad to hear that so many Ontarians are making this important decision to register as organ and tissue donors.

Speaker, through you to the minister, what can you tell us about how our province has reached this very important milestone?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you to the member from Durham, not just for the important question but also for registering to be a donor.

Mr. Speaker, it was just seven years ago that Ontario opened the Trillium Gift of Life Network, which is, as we all know. a not-for-profit agency managing Ontario’s organ and tissue donation and transplant system. Since its inception, Ontario’s organ and tissue donation registration rates have grown significantly.

In fact, nearly 1,000 people register to be a donor each and every day in this province and each person who registers could save up to eight different lives. You can register as an organ donor in person, by mail, through ServiceOntario when you go in to renew your health card or your driver’s licence, or you can do it in I would say under two minutes at beadonor.ca.

Today, over three million Ontarians have registered as donors. I want to take this moment to thank each and every one of them their incredibly noble decision to potentially save up to eight lives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Granville Anderson: Thank you, Minister. The Trillium Gift of Life Network is an extremely effective and valuable organization, creating an easy and convenient process for Ontarians to register as organ donors. I’ve heard that Trillium Gift of Life currently has a goal to reach over 233,000 new registrations by March 30, 2016. As of September 30, they had reached 71% of their goal.

I know that we are all here at Queen’s Park because we hope to make a positive difference in the lives of Ontarians. It is in that spirit that I urge all members, on both sides of this House, to take a moment out of their day to visit and make the important decision to make a lasting and positive difference.

Speaker, through you to the minister: With so many Ontarians registering to become organ and tissue donors, what does the current need in Ontario look like?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you again to the member from Durham. Every single day, over 1,600 people in this province are awaiting organ or tissue donation. By increasing the number of registered donors, we can reduce the number of lives lost and ease that pain for another family.

The good news is that between July and September of this year, 255 separate organ or tissue transplants took place in this province. That’s a lot of lives saved and a lot of lives changed, thanks to the selfless decisions of Ontarians and their families.

I’ll join the member from Durham in encouraging all members of this House, if you haven’t already done so—and all Ontarians—to take a couple of minutes to go to the website, beadonor.ca, and register as a vital-organ or tissue donor.

First responders

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Premier. Our first responders know that seconds matter. To our first responders suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, seconds can feel a lot longer. That’s why they’re frustrated by the government’s stubborn unwillingness to support a good idea when they see it.

The Minister of Labour said, “I’m convinced that we must do a combination of what’s envisioned in Bill 2, with some improvements to it.” So why won’t the minister and the government House leader simply bring Bill 2 to committee, where we can amend it and help our heroes with PTSD as soon as possible?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for this question on this very, very important issue. We all know that PTSD is an issue that disproportionately affects front-line workers in this province and throughout this country. We owe it to them to ensure that they have the protections in place as well as the coverage in place.

The member referenced Bill 2, which was brought to this House by the member from Parkdale–High Park. That, Speaker, is a good bill. That’s part of the solution. What we need to do is to ensure that we have protections in place that not only treat those people who have contracted PTSD but also ensure we have a system in place to make sure that we prevent people from getting PTSD in the first place.

What I want to bring back to this House is a bill that makes Ontario a leader. We’re very close to that. A lot of people have worked very hard on this, including the first responders themselves. I think what we’re going to do is end up leading the country in this, and I’m proud of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Back to the Premier: We already have a bill on the table, as has been mentioned, with full opposition support. If you have improvements to the bill, let’s do it at committee. Let police officers, firefighters, EMS personnel and corrections officers explain to Ontarians how post-traumatic stress disorder impacts their lives.

Instead, you want to introduce your own bill and hold consultations away from the public. Speaker, they’re delaying presumptive legislation, and first responders of all stripes are tired of waiting. There’s no need to go back to square one.

Why don’t our first responders deserve the chance to share their stories directly with the people they have sworn to protect? You owe it to them. Let’s do it now.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again to the member for that question. I certainly share the end sentiment that he expressed: that we owe it to the first respond