Ontario Hansard — 10 December 2014 (41st Parliament, 1st Session)

2014-12-10

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

December 10, 2014

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Dec-10 (PDF)

L041A - Wed 10 Dec 2014 / Mer 10 déc 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 10 December 2014 Mercredi 10 décembre 2014

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Introduction of Visitors

Answers to written questions

Oral Questions

Government’s record

Energy policies

Child care

Government accountability

Pork industry

Smart meters

Infrastructure program funding

Senior Achievement Awards

Government accountability

Minister’s comments

Healthy schools

Members’ photos

Deferred Votes

Safeguarding Health Care Integrity Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 de sauvegarde de l’intégrité des soins de santé

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Disaster relief

Canadian Mental Health Association Windsor-Essex County Branch

Toronto Fair Trade Show

Government’s record

Trucking safety

Christkindl Market

Winchester District Memorial Hospital

GO Transit

Cultural diversity

Visitor

Marion Bryden

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Introduction of Bills

Gasoline Tax Fairness for All Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’équité pour tous à l’égard de la taxe sur l’essence

Tarion Accountability and Oversight Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la responsabilisation et la surveillance de Tarion

Terry Fox Day Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur le Jour de Terry Fox

Fairness in Labour Relations Act (Bargaining Units and Certification of Trade Unions), 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur l’équité dans les relations de travail (unités de négociation et accréditation des syndicats)

Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act (HST Rebate for Home Heating), 2014 / Loi de 2014 modifiant la

Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail (remboursement de la TVH pour le chauffage domestique)

Motions

House sittings

Petitions

Hospital services

First responders

Coal-fired generating stations

Health care funding

Alzheimer’s disease

Hydro rates

Lyme disease

Hydro rates

Credit unions

Ontario College of Trades

Long-term care

Hispanic Heritage Month

Order of business

Loretto Ladies’ Colleges and Schools Act, 2014

1474486 Ontario Limited Act, 2014

Bensfort Wood Inc. Act, 2014

Bruno’s Alignment Limited Act, 2014

Bible Baptist Temple (St. Thomas) Act (Tax Relief), 2014

Art Gallery of Guelph Act, 2014

Saint Paul University Act, 2014

1807041 Ontario Inc. Act, 2014

752458 Ontario Ltd. Act, 2014

469118 Ontario Limited Act, 2014

658055 Ontario Inc. Act, 2014

Walker Towne Centre Inc. Act, 2014

Orders of the Day

Better Business Climate Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 visant à instaurer un climat plus propice aux affaires

Security for Courts, Electricity Generating Facilities and Nuclear Facilities Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la sécurité des tribunaux, des centrales électriques et des installations nucléaires

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur la protection du droit à la participation aux affaires publiques

Madame Meilleur moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 52,

An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act in order to protect expression on matters of public interest / Projet de loi 52, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires, la

Loi sur la diffamation et la

Loi sur l’exercice des compétences légales afin de protéger l’expression sur les affaires d’intérêt public.

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

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Scarborough Southwest.

Today, I would like to begin second reading debate on the proposed Protection of Public Participation Act.

L’Ontario est doté d’un bon système judiciaire, mais il n’est pas parfait. Les litiges sont coûteux et longs. Notre gouvernement sait bien que cette réalité de notre système de justice doit changer. C’est la raison pour laquelle nous travaillons avec nos partenaires du secteur de la justice pour mettre en place diverses approches.

Last month, I launched Better Justice Together, a strategy aimed at building a more accessible justice system. While many of our plans will be adopted incrementally, there are many things we can do now to bring about real, positive change.

Raising the legal aid eligibility threshold on November 1 was one such thing. It has expanded access to legal aid for many low-income people. Implementing this bill could be our next step forward.

As I mentioned a moment ago, going to court can be expensive and time-consuming for everyone, but this is of particular concern when one party has much greater resources than the other. In a strategic suit, that party chooses to exploit the imbalance by taking a weaker opponent to court with a frivolous claim. Sometimes, these cases have little or no merit. Most are dropped before the lawsuit goes to trial, sometimes just weeks later. Meanwhile, the damage is done. Financially and emotionally drained, the target of a strategic suit is effectively silenced.

Comme mon prédécesseur, l’honorable John Gerretsen, l’a dit simplement, nous ne pensons pas que ce soit juste. C’est pourquoi je suis fière de redonner vie à ce projet de loi, qui équipera nos tribunaux d’une méthode plus efficace pour reconnaître les poursuites stratégiques et les régler.

Le projet de loi vise à protéger la liberté d’expression. Il vise à faire triompher la justice. Il vise à faire des progrès en tant que province et en tant que société. Et il vise à atteindre un équilibre important, à l’avantage de toutes les parties à un litige.

Ces deux dernières années, les députés ont beaucoup entendu parler de ce projet de loi : ici, à l’Assemblée législative, dans les couloirs de cet édifice; dans la presse; dans les lettres exprimant des inquiétudes; et dans les lettres de soutien.

L’équilibre est un thème qui revient sans arrêt : le besoin d’établir un équilibre qui mettra fin aux poursuites abusives tout en autorisant des actions légitimes. Je peux vous assurer que nous avons entendu tout ce qu’on nous a dit. L’équilibre est une caractéristique clé de ce projet de loi.

D’un côté, il aide ceux qui estiment avoir été injustement ciblés en prévoyant un traitement accéléré de leur plainte. Il est certain que la question de l’accès à la justice est une question sur laquelle mon ministère et ses partenaires travaillent d’arrache-pied.

Meanwhile, this proposal could go a long way towards easing the financial and emotional strain of defending oneself against a strategic lawsuit. It would do so by giving our courts a way to quickly identify and deal with such a suit, with minimal time or expense to any party.

Catching strategic lawsuits early also has benefits for the courts, by minimizing the amount of valuable public resources wasted on those matters. This, of course, benefits all court users.

Since the bill will give the court a speedy way to identify a case as strategic, the plaintiff who has been accused of launching a strategic suit would not be greatly delayed by the motion. Those with legitimate claims would be heard through the normal course.

We recognize that reputation is one of the most valuable assets a person or a business can possess.

Now, some members may have read about objections to this bill from the forestry industry and some northern municipalities. With respect, their concerns are not well-founded. The bill does not open the floodgates to destructive criticism of our natural resources industries. It does not create a so-called “licence to slander.” Instead, the bill aims to protect expression of matters of public interest. What the bill would do is let a court review lawsuits brought against such expression at an early stage. It would then be up to the court to decide whether the expression at issue is likely to cause serous harm.

If so, the court may allow the lawsuit to continue in the normal course of litigation.

I strongly believe that the law must defend reputation, but not at any cost and not in every case. I do not believe that a mere technical case—without actual harm—should be allowed to suppress the kind of democratic expression that is crucial for our democracy.

That’s why 65 municipalities have resolved that this bill should pass. That’s why the Ontario Bar Association, which represents interests on all sides of litigation, has said it welcomes the bill. That is why the Canadian Civil Liberties Association wants the bill passed.

Mr. Speaker, this is about identifying strategic lawsuits and putting the parties to a dispute on a more equal footing. If legitimate harm has been done, I would encourage anyone who has been defamed to use the existing legal means before them to seek redress.

Atteindre l’équilibre prudent entre les intérêts en jeu que je viens de décrire n’a pas été chose facile, et c’est la raison pour laquelle l’élaboration du projet de loi a pris tant de temps. Il y a quatre ans, face aux inquiétudes croissantes à l’égard des poursuites stratégiques en Ontario, notre gouvernement a pris la décision d’examiner la question et de convoquer un comité d’experts. Nous voulions savoir ce qui pourrait être fait, le cas échéant, pour régler ce problème qui n’avait jusque-là touché principalement que les États-Unis.

Four years ago, amid growing concerns about strategic lawsuits here in Ontario, our government made a decision to study the issue and convened an expert panel. The panel was itself balanced between plaintiff and media lawyers, including some of the foremost thinkers on issues surrounding the balance of protection of public participation with the protection of reputation and economic interests. The panel was chaired by Dr. Mayo Moran, dean of the University of Toronto law school, a respected academic and expert in constitutional law and the private law of civil wrongs.

The other two members were Peter Downard, partner at Fasken Martineau, who has written many legal texts on libel and defamation, and Brian MacLeod Rogers, adjunct professor at Ryerson University School of Journalism. As practising barristers, these individuals brought great expertise on the rules of civil procedure and courtroom dynamics.

All these outstanding individuals were present at the launch of Bill 83 last year. It was a proud moment for the panel members, whom our government had tasked with a great challenge. Specifically, we asked them to determine: a test the court could use to quickly recognize a strategic lawsuit; an appropriate remedy for strategic suits; an appropriate limit to the protection of any proposed legislation; appropriate parties to benefit from those protections, and finally, what methods could be used to prevent abuse of any further legislation aimed at strategic lawsuits.

Après des mois de recherche et de consultation auprès de divers particuliers et groupes tels que l’Association canadienne des libertés civiles, l’Association canadienne du droit de l’environnement, l’Association du Barreau de l’Ontario, l’Association des infirmières et infirmiers autorisés de l’Ontario et bien d’autres organismes, le comité a produit un rapport détaillé et a posé la base d’une démarche future.

Monsieur le Président, avec quelques ajustements, le projet de loi que nous avons devant nous aujourd’hui est le fruit direct du travail du comité, s’inspirant notamment des leçons tirées ailleurs—aux États-Unis, au Québec et en Colombie-Britannique. Le projet de loi propose une solution unique au problème des poursuites stratégiques qui se fonde sur les lois et libertés existantes en Ontario et les renforce.

The proposed legislation contains many important provisions that support our goal of building a fairer society and a stronger, more accessible justice system. Thanks to the efforts of the panel members and the many groups and individuals who have contributed to its development, this bill reflects the variety of perspectives necessary to achieve a truly balanced approach to addressing the issue of strategic litigation.

Que vous vous sentiez réduit au silence par une personne aux poches plus larges que les vôtres ou que vous croyiez que votre réputation durement acquise a été injustement ternie, ce projet de loi a été élaboré dans l’idée de protéger vos intérêts.

Today, I urge all members to stand together in support of our proposed bill, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Scarborough Southwest.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Good morning. I rise in the House today to continue debate on the proposed Protection of Public Participation Act. I am pleased to once again be part of this landmark bill, which seeks to balance the protection of public participation and freedom of expression and the protection of reputation and economic interests. I strongly believe, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will create important benefits for both the province’s justice system and the many people and businesses it serves.

I just want to talk now about how strategic lawsuits work. It is widely understood that robust public debate is a vital component of a healthy, well-functioning democracy. This freedom to speak up and speak out on the things that matter is particularly important when we feel that the well-being of our families and communities is at stake. Strategic lawsuits curtail that freedom by discouraging people from speaking out and, in doing so, interfere with the democratic functioning of our society.

It is also important that we recognize the strain that frivolous lawsuits place on our province’s busy court system. The time and energy our courts spend dealing with strategic litigation is a misuse of public resources that I find unacceptable. It’s important that the time and attention of our courts be reserved for serious, legitimate complaints, where a lawsuit is a genuine means to address a harm committed by one party against another—not a way to bully an opponent.

Mr. Speaker, with this bill, our government is seeking to send a clear signal that the practice of using lawsuits to exploit a weaker party or a busy court system will not be tolerated. I just want to talk a bit about how it works. As the Attorney General noted earlier, the work of developing this complex proposal was not an easy task, but one that required the help of an expert panel. The expert panel embraced it. After months of consultation and a careful study of the issue, the panel produced a truly unique and balanced solution that not only built upon, but strengthened, existing Ontario laws.

I would like now to take this opportunity to outline a few key aspects of the legislation we are proposing, which require changes to three existing laws: the Courts of Justice Act, the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

First of all, the centerpiece of our legislation: Amendments to the Courts of Justice Act are meant to create a fast-track review process for all lawsuits alleged to be brought for strategic reasons.

It is important to keep in mind that strategic suits do not pertain to just any dispute; rather, they must be matters of public interest. For example, in a defamation claim, the suit would be considered strategic if the act of suing an individual has the effect of shutting down public debate on a matter that could reasonably be expected to be of concern to an entire community. In this situation, the provision will give the person making the comment—the defendant—the opportunity to ask the court to dismiss the case before a potentially long and expensive court battle gets under way.

At this party’s request, the court would use a special test to determine whether or not the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed. In applying the test, the court would ask the following three questions:

Firstly, is the lawsuit about a matter of public interest? It would be up to the defendant to convince the court that the dispute is not simply a private matter, but that the public good is truly at stake.

Second, if it is a matter of public interest, does the case of the plaintiff—the person to whom the comments pertain—have substantial merit? This is what the plaintiff would have to demonstrate.

Finally, in addition to proving that the case has sufficient merit, our test includes a third step, of asking that the plaintiff—the person to whom the comments pertain—show that he or she has suffered or is likely to suffer harm serious enough to justify stopping public expression or debate on a matter of public interest. We know that the United Kingdom and Australia have taken similar steps in recent years after seeing their own defamation laws misused by stronger parties—mainly large corporations—against weaker opponents. If this harm, or risk of harm, cannot be shown, then under the proposed legislation the case would be dismissed.

Mr. Speaker, speed is a crucial aspect of this provision, because it provides clarity for all parties while carefully balancing their interests quickly, and before significant amounts of time and money have been expended. Under the proposed fast-track review process, the request to dismiss the lawsuit must be heard within 60 days of the party’s motion to have the test applied, and before the case could proceed any further in court. This expedited process is a key provision in nearly every US statute of this kind.

Secondly, I want to talk about the amendments to the Libel and Slander Act. I want to tell members about two other related changes that are proposed through this bill, which would amend both the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

Under the current law, conversations between two or more people on a matter of shared concern are to be considered privileged. In other words, because the parties share a direct interest in a particular topic, their conversations about that matter are protected by law. That means that neither person can be sued for libel or slander so long as they are speaking truthfully. So under the current law, when a group of people gather to discuss a shared problem, they can be confident that those conversations will be protected. So long as they are without malice, those conversations are what we call privileged.

However, that same group of citizens is no longer protected in the event that their conversations are reported by a third party, such as a reporter or blogger. Like the chilling effect of a strategic lawsuit, this nuance in libel law can deter frank conversations about matters of public concern, potentially preventing an important matter from receiving the open discussion it deserves just because somebody records a conversation on a smartphone.

I’m glad that with this provision, we can support our province’s strongly held democratic values, even in a seemingly small way.

Thirdly, I want to talk a little bit about the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. Our proposed bill would change the law governing procedures before regulatory bodies and administrative tribunals. Currently, administrative tribunals may hold hearings to determine if one party should pay the other’s legal costs after a case has been decided. These hearings are conducted in person, which can be costly and time-consuming, especially for vulnerable parties.

Our proposed amendment to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act would allow parties to make their arguments about how costs should be awarded in a written submission to the tribunal. Like the proposed fast-track review process, it is our hope that this provision would encourage cases to be dealt with more quickly, contributing to a more efficient justice system that makes the best possible use of public resources.

The proposed Protection of Public Participation Act contains many important provisions that support our goal of building a more accessible justice system and a stronger democracy. We want to create faster, more efficient civil processes that provide better clarity for the parties involved. We want to safeguard reputations and protect economic interests. We want to empower our citizens to take

part in the democratic process, which is far more than marking an X on a ballot every few years, but is about being informed and engaging the public in participation publicly.

Our bill supports some of the most cherished values of people living in a free and democratic society—our most cherished values as Ontarians. So today, I urge all members in this House to stand together to support these freedoms and values by supporting this bill.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to be here this morning speaking on Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act. I know this legislation has been out there over the last couple of years. We’ve had a number of cases and some planning decisions where people have asked the government or people to bring private members’ bills or a government bill forward to address the concerns, but primarily the concerns where the development industry may want to actually give a threat to someone who has any kind of an objection to a certain project. That I can support.

I’ll be interested in the debate on this. This is the leadoff today. I’m not sure this is a kind of bill they’ll want to time-allocate—not like they did Bill 10. And now we know why they wanted to time-allocate Bill 10: because there were 29,000 incidents in licensed daycare, and for some reason we had to get that bill through the House quickly.

Mr. Speaker, you know what? This place has become a charade. That’s the reality. Here we are pushing legislation through and then we’re dealing with basically nothing legislation that will take months and months and months to get through. This is the kind of bill they’ll want to travel. They’ll probably want to travel it to Thunder Bay and up to the forestry country and way down to Windsor. But, boy, we couldn’t travel Bill 10. That was too important for our children, on the safety issues.

Now that we know there were 29,000 incidents, six deaths in licensed daycares, we know why Bill 10 was put through the House at rapid speed. It’s an embarrassment to be here, and it’s an embarrassment to work with the Minister of Education and the Minister of Energy, when I see the kinds of comments that were made yesterday.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to stand in this House and speak on behalf of my colleagues and on behalf of the people of Timiskaming–Cochrane. This is a very important issue, and it has been a very important issue in the past in Timiskaming–Cochrane because we’ve gone through a period in our history when some of our residents were served by SLAPP suits during the Adams mine—it was a big issue in our area and it almost caused the destruction of several family businesses. That’s why this legislation is necessary.

But we have to be extremely, extremely careful how this legislation is put forward and make sure that everyone understands it, because we also had cases in my part of the world where very well organized groups have used the courts to basically hurt jobs. That’s something that we have to be very careful with. We have to make sure that the public is protected; we also have to make sure that people who drive our economy aren’t attacked for things they didn’t do, and that’s a big issue. I think that’s one of the things that, in my part of the world, the forestry industry is still worried about, and rightfully so.

Having said that, we know how important this legislation is. I know it personally, when I was sued for Adams mine and I almost lost my farm because of the lack of this type of legislation. I know how important it is. We know how important it is in Timiskaming. But it has to be balanced and everyone has to understand going in how it’s going to impact all sectors of the economy and all the people of the province.

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

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m pleased to be able to speak for a couple of minutes to this important piece of legislation. I think back to a couple of careers that I’ve held, once as a newspaper reporter and a second time as a town councillor. I know as a newspaper reporter, more than once someone or an organization that did not appreciate the coverage and the scrutiny we were applying to their activities and their organizations would threaten to sue us, or even go so far as to file papers. Thankfully, I’ve always had a good publisher who said, “It’s not if you’re sued, it’s only if you’re sued successfully, that we need to talk.”

But for those who don’t have the backing of a large organization, it is extremely anti-democratic to be able to pour cold water on a citizen’s right to talk and to raise important issues. So I’m happy to see that, if passed, this legislation will protect the right of Ontario residents to speak out on matters that are of importance to us.

I think this legislation will set the balance and provide our justice system with some good direction so that they can provide balance.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I listened with interest to some of the comments and certainly to the speeches that were given this morning on this SLAPP legislation. It’s interesting to hear about balance in legislation; certainly, that’s something we all need to look at and strive for. It’s quite interesting, the balance that was not struck yesterday with the Auditor General’s report; it’s a terrible, terrible thing.

I would like to say that this legislation protects the people from frivolous lawsuits, and it’s something that the people of Ontario have looked forward to. But there’s something else I’d like to bring up. You know, we had over 200 municipalities support another piece of legislation that we hoped would be brought forward last year, a decision that should have been made on joint and several liability. Yet this government ignored it. It’s similar to this, where municipalities can get sued for just being 1% at fault for an accident or something that happens in a municipality. They ignored that, yet they bring the SLAPP legislation forward.

I would suggest that if we’re going to have a balanced government, we have to look at all aspects of law in Ontario. For some reason, the Auditor General just completely ignored over 200 municipalities on joint and several liability—just ignored them. I would suggest that she take another look at this type of thing. It’s something that municipalities have asked me not to give up on and I certainly won’t.

I’m glad the government is looking at the SLAPP legislation. I think it’s something that’s been important to the people of Ontario and I look forward to hearing more on the debate. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Attorney General has two minutes.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the members from Simcoe North, Timiskaming–Cochrane, Newmarket–Aurora and Perth–Wellington.

I listened very carefully to the members from the two opposition parties. I’m not sure if they’re going to support it, by what they were saying, but I hope that they will. Because using intimidation tactics to silence one’s opponents is a misuse of our democratic system. It’s a misuse of our court system, one of the central institutions of a fair and democratic society.

If passed, this legislation will allow courts to quickly identify and deal with strategic lawsuits, minimizing the emotional and financial strain on defendants, as well as the waste of court resources.

I’m sure there’s not one person in this room who has not heard about someone who was a victim of these strategic lawsuits. Our proposed legislation strikes a balance that will help ensure abusive litigation is stopped, but legitimate action can continue.

This proposed legislation is about preventing strategic lawsuits. Anyone who has a legitimate claim of libel or slander should not be discouraged by this legislation. We’re proposing a made-in-Ontario approach to address the issue of strategic lawsuits based on consensus, recommendations of an expert advisory panel and extensive stakeholder consultation.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to thank the three experts of our panel for their wise advice on this bill. Also, I want to thank my predecessor, Minister John Gerretsen, for introducing this bill, the Protection of Public Participation Act.

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: It’s an honour to rise this morning to talk about anti-SLAPP. I think for the purposes of people who are listening, though, I have to first do a bit of a legislative lesson on why we are not talking about the Auditor General’s report. A very substantial, damning—can I use “damning”?—report came out late yesterday afternoon. It’s all over the newspapers this morning, and I’m sure if anyone is tuning in now they are questioning why we are talking about the anti-SLAPP legislation and not some of the terrible, terrible indictments in the Auditor General’s annual report.

It is, of course, because by legislative precedent we must speak to the bills that the government brings forward, and today, of course, they brought forward the anti-SLAPP legislation, which means that I am not allowed to make reference and talk about specifics in the Auditor General’s report because it doesn’t relate to the chosen topic that the House leader of the government has brought forward.

To that point, I will talk about Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act. I think it’s important to put this bill in context. To give credit where credit is due, there have been a number of private members’ bills on this very specific topic. One, of course, is from the now leader of the third party and the member from Hamilton Centre and, of course, the government House leader, the member from Ottawa Centre. Both, in previous Parliaments, in previous governments, have brought forward very similar legislation to Bill 52.

We also had, I think it was, Bill 83 in the previous government where, to the minister’s point, John Gerretsen, now retired, as the Attorney General also brought forward this anti-SLAPP legislation.

This bill came forward as a result of a report from 2010. There was a panel struck at the request of the Attorney General to study how to ensure that we could actually come forward and bring protections for people who want to have a public voice on issues of concern to the general public, but also, quite frankly, protect the rights of people who want to move forward on ideas or make changes to their own community.

So I think we would call it, to quote Rohinton Mistry, that “fine balance.” The Protection of Public Participation Act attempts to do that in its third reiteration—fourth reiteration, if you include the private members’ bills—and I would like to take some time this morning to go over past cases that are commonly referred to when we talk about SLAPPs.

SLAPP, of course, is short form for strategic litigation against public participation. I think that giving some specific examples of SLAPPs, or at the very least what are commonly accepted as examples of SLAPPs, will be beneficial because it allows us and our constituents to understand just what we are discussing here today.

I know when I’ve spoken about this issue with people before, it often falls flat. If you have not been part of, or the victim of, a SLAPP, it’s probably something that you don’t spend a lot of time thinking about. To be honest, it can be considered rather legal and trivial to the average person, but that’s why it’s important to reflect on some specific SLAPPs. It puts into context the issue, and allows us to see the human side and the human impacts of this. When we debate these things in the legal lexicon, it can often become muddled and abstract, but when we focus on specific examples, specific people, that’s when we can truly start to see what a difference legislation can make.

I also think it’s important for our constituents and the people watching at home to know how SLAPPs typically come about, so that they are aware of what a SLAPP is and when or how to spot one. That’s why I will be using some of my time to reflect on past SLAPP cases and their various effects and motivations.

I also intend to cover the bill itself and then analyze how the measures contained within Bill 52 match or don’t match with the problems demonstrated by the examples I will go over. Some of these cases, as you will see, are quite daunting, and the fact of the matter is that we need to make sure this legislation is capable of doing what it is meant to do, because no Ontarian should have to choose between having a say on a development or a change in their community or risking being sued into financial ruin.

Finally, I will conclude by summarizing why SLAPPs should absolutely be stopped from occurring and thus why this legislation should be supported by all members of the House.

Bill 52 is a reintroduction, as I said, of Bill 83, which died on the order paper when the government called the election this spring. It’s important to mention that many other jurisdictions have some form of anti-SLAPP legislation already in place. For example, roughly half of the states in the US have some form of anti-SLAPP legislation already in place. In addition, England and Australia, which, if you’re a legal expert, are more closely matched to our system here in Canada, have some form of anti-SLAPP legislation as well.

Bill 52 and its predecessors stem from the Anti-SLAPP Advisory Panel, which submitted its final report to the Attorney General over four years ago, in October 2010. Don’t ever accuse the Ontario government of moving quickly. Of course, that’s what we are really talking about here today: SLAPPs. A SLAPP is a lawsuit that is brought against an individual for the primary purpose of silencing that individual’s public opinions. SLAPPs are almost always some form of libel or slander allegation and almost always are for unrealistic and unreasonable amounts in damages.

That’s the point of a SLAPP: not to win the lawsuit, but rather to scare the defendants so that they dare not speak out against a claim.

The reason that this is particularly problematic, however, aside from a gross misuse and waste of taxpayers’ dollars by clogging down our justice system, is because it’s not only an injustice to the defendant but also to the community and free speech. This is because the community’s planning procedures are manipulated. Community members who could have valuable contributions to make are instead intimidated out of commenting. Another word for the SLAPP is—I can’t remember it—the ability to silence someone, cease-and-desist letters; there are all kinds of ways to say it. The end result is a community planning process without the community. This is an entirely undesirable situation.

That being said, while typically SLAPPs involve developers and residents, there are also a number of instances and examples where this is not, in fact, the case. But I will get into that later on in my details.

For now, going into a discussion on past SLAPPs, please bear in mind the key factor here is whether the lawsuit’s prime function is either to prevent someone from participating in a public process or to punish them for doing so. That is a certain principle that’s important when discussing SLAPPs: that an individual has had their rights to express their opinion severely limited due to coercion.

I would now like to move on and discuss two specific SLAPP cases, very different in their examples. They are unique from each other because each of them involves a different type of claimant pursuing the SLAPP. They are identical with one another, however, in that in each case, the claimant has clearly pursued litigation for the purposes of silencing or punishing the defendant. It is this second point that primarily qualifies each as a SLAPP. In all cases I’m about to discuss, however, I’m not going to refer to either of the litigants by their names, as I don’t believe it’s relevant to the purposes of Bill 52.

These cases are to illustrate SLAPPs, not to consider the particular individuals involved. As such, I will refer to the party bringing forward the SLAPP as the claimant and the party the SLAPP is being used against as the defendant.

The first SLAPP I’d like to discuss actually occurred in British Columbia. This SLAPP arose from the following context: The claimant wanted to convert his land, which was forested, into farmland. To do this, however, he had to dump approximately 750,000 cubic metres of soil on his property to properly level it so that it would be sustainable for farming. But in order to do this, he needed a permit, and so in October 2009, he submitted a permit application to his local township.

Now, the defendant in this case owns land very near to the claimant’s property. When the defendant became aware of the claimant’s permit application, she became quite concerned about a possible negative impact on the streams that flowed through his land. The defendant also happened to be a member of a local organization whose mission it is to protect and enhance the integrity of the watersheds in the area, so the defendant decided to take action against the claimant’s permit application.

Consequently, the defendant and the local water preservation organization she was part of began speaking out against the claimant’s permit application. The organization came out with written material opposing the permit, and the defendant produced a report outlining the potential damage that the claimant’s permit might cause to the local watershed. There was also a meeting held where the defendant spoke about her objections to the claimant’s permit application and her concerns for the wider region.

In light of all these developments, the local township decided to put the claimant’s permit application on hold. The township argued that it needed more time to measure the environmental impact of the application. On September 1, 2010, two weeks before the township placed the permit on hold, the claimant sued the defendant, the organization which she was involved with and another individual, claiming $13 million in damages against all three. The claim against the defendant herself was for $5.5 million.

The defendant’s lawyer soon advised the claimant via letter that his lawsuit was bound to fail because it disclosed no viable cause of action. In essence, the claimant had no case as there were no facts to support the lawsuit. On February 9, 2011, the defendant even offered to pay the claimant $2,000 in full settlement of his claim, but to no avail.

The claimant made serious allegations against the defendant, including that she made unfounded and false statements to local residents about his permit application. The claimant argued that this was done for the purpose of gathering signatures on a petition opposing his application and for the purpose of intentionally harming him. He also alleged that the defendant organized public meetings only to spread false information about his permit application and that the defendant made false statements about the permit to the local member of the provincial Legislature.

The claimant also argued that the defendant endangered the public by using a low-flying aircraft to photograph him and acted maliciously by making false statements to make him lose his farming career.

All in all, the claimant basically argued that the defendant defamed him and conspired to injure him and his property. The claimant made similar allegations about the local water preservation organization as well.

So to recount, an individual, the claimant, sought to obtain a permit to alter his property, and their neighbour, the defendant, objected to this alteration on the basis that it would have had a negative effect on the larger area in the community. Speaker, clearly, this is an example of an individual staying involved in their community and trying to participate in its growth and development. In other words, this was clearly an individual participating in a public matter, namely, whether or not the claimant’s proposed alterations would have an effect on the larger area the public inhabits.

Thus, by undertaking such vigorous and overwhelming legal action in response, the claimant has already partially demonstrated this case to be a SLAPP, as one could conceivably argue that the claimant is attempting to punish the defendant via a lawsuit.

What further demonstrates this to be a SLAPP, however, is the claimant’s clear lack of interest in actually pursuing the case as a legitimate legal matter—and this is a very important part of Bill 52, that shortened process to ensure that the legal system can basically do a review and say, “Is it a SLAPP or isn’t it?” Because there are going to be examples, Speaker, and we can all name some, where people and businesses have been defamed, and they have absolutely every right to defend their character and their business. Bill 52 does not prevent that.

For example, when the defendant brought an application to dismiss the claimant’s lawsuit and provided notice to the claimant, he didn’t attend the hearing. That being said, all the material the claimant filed with the court was still considered, even though he didn’t show up. What the judge determined was that the claimant had provided no evidence of his allegations against the defendant. The judge eventually concluded that the claimant had merely asserted what he believed had occurred with no evidence to support his claims.

The judge determined that not only had the defendant not acted maliciously or intended to harm the claimant but was instead merely exercising her right of free speech to disagree with the claimant’s permit application, and as a result, the defendant was naturally voicing her opposition to the permit application and had done nothing unlawful whatsoever. Clearly, Speaker, there can be no mistaking this for anything short of a typical SLAPP suit.

To demonstrate the negative effects that SLAPPs can have, however, consider the fallout from this one example I have discussed. As a result of the SLAPP brought against her and the ordeal she went through fighting it, the defendant ended her community involvement out of fear that she may again be the target of another SLAPP. She stopped attending the water preservation organization’s meetings and stopped participating in other environmental causes. Furthermore, she no longer gave advice to her neighbours on similar issues and discontinued her volunteer work.

Just think of the negative impact this SLAPP caused the defendant, to say nothing of the community. Here we have an extremely engaged citizen who is concerned about her neighbours and her community’s well-being, and thanks to a SLAPP, she is totally shell-shocked into forgoing all efforts to improve her community. I think it says a lot about the kind of damage SLAPPs can cause.

The defendant ended up paying over $20,000 in legal fees and over $4,000 in disbursements due to this SLAPP, all because she wanted to be involved in her community’s future. And that is just the individual defendant in this case. When it comes to the organization she was involved with, the damages, respectively, were just as onerous.

The SLAPP had a severe negative impact on the work of the organization, as all of its time had been spent on defending the lawsuit. There were little resources or time left to devote to organizing other activities or initiatives. The SLAPP basically silenced the organization, as it did not speak out against the claimant’s permit application from the moment the SLAPP was filed. Some would say that was the complete and 100% intention. Unfortunately, as a result of this litigation, the organization was forced to consider ceasing operations altogether once the SLAPP had been settled.

Ultimately, the directors of the organization did buy public liability insurance, mostly because they were concerned about future SLAPPs, or litigation chill.

Eventually, on May 25, 2011, the claimant’s claim was dismissed, with costs awarded to the defendants. Speaker, this is the epitome of a SLAPP: long, fruitless, expensive and highly damaging. This legal action was clearly brought forward to limit the defendant’s ability and desire to participate in public matters.

This is an example of a private individual pursuing a SLAPP against another private individual. Again, it is, for the same reason as the next example, limiting or stopping public participation.

I want to pause for a minute and talk briefly about how technology may impact Bill 52. Because this bill is a result of a report from over four years ago, in 2010, because it is basically a reintroduction, based on Bill 83 in the last government, I think that we actually have an opportunity, at the public participation stage—I truly hope that we have fulsome public hearings on this, because, if nothing else, this anti-SLAPP legislation is about the ability of the public to participate in a discussion for their benefit. I would hate to see the government have closure or suggest that we need very truncated public hearings on a bill that is all about public participation.

I’m not going to try to foreshadow what is going to happen with discussions in House leaders’, but I can assure you that if we end up having a very limited public hearing process for Bill 52, I’m going to make some hay with that, because that’s all wrong. This is all about public participation, and we’d better have a committee that actually travels and is prepared to listen and is prepared to come forward with amendments.

I want to talk briefly about Twitter and Facebook. In the 2010 report, they don’t talk a lot about how that impacts SLAPPs, if Twitter and Facebook posts would be considered when they talk about defamation or have issues there. So I think there is an opportunity for some positive amendments that will basically acknowledge the role that technology has in both participation at a political level, of course, and as an aid to informing our communities.

But I digress. I’m going to go to my next example. This offers perhaps the most startling but also clear case of a SLAPP example that I can discuss here today.

In this case, the claimant was the mayor of an Ontario town—so, a politician—and the defendants were members of the town’s news media. One of them was also a former town councillor. In essence, Speaker, one of the defendants was known for commenting on the town’s municipal issues, not unusual in our local papers. He frequently wrote articles dealing with municipal issues as a recurring column that was published on the Internet on a local website focused on current events in the town. The other defendant was a former town councillor and was the website’s moderator.

Throughout the mayor’s first term in office, both defendants were vocal critics of the mayor’s policies. In 2010, the mayor was running for a second term. Election day was set for October 25. On August 20, 2010, a little over two months from the election day, one of the defendants wrote an

article that was critical of the mayor and posted it on the website. In it, he prompted the website’s visitors to write over 50 comments about his original article. As is typical with such sites, the comments on an

article appear directly beneath the

article and are published online as soon as they are submitted.

There were many comments on the website in response to the article, and many were far more critical of the mayor than the

article itself. Furthermore, many of the commentators used pseudonyms and fake names so they didn’t have to identify themselves.

Then, on September 15, 2010, a little over a month from election day, the town council passed a resolution authorizing the town solicitor to “retain external legal counsel to take any and all actions to bring resolution to the matter of defamation of the mayor.” What it basically meant was that a SLAPP would be commenced against the defendants and the town would pay for the legal fees, since the town’s solicitor was retaining the external legal counsel to pursue the legal action.

Surely one can see how, as I mentioned earlier, this particular example gives us perhaps the clearest example of how a SLAPP gets its name. It’s pretty hard to find a more clear-cut case of an individual’s right to participate in the public process being violated than when an elected politician sues someone for criticizing them in their elected role. Why, Speaker, dare I say just about every member in this chamber would be embroiled in a SLAPP with one another if this is how we operated here.

I shouldn’t kid, but you get my point. It is preposterous to think that a politician who is elected by the people is so above criticism that their detractors should dare not speak against them lest they risk being sued. That, Speaker, is a SLAPP.

Anyway, on October 8, 2010, now a little over two weeks before the election, the mayor proceeded with the lawsuit.

Similar to the last SLAPP example I gave, where I pointed to a lack of legal follow-through on the part of the claimant as further proof that his claim was indeed a SLAPP, here again we see a disregard for typical legal procedure. Bear with me here, Speaker, because this may be a little technical, but it’s definitely an important point to make. I’ll try to get through it relatively quickly, but I certainly hope my point is not lost to the viewers.

Remember, this legal action was commenced by the mayor a little over two weeks from election day.

Typically, most legal actions of this nature are initiated by having what is known as a statement of claim issued. In this case, however, the action was initiated by having a notice of action issued under what is known as sub-rule 14.03(2)—I’m sure the legal minds in the chamber are loving this.

“What does this matter?” you may be asking. Well, here’s why. Because the sub-rule 14.03(2) states the following: “Where there is insufficient time to prepare a statement of claim, an action may be commenced by the issuing of a notice of action ... that contains a short statement of the nature of the claim.”

The question is, why was there insufficient time for the mayor to initiate the legal proceedings properly? The answer, I think, is obvious: Because the only timeline of relevance was the impending election, which was now, as I said, under three weeks away.

The mayor sued the two defendants, as well as five others, and claimed $6 million in damages from all of the defendants. Two defendants were served with the notice of action on the same day the action was commenced, October 8,

whereas one of the original two defendants was served with the notice of action on Thanksgiving Sunday, October 10, 2010, while he was having Thanksgiving dinner with his family.

Here’s the catch. Remember sub-rule 14.03(2) that I just mentioned? Well, there is an accompanying rule, sub-rule 14.03(4), which very clearly states: “The notice of action shall not be served separately from the statement of claim.” So serving defendants with the notice of action, but no statement of claim, directly contravened the rules.

My point of getting down into the weeds with this is not to bore you or my colleagues, I promise. No, the reason I bring this up is because it demonstrates quite clearly that in this case, the mayor was far less concerned with taking the appropriate legal action properly and, instead, far more concerned with simply proceeding in any way possible, as long as it was before the election.

It should come as no surprise, then, that one of the defendants swore in an affidavit that the mayor commenced the legal action in order to silence him days before the October 25, 2010, election. Moreover, the mayor did not file an affidavit in response to a motion by the defendants to have their legal costs recovered, nor did the mayor give any evidence that her motive was not to silence her critics as election day quickly approached.

The defendants in this instance outright alleged that this was a SLAPP. Furthermore, the defendants argued that because this was a SLAPP, they were entitled to an elevated award of costs.

The master presiding over a motion by the defendants to have the mayor pay for their legal costs ultimately sided with the defendants resoundingly. The master found that the evidence was indisputable. The master was convinced that the mayor brought the lawsuit forward in her capacity as mayor of the corporation and the town.

Moreover, because the mayor had access to the town’s municipal money until December 14, 2010, the taxpayers, in effect, funded this SLAPP litigation.

This is a totally clear case of a SLAPP being used to silence and intimidate those of a different view. Because the party initiating the legal action is a politician, it becomes a SLAPP even more clearly, since they have a large vested interest in silencing their opponents.

Even more shocking in this case is the fact that, technically, this legal action was commenced without complying with the prior-notice provisions of the Libel and Slander Act respecting broadcasts.

The mayor expressly sought damages of $6 million from the defendants, but the presiding master took issue with this, pointing out that, “In an action for damages, it is unusual for the plaintiff to claim a specific amount of damages in the notice of action.”

As you can see, Speaker, it’s difficult to not see this case from the beginning as nothing more than a desperate and ill-advised scheme to silence the mayor’s political opponents in the leadup to and including the municipal campaign.

Perhaps more tellingly, the master concluded that the legal action initiated by the mayor was indeed SLAPP litigation. Ultimately, this SLAPP was put to rest when the mayor dropped the case and delivered a notice of discontinuance on October 17, 2011, over a year from when it was first initiated. Really, what good did it serve at all? Here was this SLAPP sucking precious court resources and time, dragging on for over a year, when it had absolutely zero credibility.

As I mentioned earlier, the second example I have given is a clear case of an elected or public official using a SLAPP against an individual in their community. Clearly, the mayor was only interested in silencing her critics prior to the election, and she resorted to outrageous measures to do so.

I have now spoken about an example of a private individual pursuing a SLAPP against another and a public, elected figure pursuing a SLAPP against a private individual, both of whom were trying to silence their critics. I do understand the need for Bill 52 because, as we’ve seen by the examples I’ve listed, these can take many months, or even years, to resolve. By instituting a timeline to decide if a matter is a SLAPP, Bill 52 will go a long way to ensuring these frivolous claims are taken care of.

Now, we’ve gone over two SLAPP examples: one a private individual pursuing a SLAPP against another private individual, and one a public, elected official pursuing a SLAPP against critics. I think the second one is actually more egregious.

We, as politicians, as public figures, basically sign on to agree to a public review of our job, quite frankly. We do that municipally, we do that provincially, and we do that federally. For an elected member who is serving in public service to suggest that they can use town resources or take it to a different level, provincial resources—imagine the outrage we would have if the various ministers who were chastised in this Auditor General report actually attempted to sue the Auditor General. There would be, I hope, riots on the street.

People would be so offended that our elected officials, our appointed cabinet ministers, can’t take the heat and, instead, want to silence their opposition and their opponents.

There would be no stomach in Ontario for that kind of action, so by putting in place Bill 52, we are attempting to say, “You, as an elected official, cannot use your staff resources, your municipally funded resources—or provincially or federally—to in effect silence your opposition.” This, in a very specific way, demonstrates that a SLAPP is not always a big development company trying to silence individuals. This is an often-held stereotype that is simply not true, as I’ve demonstrated here today with my examples.

Yes, there are instances where the situation follows that narrative. There are also other vastly different contexts for SLAPPs as well. My point here is that a SLAPP is something that could be pursued by a variety of individuals for a variety of reasons, all of which have to do with silencing someone’s public views. That’s important to bear in mind when considering Bill 52 because it becomes particularly relevant to institute a mechanism for addressing potential SLAPPs, and that’s something that Bill 52 does.

That is why Bill 52’s proposal to institute a 60-day time limit on deciding whether or not a lawsuit is a SLAPP is a critical component of this legislation, but that’s not the only good proposal in Bill 52, and I’d like to take some time now to go over the bill itself.

Now that we’ve had some chance to review some common examples of SLAPPs, I think the viewers at home, and my colleagues here in the chamber, will perhaps have a better understanding of how Bill 52 could help remedy the problem that SLAPPs pose.

Bill 52, the Protection of Public Participation Act, 2014, sets out to combat SLAPPs by amending multiple pieces of legislation to basically create a process to determine if a lawsuit is a SLAPP and to have it dismissed accordingly, if so. In order to set up this process, Bill 52 amends the Courts of Justice Act to allow for fast-tracking of motions to determine whether legal actions are in fact SLAPPs.

Essentially, how Bill 52 will work, if enacted, is that if a defendant believes they have been targeted by a SLAPP, they will be able to bring forward a motion to have the presiding judge determine if in fact the legal action is a SLAPP. If the judge determines the action to be a SLAPP, then the judge shall dismiss the legal action within that 60-day time period. It remains incumbent on the defendant, however, to prove that the legal action brought against them in fact is a SLAPP. If they are unsuccessful in proving this to the judge, then their motion will be dismissed and the case would proceed.

It’s also important to note that when rendering a decision on this motion, the judge would be able to award compensation regarding costs on the motion, if they deem it appropriate. Moreover, the judge would also be able to award the defendant damages, as the judge considered appropriate, if the judge determined that the claimant brought an initial legal action forward in bad faith.

A key component of Bill 52 is the 60-day timeline on the motion for determining if a legal action is a SLAPP. This timeline is essential for ensuring that SLAPPs do not bog down our already overburdened court system. If I have a concern with Bill 52, this is it: I don’t want to be in a place where we are expediting one legal proceeding and then in two years finding out that we’ve actually made it worse for another legal proceeding; I’ll pick on sexual assaults. I don’t want this to be a case where the courts end up, by law, having to deal with one group of issues and then have another group have a longer waiting list.

By instituting a 60-day timeline for a decision, Bill 52 ensures that vexatious and unwarranted SLAPP suits are dismissed in quick order. That’s a central premise of Bill 52, I would suggest, and an important one.

Another reason why the 60-day timeline on the hearing of the motion proposed under Bill 52 is so critical is due to the tribunal connection Bill 52 establishes. I’ll confess, Speaker, that this is one

section of the bill that does make me somewhat uneasy. Bill 52 establishes that if a claimant has proceedings before a tribunal—and I’ll pick on the OMB—then the defendant moving the motion to dismiss the legal proceedings can provide written notice to the respective tribunal informing them of the filed motion. At that point, the claimant’s proceedings at the tribunal are deemed to be stayed until the motion is dealt with. My reservations come from the thought that this measure could potentially lead to backups at multiple tribunals.

In theory, you could have multiple instances of these motions being filed and, thus, multiple proceedings being stayed at other tribunals. Again, though, that is why the 60-day timeline is critical: because we must be mindful that balance is the key to situations like this. If there was no 60-day limit, then a claimant’s tribunal proceedings could all be stayed indefinitely while the motion proceeds only to, in the end, be vindicated if the motion was defeated. That wouldn’t be right, however, so having the 60-day timeline ensures that these motions are dealt with.

Bill 52 amends two other pieces of legislation: the Libel and Slander Act and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The Statutory Powers Procedure Act is amended to provide that submissions for cost shall be made in writing. The Libel and Slander Act amendment, however, is somewhat more significant.

I don’t know if you want me to pause there, Speaker. I’ll defer to you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce today a number of guests I have from my riding of Sarnia–Lambton. Representing the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario: Tom Lacey from Nova Chemicals; Chris Ciccarelli with Saint-Gobain; Kevin Vance, Shell Oil Products; David Meade from Praxair; and Mike Peters from Air Products Canada. They’ve asked me to remind everyone to come to the reception this evening. They’re in the west members’ gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you—and women’s issues. Speaker, I’d like to welcome a delegation from the Provincial Council of Women of Ontario, specifically Mary Potter, their president.

This is an organization with a long history in Ontario. It’s my pleasure to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I also wish to introduce representatives here from AMPCO: Susan Olynyk, ArcelorMittal Dofasco; Michael Peters, Air Products; Cameron Moffat, Wescast, Brantford headquarters; and Andy Mahut, US Steel Canada.

Mr. Bob Delaney: It gives me great pleasure to introduce to the House two old friends of mine from my undergraduate days at Concordia University in Montreal. I’d like members to join me in welcoming Mr. George Chiarucci and Mr. John Discenza, who are in the members’ east gallery. Enjoy the show, boys.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure today to introduce Adam White of the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. Adam and a number of AMPCO supporters are here today, many of whom are in the west gallery.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: As Minister of Energy, I’m also pleased to acknowledge the large power consumers in the province of Ontario and welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s a pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today Ron and Rhonda Stevenson. They’re the parents of my amazing legislative assistant, Victoria Stevenson. Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: I would like to introduce to the House the family of today’s page captain, Steven. They are his mother, Angie Kottaras; his father, George Kottaras; his sister Helen; and his grandparents Helen and Sam Sutter. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mario Sergio: From the riding of York West, I have the pleasure to introduce my page, Jenny Doan. I want to thank her for the service that she has provided to the House. She’s right here. Jenny, thank you so much. I hope your experience will serve you well here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I have three special guests from my riding. I’d like to introduce Pastor Mike Hollen, Pastor Dr. Al Stone and Tom Johnston, who have joined us today. We had our private bill passed today and I thought it was a great day. Welcome, gentlemen. Thank you for coming to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’d like to welcome today Paul Kossta to the House. He’s a regular visitor here and I just wanted to say hello. He’s from OSSTF.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I have a few visitors in attendance here today. I would like to recognize and welcome Kris Sousa to Queen’s Park, who’s sitting in the east members’ gallery. If you can stand up, Kris. Kris is a university student who is very involved in the Davenport community, having been a camp counsellor for the Dovercourt Boys and Girls Club and also the chair of the Youth Community Police Liaison Committee for 14 Division of the Toronto Police Service.

I’d also like to welcome to the Legislature the Regal Road Junior Public School choir, led by Ms. Abbey-Colborne. They will be performing on the grand staircase at 12:15. I’m really looking forward to their performance and encourage everyone in the House today to also partake in that.

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to welcome a group of students from Thornlea Secondary School in Thornhill this morning: Shahzad Bharda, Yuho Kim, Tiffany Chan, Christopher Poulos, Kelvin Zeng, Alexander Dober, John Lee, and Stephen Fish, all up in the east public gallery. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I just want to welcome some special guests today: Elaine Campbell, president and CEO of AstraZeneca; Brian Maloney, director of government affairs; Jon Feairs, Ontario government affairs; and Eni Rukaj. All four of them are from AstraZeneca.

I had the pleasure this morning of speaking at an announcement where AstraZeneca donated a million-dollar gift to the Banting and Best Diabetes Centre at the University of Toronto, for diabetes research. On behalf of our government, I want to thank you for this generous gift. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d also like to recognize Cameron Moffat, the energy manager at Wescast Industries, and also the grandparents of Nicole Eaton, who is our page here today—her grandparents, Allan and Pat Lee.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Our page from Thunder Bay–Superior North, Albany Sutherland, is the page captain today. In the public gallery, we have her step-grandmother, Alanna Downey-Baxter, and I believe her mother, Denise Baxter, is here. If we could welcome them, I’d be grateful.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Today, we have a guest in the members’ gallery. I’d like the whole assembly to welcome Jeffrey Kroeker here, a wonderful fellow who is back in Queen’s Park and watching today’s events.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It gives me great pleasure today to introduce the son of one of my colleagues, a person I was first elected with in 2006, when he was just a little boy. Now he’s a major campaign contributor for his mother: Galen Flaherty.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m pleased to welcome Thornlea Secondary students who are here today. Thornlea Secondary School is on Yonge Street in my riding, and I’m glad they braved the gridlock to make it down here on time for question period. Shahzad Bharda, Yuho Kim, Tiffany Chan, Christopher Poulos, Kelvin Zeng, Alexander Dober, John Lee and Stephen Fish: Welcome.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce Mr. Jeffrey Kroeker, who is the former assistant for the House leader of the official opposition. He’s in the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions. Thank you very much.

It is now time for question period.

Answers to written questions

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order on overdue order paper questions. On October 21, I made several inquiries to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, including questions on relief funding for the ice storm in December 2013 and the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program. Mr. Speaker, I have not received a response to any of these questions.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would appreciate an opportunity to make my ruling.

That is a point of order, and I would defer to the government House leader that I understand it is overdue, and what steps would be taken to have those answers replied to. Thank you.

Further, the member from Perth–Wellington, on a point of order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Speaker, the clock is running. There are no points of order during question period.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Speaker, I’d like to bring to the minister’s attention an overdue question that hasn’t been answered. It’s to the Minister of Transportation. Would he please clarify the government’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the House. I was under the impression that the person who was standing was starting question period, because I did invite the first question. Because of such, that they were points of order, I’m going to ask that the clock be reset, and I’ll deal with the points of order.

The member from Perth-Wellington—quickly, please.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to bring this to the attention of the Ministry of Transportation. The question was—it’s an overdue question—would the Minister of Transportation please clarify the government’s policy on extending GO’s transit service to Stratford, confirming or denying the Premier’s intention to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Okay. I will also make this: If there are any furthers, I will deal with them after question period, because the time is allotted for question period during this particular time frame. I will defer to the House leader again, that if this is an unanswered question, if it’s past time, it will be dealt with as quickly and expeditiously as possible.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will get that. Thank you.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Government’s record

Ms. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday’s Auditor General’s report revealed that the incompetence of your Liberal government has reached new heights: $2 billion wasted on so-called smart meters, project costs nearly double the original estimate, and hard-working Ontarians left to pay the bill. A debt ballooning to $325 billion will mean a burden of $23,000 for every child born in 2018.

There’s one word that keeps coming up over and over again in this report, Premier, and that’s “failure”: a failure to manage money, a failure to manage projects, a failure to manage people, a failure to take care of our most vulnerable and a complete failure of leadership.

Premier, when will you stop failing Ontarians and get your fiscal house in order?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said, as I said in the House yesterday and as I said this morning, we welcome the scrutiny of the Auditor General, as governments before us have—

Interjections.

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

Hon. David Zimmer: Listen to the answer.

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

Now, I anticipate—I shouldn’t, but I anticipate—that this will be emotional, and if it gets too emotional, I’m going to shut it down, and that includes anyone making any comments at all. Let’s get through this properly.

Premier, please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, we welcome the scrutiny of the Auditor General. We welcome the opportunity to improve services, and in fact Bill 8, which passed yesterday, actually increases the accountability of the government. We have worked with the Auditor General, and we will continue to work with the Auditor General.

Many of the recommendations that the Auditor General made, many of the areas of concern, are areas where we have already taken action, whether it’s child care, the review of the immunization system, adult community corrections and the Ontario Parole Board. Many of those are areas where we have already taken action.

On the other areas of concern, we will continue to work with the Auditor General.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, the disrespect for taxpayers’ dollars from this government is nothing short of appalling.

Premier, we thought we had seen it all when we saw a billion dollars lost in the gas plant scandal. Now we learn that you and your reappointed energy minister have doubled down by wasting $2 billion more on smart meters that don’t work. The $2 billion in costs have raised energy prices on families and seniors who now can’t even afford to turn on a space heater. There’s nothing smart about wasting $2 billion and getting no results.

Is anyone in your government willing to stand up and be held accountable for this abject failure of management and leadership?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have said, and I will continue to say, that there are many areas—and the majority of the recommendations the Auditor General has made are things that we agree with, and we are completely aligned and will work with her, or we have already started to work to make those improvements.

But there are a couple of areas—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order. The member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order. Your names are on a list.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are a couple of areas where there is a disagreement, and I will address the issue of smart meters. If the member opposite had the opportunity yesterday to hear the head of Toronto Hydro speak, she will recognize that there is concrete success that we can see on the ground: 3% of Toronto hydro has been shifted off peak to save the equivalent of the power to fuel 97 condominium buildings. That’s a serious reduction—

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

Final supplementary.

Ms. Christine Elliott: Premier, you can’t get away from this smart meter fiasco, billions wasted on scandal, billions in forgone tax revenues from jobs you have driven out of this province, not to mention the $11 billion we spend servicing our debt. All of that could be redirected to schools, to hospitals, to those with disabilities, to paying down our debt, but instead, all that money goes to pay for your scandals and ineptitude.

Premier, these scandals have to stop. Will you show Ontarians the respect they deserve and demand your energy minister resign today?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Order. The member from Huron–Bruce, come to order.

Premier?

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

Just to the issue of smart meters, let me relay to the member opposite what some of the people who are experts in the field have said about them. The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario said that they are absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and future functioning of the distribution system for electricity. Smart grid technologies have the potential to improve reliability, reduce system costs, empower customers and lower the environmental impact of the electricity that we use.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is, because of the smart meters that are in place, we have data that we would not have otherwise. We are able to implement conservation mechanisms that we would not be able to implement without smart meters.

I know the member opposite is not particularly interested in conservation, but the fact is that we are. That’s why smart meters are in place—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Start the clock, please.

New question.

Government’s record

Ms. Christine Elliott: Again to the Premier: Yesterday, I watched the Minister of Energy try to defend the indefensible. Rather than accept the Auditor General’s indictment of his tenure as Minister of Energy, we watched the minister attack an independent and impartial officer of our Legislature. He accused her of getting her facts wrong and being in over her head. His disrespect showed just how out of touch with reality this minister is.

Premier, yesterday you said—and you said it again today—that your government welcomes accountability. Will you live up to those words and show your energy minister the door?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the member opposite saw yesterday was a couple of ministers of this government making sure that people understand where we are aligned with the Auditor General and where there are some differences.

I think if the member opposite looks back to 2002 and some comments by a former minister of her party, she will see that there are times when ministers and governments disagree with some of the recommendations and some of the concerns of the Auditor General. That is not an unheard-of circumstance.

What the member opposite also should have heard is experts in the electricity field making it clear what smart meters are doing: how they are helping us gather data that will allow us to conserve, and how they are already allowing us to gather data on residential usage, on commercial usage, that will allow us to conserve into the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Christine Elliott: You know what, Mr. Speaker? The saddest part of the AG’s report is the devastating human cost attached to this government’s reckless management. From patients to pensioners, to families with children, to businesses and job creators, to our most vulnerable citizens who need our help—all have been failed by this government on so many fronts.

Premier, it’s about priorities. You don’t spend $2 billion on not-so-smart meters when people nearing the end of their lives can’t get the hospice and palliative care services they deserve. You don’t spend $2 billion on a program that doesn’t work when developmentally challenged adults are in crisis and are waiting years for residential placements.

Premier, when will your government address the massive human cost attached to your government’s incompetence?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There’s a massive human cost to us not conserving energy. There’s a massive human cost to not having access to information.

Yesterday, Anthony Haines, the head of Toronto Hydro—

Interjections.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yesterday, Anthony Haines, the head of Toronto Hydro, commented that during the ice storm last year, Toronto Hydro was able to identify people who were medically fragile, who were at risk. Because they had smart meters, they were able to identify where those people were and whether they had power, and move to address those concerns. So smart meters are helping us to gather data that is extremely necessary.

On the general issue of the Auditor General, we have worked closely with her and we will continue to work closely with her. There are many, many areas of agreement where we have already started to implement the changes she recommends, Mr. Speaker, or we will do that. There are a few areas where there are discrepancies and we will continue to work with that.

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

Ms. Christine Elliott: Obviously, you can tell by these responses that things have to change.

Yesterday’s report showed a complete policy failure, a failure to respect Ontario taxpayers and a failure to take care of our most vulnerable citizens. The callous response from the energy minister cannot stand. Premier, signal to Ontarians that you truly believe in accountability, that you believe in priorities, that you recognize the human cost of your policies, and fire your energy minister.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I reject the premise of the comment and the question, Mr. Speaker. We are working extremely hard to make sure that we do exactly that: to take the actions that we know are in the best interests of the people of this province.

As I have said, it is not unprecedented that there would be some small area of disagreement between the government and the Auditor General. I’m fairly certain that in 2002 Minister Bob Runciman did not lose his job, and Minister Bob Runciman, at that point, said that the auditor’s report was misleading and inaccurate. That’s what the minister said in 2002.

The reality is, it is extremely important that when there is a disagreement or when there is alignment or agreement, we are clear about that and we’re clear about what our actions are to make sure that we conserve energy, that we gather information about immunization, that we make sure child care is safe. All of those are the work that we’re doing right now.

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the Minister of Energy attacked the independent Auditor General of Ontario. Frankly, Speaker, I have never seen anything like this since I was elected to this Legislature. The minister said, “The electricity system is very complex; it’s very difficult to understand.” And he said that the auditor, “didn’t understand” the issues. Speaker, not only is that patronizing, but that is sexist. The Premier and her minister should know that Bonnie—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The deputy House leader will come to order. The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order. The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order. That’s two for the deputy House leader and two for the member from Nepean–Carleton—sorry, one. I have a list; I checked.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, you’re not.

Please finish.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier and her minister should know that Bonnie Lysyk spent 10 years at Manitoba Hydro.

Will this Premier do the right thing and fire her Minister of Energy for his shameful behaviour towards an independent officer of this Legislature?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Let me just say that the Auditor General of Ontario is a professional. She is perfectly capable of engaging with the government on any of the issues that she has an opinion on. The Minister of Energy and his ministry have worked closely with the Auditor General. We have a great respect for her, for the office and for the work she has done. The vast majority of the recommendations and the concerns she has raised, we are aligned with, we are working on or we were already working on before she wrote her report.

The fact is that it is not unprecedented for there to be some narrow area of disagreement in terms of the report of the Auditor General. The fact is that the numbers and the commentary about smart meters in the report were not signed off on by energy officials in the ministry. We will continue to work with the Auditor General until we get those final reports.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Smart meters have not brought down consumption, and instead of going down, bills are just going up. The minister wasted $1.9 billion on smart meters that are not smart, but instead of taking responsibility, he shoots the messenger by attacking the auditor.

The Liberals need to start taking responsibility for their incompetence. Will the Premier tell her incompetent minister that his job is over and fire that Minister of Energy?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Energy is very eager to speak to some of the specifics in the supplementary, but let me just address the issue of what smart meters have done or have not done.

Anthony Haines, who’s the president and CEO of Toronto Hydro, said this after the press conference that the AG did yesterday: “We’ve seen about a 3% shift off the peak here in the city of Toronto; 3% is 97 condominium buildings—97 condominiums buildings that came on the grid over the same period of time. We didn’t have to make any additional capital investment because that shift of that 3% provided the capacity within our grid. I often get asked the question, ‘My goodness, with all these condominiums going up, your grid must be absolutely stretched beyond belief.’ But, in fact, the time-of-use program has allowed for that capacity to be there.”

Mr. Speaker, the smart meters have allowed for that. They have allowed for that degree of conservation, and that is happening all over the province. They are working.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals wasted $2 billion on smart meters, but instead of taking any responsibility, the minister just denied the facts put forward by the Auditor General. And the Premier is just doing it again.

The Auditor General is an independent officer. It is her job to give Ontarians the straight facts, without politics. But instead of listening to the auditor, the Minister of Energy attacked her competence and Liberal ministers have been taking to Twitter to support that disgraceful attack.

Speaker, I was astounded by the Premier’s press conference this morning, where she actually defended his behaviour as well. How can this Premier, the first elected woman Premier of this province, not only support but pile onto this minister’s arrogant and sexist behaviour?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, one of the quotes from the auditor’s report states that “the benefits of smart metering have not been achieved....” I have some third-party validation for the fact that they have been achieved.

The Environmental Commissioner of Ontario stated that smart meters are “a shrewd investment that will benefit both individual consumers of power and society as a whole,” and “They are necessary—absolutely necessary for the proper functioning and future functioning of the distribution system for electricity.”

Brian Bentz, CEO of PowerStream, representing Aurora, Barrie, Markham and Vaughan: “Ontario is seen as a world leader in smart meter implementation.”

Don McCabe, vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture: “With the new time-of-use”—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —“all customers will pay closer to the actual cost for the power they use.... Advantages”—

Interjections.

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

Energy policies

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. For years, the Liberals have insisted that smart meters would reduce consumption, save people money and cost about a billion dollars. None of this is true, none of it. They haven’t reduced consumption, people are paying more, and the Liberals spent $2 billion, not $1 billion, on smart meters. This incompetence is obvious. It is incompetence, plain and simple, no matter how you cut it. Ontarians expect and deserve much better.

If the Premier won’t fire her minister for incompetence, will she at least fire him for his arrogance?

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, let me just—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me; it was the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, this is her new question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Fine. Sorry.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, let me just go to the substance of the question around the smart meters because, as I have said, the smart meters actually are having the effect that we were looking for, and that is they are reducing consumption. Otherwise, the head of Toronto Hydro wouldn’t be talking about 3% of power moving off grid. He wouldn’t be talking about the capacity having been increased in the city of Toronto because of smart meters.

The fact is that independent, impartial officers of the Legislature actually disagree. We’ve got the Environmental Commissioner supporting and saying that the smart meters are a very important aspect of the system, and we’ve got the Auditor General who has a different opinion. So there is a disagreement; we understand that.

We will continue to work with the Auditor General, and we will make it very clear what the costs actually are, because so far, estimates have only been—

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

Just before you start, I want to remind the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke that he was warned. I may have been hasty with that, but if he decides to say another thing, he will be named.

Carry on.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is nothing smart about smart meters. They went 100% over budget. They haven’t brought down bills. In fact, the auditor says ratepayers are paying significantly more, and off-peak prices are up more than 100%. Smart meters haven’t saved energy. In fact, the auditor says reductions “have not yet been achieved.”

Smart meters simply are not doing their job, but in spite of that, the minister still has his job. Why won’t the Premier give her Minister of Energy his walking papers and do right by the people of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: In 2013, the Ontario Energy Board commissioned a study by the expert energy—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —that showed commodity costs per customer are estimated to be approximately $12 per year lower because of load shifting and conservation driven by smart-meter-enabled time-of-use pricing. Over three years, that represents approximately $150 million in savings which have not been accounted for by the Auditor General. What’s more, an estimated 3.3% reduction—the same number used by Mr. Haines, from Toronto Hydro—in residential summer consumption was attributed to smart meter policies.

Smart meters represent an ongoing platform for which new applications are being added almost on a monthly basis. One of the expanding uses of smart meters is a wide range of already-in-service conservation and demand-management initiatives which are enabled by smart meters, suppressing the costs of electricity—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Since the Liberals were elected, they have staggered—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order—second time.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —from one energy boondoggle to another. Hydro bills have gone up by more than 300%. They cancelled two gas plants and wasted $1.1 billion. They overspent on their smart meter program by $1 billion.

The Liberal track record, frankly, is absolutely abysmal in the energy file. But no Liberal ever pays the price, Speaker. Will the Premier hold someone responsible—finally, for once—and fire her Minister of Energy?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, that leader of the opposition has voted for every price mitigation measure that was brought before this House, including in the budget that was brought forward first in May, then the actual budget, wherein we’re removing the debt retirement charge—a legacy tax from the Harris government—two years earlier than planned, saving the average family $70 per year in hydro bills.

The Ontario Energy Board is working on an OESP, an Ontario Electricity Support Program, which is in our budget and which will save them an additional $180 off their bills.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: That leader of the opposition third party voted against those provisions to mitigate rates for low- and modest-income people. Shame on her, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s disgusting, shameful, ignorant. You are an ignorant man.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order, and the leader of the third party will withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker, and I think the minister—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m here. Please stand and withdraw only.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw, Speaker.

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

Child care

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is also to the Premier. This has to be the morning after the worst day in the history of your government. I say this because yesterday was the worst and most scathing Auditor General’s report I have seen in my four terms at Queen’s Park.

The auditor confirmed that debt will cripple our government; smart meters have increased bills for seniors, small business owners and families; and procurement policies have hosed taxpayers.

But above all, since 2009, since you were the Minister of Education, this government has radically reduced inspections into licensed child care facilities in Ontario, putting 29,000 of Ontario’s children at risk. There is no Harper or Harris to blame anymore. It’s all with you.

Will you scrap Bill 10 and put more enforcement into the regulatory regime for our children in child care, or will you continue on this path of putting our children—

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: In terms of the accusation that you’re making, I think it’s really important to understand that Bill 10 is actually what allows us to fix some of the problems.

However, with respect to the backlog and inspections—and we are doing the inspections—we have actually added inspectors and we’ve already cut the backlog in half. With the assistance of Bill 10, we’ll actually be legally able to move to a risk-based inspection system.

We’ve also been able to introduce a dedicated team of enforcement officers who are dealing with complaints against the unlicensed home care sector, which means that there’s an enforcement unit that is doing that work, again freeing up time for inspectors to deal with licensing issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That’s not adequate at all. We all know what this really is: It’s a move to universal child care.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, come to order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We already know that this government has failed in its four mandates in order to protect children in licensed child care settings.

Today, there shouldn’t just be one minister who should be asked to resign or who should be fired. There are actually three: It’s the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Economic Development, and now the Minister of Education for continued negligence under Bill 10.

We now know that both the Auditor General and the Ombudsman—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Order. Minister of Government and Consumer Services, please come to order. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, please come to order.

Please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Premier: This isn’t just about education. It’s about failure in energy, failure in public procurement, and it’s about failure in education. This is a government that has gotten it wrong, and they need to have some accountability, and their bill that they passed through the House the other day isn’t going to cut it.

So I ask her again: Will you ensure that Bill 10 is repealed, and will you ensure our children’s safety by having more inspectors in licensed child care settings and allowing those that are, right now, unlicensed to regulate themselves? Yes or no?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and the member from Trinity–Spadina, come to order.

Minister.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you. I’m not surprised that the member opposite wants Bill 10 repealed. They voted against it because they thought we should delete all the new enforcement methods that are in it. They wanted us to delete them.

We believe we actually should have Bill 10 and have the enforcement tools to ensure that all forms of child care, be they licensed child care centres, licensed home care or unlicensed home care—we want them all to be safe.

Another thing that Bill 10 allows us to do is, it actually allows us to carry out another of the auditor’s recommendations. We will be able, with Bill 10, to require a vulnerable sector criminal reference check which we have not been able to do previously. With Bill 10, we have greater capacity to make sure our children are safe, no matter what form of child care the parent chooses.

Government accountability

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Let’s look at the front bench of the Liberal government. Ornge air ambulance wasted millions and put Ontarians at risk, but that minister got a promotion. MaRS is a boondoggle and the costs keep going up. Now, we see $8 billion wasted on P3s that are nothing but sweetheart deals for Liberal friends, but that minister is still sitting on the front bench.

The Liberals wasted $1.1 billion on gas plants and not a single Liberal lost their job. And $2 billion has been wasted on smart meters that don’t reduce consumption or bills. That’s $10 billion, Speaker. That’s almost our entire deficit right there, but no one has taken responsibility and no one has paid the price.

Is this Premier so arrogant and irresponsible that she thinks her front bench can waste billions, fail Ontarians and never be held accountable?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In terms of accountability, I have to say, I was very, very surprised because we’re talking about accountability of government and scrutiny on government. I was very surprised to see the NDP not support—vote against—Bill 8, which actually increases scrutiny. This is a party that goes on and on about the need to expand the scrutiny on government, so I would have thought they would have voted for Bill 8.

On the issues of building transit and transportation infrastructure, which is one of the things the leader of the third party’s talking about, and on the issue of conservation, which is what smart meters are part of, we are doing everything in our power to make sure we build the infrastructure that’s needed. I was at the UP Express announcement today. That’s a piece of infrastructure that has been built and has been possible because of our procurement policies.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Weak cheese Liberal legislation is exactly why this province is in the mess that it’s in, and we’re proud not to support that kind of nonsense.

Apparently, though, being a Liberal minister is just about the safest job in Ontario. The Liberals are cutting health care, but the minister just denies the facts. The Liberals are cutting schools, but the minister just denies the facts. The Liberals are not inspecting long-term care homes, but the minister just denies the facts. The Liberals wasted $2 billion on smart meters that didn’t do their job, but the minister just denies the facts. The Liberals wasted $8 billion on P3s that are just sweetheart deals for insiders, but the minister just denies the facts. The Liberals wasted over a billion dollars on gas plants and deleted the evidence and not a single Liberal faces a job loss.

Just how many chances does a Liberal minister get before the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. I would ask during the round of questions that the members from Trinity–Spadina and Barrie do not engage in a conversation with the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, which means the three of you have been warned.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You just don’t believe what it looks like from here.

Premier.

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

Not one of us on this side of the House denies the facts and denies the complexity of the issues that we’re tackling. We do not deny that it is a challenge right now for Ontario that we have to build infrastructure—we have to build transit, transportation infrastructure, roads and bridges across the province—and that we need to do that in a way that allows the private sector to work with us, because government doesn’t have the project-management capacity to do all of that building. So we are doing it in a way that allows those projects to get built, whether it’s hospitals or schools or transit projects.

We don’t deny the fact that there’s complexity involved in gathering immunization information or implementing electronic health records.

All of those things are complex, and I actually would welcome an exchange of ideas across the floor that acknowledged that complexity and didn’t—

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

Interjections.

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

Be seated, please. Be seated, please.

New question.

Pork industry

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.

Minister, the pork industry is an important part of our diverse agricultural industry here in Ontario. Made up of family farms dedicated to producing safe, nutritious pork, this industry contributes over $5.6 billion to the provincial economy.

My riding of Halton is home to a large agribusiness sector that is a key pillar of our local economy. Our farmers are responsible for providing residents, both inside and outside of the riding, with a wide variety of local, fresh and delicious food, and pork is a key product.

When it comes to local food, Ontario pork is definitely a fan favourite, with seven out of 10 consumers regularly buying pork in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please inform the House on how our government is helping the pork industry adapt to the challenges faced today while evolving to meet the pressing needs of tomorrow?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Halton for the question and for her commitment to the agriculture sector in the wonderful riding of Halton.

Our government’s support for Ontario pork producers is clear. Since 2010, we’ve supported research and development on innovative insurance products for the province’s hog sector; we increased the sector’s ability to execute emergency responses; we’ve been expanding the Ontario Pork brand at retail and foodservice; we commenced industry-wide enhancements to biosecurity across the province, including a special intake under Growing Forward 2 to assist with PED’s impact earlier this year, and to mitigate this disease as we head into the fall and winter, representing about $9 million in funding.

My ministry has worked and will continue to work with our industry partners, ensuring the vitality of Ontario’s pork industry.

In the spirit of the season, members should enjoy an Ontario ham with an Ontario turkey this Christmas season.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the minister for his answer.

Ontario’s pork industry is resilient, having faced challenges like PED and Russian sanctions, and time and time again they come out strongly.

In addition, our government’s swift response to PED has empowered producers and industry partners to carry out a dedicated and systematic approach to biosecurity that is unequalled across North America.

From small family farms to major operations, 2,500 pork-producing farms contribute over $1 billion to Ontario’s farm cash receipts, helping to build a strong, successful agri-food sector in Ontario.

Minister, last year, Premier Wynne issued the agri-food growth challenge and called on the sector to double its rate of growth and create 120,000 new jobs.

Considering my riding of Halton’s vast agri-food industry, can the minister please inform the House on how our government is working with the pork industry to help it meet the Premier’s challenge moving forward?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for the supplementary.

It’s a big goal, but every day I see farmers, including those in the pork industry, embracing that challenge.

I can tell you that we’re happy to support Ontario’s pork branding and marketing to help meet that challenge. Just recently I announced that our government is providing Ontario pork with up to $2 million to help marketing efforts. These funds support a campaign that encourages more people to choose Ontario pork where they shop, whether it’s at a butcher shop, a grocery store, restaurants or farmers’ market. Ontarians are happy when they can access delicious local food, and our farmers are happy when the demand for their product increases.

Working together with Ontario’s pork producers, our government is strengthening Ontario’s agri-food sector and ensuring that all Ontarians have access to excellent, locally produced food.

Smart meters

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is to the Minister of Energy. Minister, yesterday, when you were pressed by the reporters on why the public should accept your numbers while rejecting those of the Auditor General, you shamelessly said: “I’m not going to have a further debate on these details in public.” Well, Minister, I’ve got news for you: When you blow a billion dollars, you’re accountable to the public, and you’ll be asked questions in public.

The Auditor General stands by her numbers. We the opposition, the press and the public stand by her numbers. We all know you blew $1.9 billion on smart meters.

Will you rise in your place, retract your comments attacking the Auditor General and her report, and apologize for so egregiously mismanaging the smart meter program?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I didn’t get quiet for you to carry on, and you are on very thin ice right now. It’s an old trick but I was here before you.

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I have a quote here. It says, “I’m telling you, [the smart meter program] was a deal changer.” And “That smart meter program is the best thing we’ve done in the decade.” That’s from Anthony Haines, president and CEO of Toronto Hydro.

Again, Brian Bentz, CEO of PowerStream—Aurora, Barrie, Markham and Vaughan, all communities with PowerStream’s responsibility: “Ontario is seen as a world leader in smart meter implementation. PowerStream continues to be a strong supporter and advocate of the provincial government’s smart meter initiative and recognizes it as being a key component to further developing Ontario’s conservation and demand management programs.”

Smart meters have been instrumental in enabling us to move forward with our conservation programs that are saving businesses and families hundreds of millions of dollars a year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, your failure to take responsibility for the smart meter fiasco shows how complacent and arrogant your government has become. This smart meter disaster is another billion-dollar scandal. Your attacks on the AG are unprecedented. Your unwillingness to take responsibility right here and now proves that you’ve held power for too long.

Minister, will you do the ethical thing—take responsibility for your actions and your failures and this smart meter mess—do the honourable thing and tender your resignation?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I have a professional disagreement with the Auditor General—that’s number one.

In terms of disagreeing with an Auditor General, the PCs say that disputing the Auditor General’s findings is unprecedented and it’s a resigning issue. They clearly don’t remember former Public Safety and Security Minister Bob Runciman calling an Auditor General report “misleading and inaccurate.” I would never use those terms, Mr. Speaker. We had a professional disagreement, and they should look at their own record before they start throwing stones.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s about the third time, so the member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned. For those who don’t remember: no more chances.

New question.

Infrastructure program funding

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question this morning is for the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Yesterday’s Auditor General’s report made clear that since 2005, the government has overpaid $8 billion of hard-earned taxpayers’ money on P3 infrastructure projects; $6.5 billion of that wasted money came from the higher private sector borrowing costs that P3s incur.

Earlier today, the Premier toured one of those P3 projects, the spur line of the Union Pearson Express project. Financing for that project was provided by some of Canada’s largest and most profitable banks. How does this government justify picking the pockets of the people of Ontario to fatten the profits of Canada’s largest banks?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Economic Development, Employment and Infrastructure.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Let me begin by thanking the Auditor General for the recommendations that she did make with regard to Infrastructure Ontario. I have a letter from the board of Infrastructure Ontario that was submitted to me yesterday, saying that they will indeed look into and work with all of those recommendations.

What I can say, though, is that it’s incorrect to suggest, as the member is suggesting, that $8 billion has somehow been lost in these projects. The fact of the matter is, you can’t point to a cost without also including the benefit. The benefit, Mr. Speaker—and it’s in the report—is $14 billion in savings as a result of costs that have been shifted to the private sector, which means, when you analyze that with the costs, it’s about $6.6 billion in net savings to Ontarians as a result of the 74 AFP projects that we have presided over. That’s the full story. That’s what the member should be referring to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: The minister can try to spin this all he wants, but the auditor made it clear there was no solid evidence for going the privatization route on these 74 projects. In fact, her predecessor said the same thing in 2012 about the Union Pearson Express spur line. He said very clearly that the numbers used to justify the P3 were basically made up.

The government didn’t listen then; it refuses to listen now. The government has already wasted $8 billion on public-private partnerships. How many more billions will the government waste before it listens to the advice of not one, but two Auditors General?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I know this member to be a sensible member of this Legislature, so it sort of surprises me when he would throw out a cost without also referring to the benefit. So I refer him to page 203 of the report, where it clearly outlines the differences between what he’s saying and what the auditor has said.

The auditor’s report indicates on page 203 that there are $46.6 billion that have been spent under the traditional program. Under AFP, those costs are $40 billion, which is a saving of $6.6 billion. A saving is a saving. You’ve got to include the benefits when you talk about the costs. It’s that simple.

Senior Achievement Awards

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. Recently, the minister, along with some of my colleagues, attended the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards right here at Queen’s Park, honouring 20 outstanding seniors who, after the age of 65, have made significant contributions to their communities.

Seniors across Ontario have given a lifetime of service towards building this country, our province and their communities. They are part of a proud history of giving back and are lifelong contributors both in their working life and now as volunteers. I was humbled and inspired by the remarkable achievements of all the recipients.

Would the minister kindly please provide us with additional details regarding this wonderful event and program and how Ontario continues to recognize and celebrate our seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I thank the member from Burlington for the question, a good question, actually.

Celebrating our seniors is part of Ontario’s commitment to build a successful, compassionate province where everyone has the opportunity to connect, contribute and enjoy a high quality of life. We have celebrated the extensive contributions of Ontario seniors for the past 28 years with the Ontario Senior Achievement Awards, and each year we are reminded of just how much they have done for us.

Along with the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, the Honourable Elizabeth Dowdeswell, I had the pleasure of presenting 20 incredible seniors with this honour. For every hour and every act of dedication these seniors have made, our quality of life improves, our community spirit grows and our province is made stronger because of the extraordinary work that they do on our behalf.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’d like to thank the minister for his response. I’m delighted to inform this Legislature that an outstanding senior from my riding of Burlington, Mr. William K. Ferris, was celebrated at the ceremony.

Applause.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: Indeed.

Mr. Ferris has volunteered with the Canadian Red Cross for more than 20 years. He has taken on various leadership roles and assisted with deployments to the Mississippi and Manitoba floods and northern Ontario wildfires, as well as Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Ike aftermaths in the United States. He’s quite an exceptional person, as you can see. I was very humbled by the accomplishments of this incredible senior from my community and I was pleased to recently congratulate him on receiving this important award.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister please tell us more about the recipients who received this wonderful honour?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have to thank the member for Burlington for her very strong advocacy and representation on behalf of the seniors in her community.

Seniors over the age of 65 who qualify for this award have contributed in many different fields, including art, literature, community service, volunteerism, education, environment, fitness, humanitarian and others. These exemplary seniors have taught others how to overcome late-life depression. They have brought the gift of music to young and old alike. They have preserved beauty and nature in their communities for all to enjoy and so much more.

The awards they have received are symbolic of how much we respect, honour and admire them all. They represent the collective wisdom and compassion that have brightened the lives of many others and their accomplishments are an inspiration to us all. We will continue to do more for seniors, Speaker.

Government accountability

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Economic Development. Minister, over the past few months, you’ve used bafflegab and gobbledygook in this House to deflect from your utter mismanagement and incompetence while taking taxpayers for a ride to MaRS.

Let’s review your litany of malfeasance: You couldn’t loan money to MaRS, so you changed the law. MaRS still couldn’t lease the building to 80%, so you broke the law—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw. I would not advise him to say that other thing he just said. Withdraw, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

So you bended the law that you had just made. MaRS got the loan, but couldn’t make the monthly payments, so you had another ministry make the interest payments for MaRS. Then you bailed out ARE to get back to square one.

Minister, why should anyone in this province have any trust in you to turn this mess around?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Litany of personal insults aside, I’m pleased to respond to this question. Again, I want to thank the auditor for her coverage of the MaRS issue in the Auditor General’s report. She spent a great deal of time rolling out the narrative on this from the very beginning, right through to today. I think that’s a valuable piece of work because what it does is indicate the challenges. It verifies that that building would have been left one more winter rotting in the ground, which would have created some great expense, and it indicates when and why the government had to step in to provide support to MaRS.

I’m looking forward later today to getting together with our expert panel in announcing a positive step forward. I hope that the member wants to join us in putting this project on to solid footing. I suspect he has alternative agendas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, I was at your press conference. You did not welcome the Auditor General’s report whatsoever.

It’s quite clear that you have an impeccable record of skirting your responsibility. And now you have the gall to question the Auditor General’s numbers yesterday in a press conference, and that she got it wrong.

Minister, I know that MaRS stands for medical and research services, but I think it’s more like to really mean the minister’s annual repeated screw-ups. I’ll be at the technical meeting today, and—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’m going to ask him to temper his language.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I would never respond by attacking the member’s integrity. His own party will do that for us, I suspect, because they tend to do that on a regular basis, and that’s fine.

What I will say, Mr. Speaker, is I am looking forward to the announcement we will be making this afternoon. This project needs to be put on solid footing. We need to protect the taxpayer investment in this project. The announcement we’re going to make later today will do just that.

We need to see this project be finished because that’s going to create jobs, that’s going to create economic growth, and that’s going to help build a stronger innovation climate in the city of Toronto and the province of Ontario. We’re looking forward to making that announcement.

I don’t expect to have the member’s support on this. That member wanted this building to rot in the ground. We’re going to build it up. We’re going to create jobs. We’re go

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2014-12-10
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p41 s1 2014-12-10 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	5a31e18713178a8e96d308a32217fec8fe18d003

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).