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

December 3, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-03 (PDF)

L130 - Thu 3 Dec 2015 / Jeu 3 déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 December 2015 Jeudi 3 décembre 2015

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

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

Introduction of Visitors

Wearing of buttons

George Stamou

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Energy policies

Privatization of public assets

Government’s record

Energy policies

Home care

Consumer protection

Hydro One

Children’s aid societies

Correctional services

Privatization of public assets

Social Assistance Management System

Access to information

Hydro One

Ring of Fire

Visitors

Deferred Votes

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Halton courthouse

Season’s greetings

Guru Nanak Dev Ji Gurpurab

Land transfer tax

Riding of Nickel Belt

Sober Steering

Hanukkah

Ontario Senior Achievement Awards

Patricia Hung

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on General Government

Motions

Sign-language

interpretation

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

International Volunteer Day

Correction of record

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

International Volunteer Day

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

International Day of Persons with Disabilities

International Volunteer Day

Petitions

Health care funding

Health care funding

Water fluoridation

Privatization of public assets

Privatisation des biens publics

GO Transit

Lung health

Health care

Lung health

Hydro rates

Ontario Northland Transportation Commission

Lung health

Private Members’ Public Business

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Contraventions Causing Death or Serious Bodily Harm), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant le Code de la route (contraventions ayant causé un décès ou des blessures corporelles graves)

Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 allégeant les formalités administratives pour les commerçants de véhicules automobiles

Employment Standards Amendment Act (Temporary Help Agencies), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d’emploi (agences de placement temporaire)

Highway Traffic Amendment Act (Contraventions Causing Death or Serious Bodily Harm), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant le Code de la route (contraventions ayant causé un décès ou des blessures corporelles graves)

Cutting Red Tape for Motor Vehicle Dealers Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 allégeant les formalités administratives pour les commerçants de véhicules automobiles

Employment Standards Amendment Act (Temporary Help Agencies), 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d’emploi (agences de placement temporaire)

Orders of the Day

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

Royal assent / Sanction royale

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Smart Growth for Our Communities Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 pour une croissance intelligente de nos collectivités

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 1, 2015, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act / Projet de loi 73, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur les redevances d’aménagement et la

Loi sur l’aménagement du territoire.

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

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning to you. Here we are on December 3—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Good morning, Percy.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Indeed. No matter the day, the week or the month, it’s always an honour to stand here in Ontario’s provincial Parliament on behalf of the good people in the riding of Windsor—Tecumseh.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It’s good to have you here.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Thank you. Speaker, I have to tell you that as a relatively new member of this House, it was a real eye-opener for me to take

part in committee hearings and a clause-by-clause review of Bill 73, the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. We heard from quite a few stakeholders, and they put forward some great ideas.

I just assumed that when we consult with the people whose lives and livelihoods will be affected by the legislation that we bring forth, we would take their points of view very seriously. Imagine my disappointment when it came time to go through the bill clause by clause.

Based on what we heard at committee, we in the NDP put forward dozens of amendments; however, very few were approved. It was the same thing for the amendments brought to the table by the Conservatives: the Liberal majority on the committee voted most of them down. It makes you wonder—at least it made me second-guess the entire process. We, the NDP and the Conservatives, fought to have the delegations given much more time for their presentations than the Liberals had originally said they would have. I guess that in itself was a victory.

I just assumed, since we would hear more from the delegations, that we would actually listen to what they had to say and, if it made sense, we would adopt it as an amendment to the bill. Well, live and learn, I guess.

For example, the mayor of Barrie came to the committee. Jeff Lehman is also the chair of the Large Urban Mayor’s Caucus of Ontario, LUMCO; he represents the mayors of the 27 largest cities in our province. He told us about Barrie and their very unique issue. Council there has been working on a deal with developers that would see them—the developers—pay, on a voluntary basis, more than what is called for under the traditional formula for development fees. But the bill says you can’t do that; you can’t have voluntary fees paid over and above development fees. This agreement, which was negotiated in an open, transparent and collaborative manner, was put at risk by Bill 73.

You see, the developers want to open up a chunk of land in the south of Barrie, and the city wanted it to happen but didn’t have enough money to pay for the roads, sewers, bridges and storm water retention ponds that would be required, if the development was to proceed in a timely and cost-efficient way. So, through negotiation, they worked out a voluntary agreement as part of the municipality’s asset management plan. They spent a great deal of time analyzing the project and the cost of it, and apportioned who would pay for what and when the plan would proceed.

Yes, there would be tax increases to help pay for it, but in order to make sure it happened, the developers agreed to prepay development charges to front-end the cost, and an agreement was entered into that would see the city get more money on a per-unit basis that would not be refunded to the developers. But wording in the proposed bill is, like, “No, no; can’t do that,” even though the city’s—the taxpayers’—interests were balanced with those of the developers.

Mayor Lehman told us flat out that this bill not only will cause great hardship to the city of Barrie but to the regional economy as well. Make no bones about it: The mayor said the city cannot handle the financial shortfall that this bill would impose on them. He wanted his area to be grandfathered, to be protected, because of the time the region had already invested in this plan and because of the financial arrangements that had been freely negotiated with the development community.

LUMCO, the large urban mayors’ caucus, was in full support of Barrie’s request, and that was testified to by the mayor of Oakville, Rob Burton, who also presented to the committee. They both argued that growth should pay for growth, and—like the presentation from the president of AMO, the mayor of Tecumseh, my good friend Gary McNamara—they all feel, as did other presenters, that there should not be any services handcuffed by a 10% discount and that there should be an end to the ineligible services list.

But I’m getting ahead of myself. Let me get back to the Barrie example by telling you about a similar case brought to the committee by the city of Pickering. The director of corporate services, who doubles as the city solicitor in Pickering, is Paul Bigioni. He told us what impact the proposed bill would have on his community. In Pickering, they have something on the planning table called the Seaton lands. This is a huge proposal. It’s one of the largest greenfield developments in all of Canada at the moment. Within six years, Seaton is planned to have 13,000 new housing units occupied by 36,000 new residents.

Picture this, Speaker: Currently, the population of Pickering is about 94,000; imagine adding 36,000 more folks there by 2021. On top of that, just picture this construction site: more than seven million square feet of retail, commercial, institutional and other non-residential development—seven million square feet. That’s what Seaton is. You talk about places to grow—this is huge.

Think about it for a moment. Imagine the bulldozers and all that heavy equipment. Imagine the number of jobs that would be created for the construction trades needed for this development, a massive infrastructure project. Think about it: fire halls, recreational facilities, libraries, roads, storm sewers—you name it.

But here’s the rub: Pickering, like Barrie, has negotiated a deal with the province, the private landowners where the Seaton development is planned—so that the cost of providing the needed infrastructure is shared among all the parties. But part of that deal, just like the one in Barrie, calls for voluntary fees over and above the regular development charges, and this bill will put an end to any and such agreements.

Again, Pickering asked to be exempted or grandfathered. Mr. Bigioni called this

section of the bill dangerous because it could nullify all of the hard work that has gone into Pickering’s proposal. He told us he doubted the original intent of the smart growth bill was to curtail growth; in other words, to complicate it, to kill it.

The massive scope of this proposal, a proposal, by the way, that is no ordinary traditional subdivision agreement—Mr. Bigioni called it a provincial plan, a provincial plan created by the province under the Ontario Planning and Development Act. It’s part of the central Pickering development plan, and it’s one of only a handful of such plans ever created by the province. It’s good policy.

The rub, again: When I asked them whether that deal had been signed, sealed and delivered, he said no, adding that it had taken months to negotiate it, was agreed to in principle by all the parties, including—get this—the province. But maybe, maybe, it’s a case of the right hand not knowing what the left hand is up to. But the architects of this bill will nullify this huge agreement in principle.

During clause-by-clause, I reminded the government members that they held seats in Barrie, in Pickering and Oakville, where Mayor Burton was from. He testified, too, as being in total agreement with it. We suggested a recess in the hearing proceedings. The member from Oxford suggested we take a 20-minute time out to allow the government members to consult with their local members who would be affected by any political fallout from this bill if the bill scuttled these agreements in principle in Barrie and in Pickering.

Well, we were hoping they would contact them and get a handle on what would be the fallout if these projects weren’t exempted or grandfathered. We took that 20-minute break. Now, guess what? I don’t know if indeed the member from Barrie was consulted, or the member from Ajax–Pickering or the members from the Oakville area were consulted or not, but I do know that the government members, when they got back after a recess, would not support our amendments asking that those properties be exempted from this bill.

I’m no fortune teller, but I would guess there could well be political fallout if indeed those massive projects fail because this government didn’t do what their municipal representative said was an absolute necessity.

Let’s get back to the presentation from the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. The principle of development fees is that growth should pay for growth; at least that’s the municipal principle. I drank the municipal Kool-Aid for seven years as a city councillor and a board member, not only with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities but also I served as vice-president and chair of the large urban caucus at AMO.

I believe that growth should pay for growth. I’m not alone in that, Speaker. I’m sure many members of this House feel the same way, especially those who had some municipal council experience. That’s why I sat up and listened closely when the AMO president was speaking. He called for an end to the list of services that are currently exempt from development fees, and he called for an end to the list of services that get a 10% discount from development fees.

I was hoping that the government members would see this smart growth bill—because that’s the title of it: the Smart Growth for Our Communities Act. But Mayor McNamara represents 444 communities in Ontario. He knows what it takes to pay for growth, and he knows what his communities need in order to grow. But for the most part his presentation fell on deaf ears because the government members don’t drink the municipal Kool-Aid; they get their drinks from the development community, which doesn’t like paying the fees they’re charged now, let alone being told they have to pay a little bit more.

We also heard from the Municipal Finance Officers’ Association of Ontario. Now, these are the good folks who put together preliminary budget proposals for the mayors and councillors. They pointed out that only 204 of the 444 municipalities in Ontario actually collect development fees. Although this new act allows for greater recovery of transit costs, they also reminded us that of those 204 municipalities which collect development fees, only 37 of them—37 of the 204—actually have municipal transit systems. So the bottom line on that is, even though there are some improvements in the bill, it won’t mean much to a whole bunch of other municipal governments in Ontario.

We heard from the regional chair from Waterloo, Ken Seiling. He’s also the chair of MARCO, the group which represents the regional chairs and mayors of the larger single-tier municipalities in the province. Chair Seiling says that it has been very clear for a long time in Ontario that growth doesn’t pay for growth. He is of the view that in the region of Waterloo, for example, development charges are expected to fund only 36% of the growth-related infrastructure over the next 10 years—36%.

He also had a very bad experience with the Ontario Municipal Board, which basically tore up his community’s official plan and he was abandoned—abandoned—by the province when it came time to repeal that OMB decision. That’s despite the fact, Speaker, that his official plan was in complete compliance with Ontario growth plan statements and policies—complete compliance. This all led to a five-year delay in the region’s growth plan.

Speaker, we in the NDP tried to get real changes to the OMB but were rebuffed by the government members, who stated that there will be another time, another place for those discussions. Similarly, we tried time and time again to engage the government members in a real dialogue on inclusionary zoning. Oh, how we tried. Again, all attempts were turned away with the promise that there will be another time and another place for that discussion. They say their Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy will be ready sometime in the new year. We’ve heard that all before. Our member for Parkdale–High Park has had numerous private members’ bills adopted and sent to committee and never heard from again.

Speaker, if inclusionary zoning had been adopted the first time Ms. DiNovo brought it to this House, we would have seen the creation of 12,000 new affordable housing units in Toronto alone—12,000 new affordable units that we missed out on because of the government delay in bringing in any kind of legislation to deal with inclusionary zoning in Ontario.

Several delegations came to us about inclusionary zoning; for example, ACORN, which represents low- to modest-income people on social justice issues. Alejandra Ruiz Vargas reminded us that we are in a crisis situation in Ontario when it comes to affordable housing. She didn’t see inclusionary zoning as a magic bullet, but she knew it was one tool to help the situation. We all in this House should recognize that as well. What are we afraid of?

Toronto Councillor Mike Layton came to the committee and reminded us that he has unanimous consent from his council colleagues for a made-in-Toronto form of inclusionary zoning that he was asking for. He wants the City of Toronto Act to be amended to make that a possibility.

The member from Etobicoke–Lakeshore, Mr. Milczyn, has a private member’s bill calling for inclusionary zoning. He’s a former city councillor in Toronto. He knows it’s just one tool that municipal planners could choose to use if it would make sense for their community. So let’s get on with it. We in the NDP caucus will be supporting his bill or any bill that the government brings forth on inclusionary zoning.

This bill is flawed when it comes to smart growth, meaning we could have accomplished so much more with some well-thought-out amendments. But having said that, the bill does merit support, as flawed as it is, and that’s because it’s a small step in the right direction.

We could have done more for smaller, rural municipalities. They need flexibility in their planning. If a developer shows up at the town hall or at the township office and makes a proposal, they want to jump on it. They don’t have time to jump through the hoops that this bill puts in front of them. We can’t have one cookie-cutter approach that’s designed by someone in an office in downtown Toronto.

Our northern communities need growth, and they don’t get a lot of opportunities. They don’t have the money for asset management plans and official plan updates. That takes time away from their small staff, who have other duties in a scaled-down office. Yet we insist on them doing what the larger municipal staff are expected to do. Flexibility is the key to their success.

You know, Speaker, we also stood up for the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. They said if the bill puts a citizen member on the planning advisory committee, if it’s in an area of high agricultural use, they wanted that member to have a farming background. We asked for that, and again we were rebuffed by the members of the government party on that committee.

We asked, again, for more use of more flexibility in our northern communities, just like we asked for communities which had agreements with developers for voluntary fees above the regular development fees to be exempted or grandfathered, and our concerns were rejected. It’s all there in the committee minutes in Hansard.

We know, on our side of the House, that leaders at the municipal order of government know better what their community needs are than we do down here in our little bubble at Queen’s Park. They know what they can charge by way of development fees without strangling the local home builders and bringing their growth plan to a stuttering halt. They know what they need to pay for growth. They know how to best work with their developers. They know that a cookie-cutter approach which works best in the largest communities won’t necessarily work in the smaller ones.

We tried driving home those points to the government members on the committee, but with little success. We tried to convince them to use a

section of the smart growth plan to rein in some of the powers being abused by the Ontario Municipal Board, but they would hear none of that, promising a more complete review of the OMB somewhere down the road.

I’ve got to tell you, Speaker, the government members didn’t think that a lot of the suggestions we made had merit; we thought they did. We supported most of the amendments put forward by the Conservative members as well. That’s not to say that we didn’t support anything that the government did, because we also voted for pretty well all of the government amendments that they made to the bill, minor in nature that they were. But this bill, as I say—I’ll repeat myself: It’s a small step in the right direction, and it does merit support. Thank you for your time this morning.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to congratulate the member for Windsor–Tecumseh on his reflections on the amendments that were offered on Bill 73. He took us through a very insightful description of what happens in committees as stakeholders come to present their perspectives on the issues that are outlined in the bill. Some of the things he talked about, particularly related to the issue of growth paying for growth, are very relevant to my community of London.

Certainly the discounted services for soft growth, the 10% discount, excluding parks, recreation facilities and libraries, meant a $5.3-million tab for the taxpayers of the city of London, because the costs for these facilities were not included in the calculation of the development charge.

The member talked about the presentations from municipal leaders who were urging an end to other exempted services from development charges, like museums, like theatres, like art galleries and like park land acquisition. Certainly we know these are the kinds of services that do help communities grow and that should be reflected in the calculation of development charges.

Secondly, he talked about inclusionary zoning and about the number of people who came to committee to urge that amendments address inclusionary zoning. This is a huge issue for my community. We saw an 18% increase in the number of singles and couples with no children waiting for affordable housing. Inclusionary zoning would allow my municipality to increase the stock of affordable housing and address some of those wait-lists.

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

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I wouldn’t normally get up to respond to the member opposite, although I was touched by some of his observations. This isn’t a perfect bill, right? Sometimes when you’re putting legislation in place for 444 municipalities, it’s difficult to get everything exactly right. There are always some anomalies. There may well be some way around that that we can look at. Perhaps those that have already negotiated a deal, you know—I’m going to ask my staff to look at that. I’m not going to make any commitment here today, but I’m going to ask them to look at that.

I’m always impressed with the member opposite. He seems to have a good grasp of municipal issues. Not everybody in this House has a good grasp. My learned colleague from the Tory side is one who has a good grasp of municipal issues and reminds me of my responsibilities all the time, which I’m always appreciative of.

But the bill is, on balance, thoughtful and reasonably comprehensive. It didn’t catch everything. It didn’t catch inclusive zoning, and it didn’t catch long-term housing. There are some things—it didn’t catch the OMB—all of which, we would acknowledge, need to be addressed. I think in our conversations, both in the House and privately, I’ve indicated to the member opposite that we intended to transgress some distance on that in the not-too-distant future.

I wanted to add that note of optimism and to thank the honourable member for his thoughtful comments. I appreciate his critique, always. It was useful for me to hear his words today, which is why I came into the House today.

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

Mrs. Gila Martow: I’m happy to rise and make a few comments on Bill 73.

I would remind the Minister of Housing and Municipal Affairs that amendments were put forward to make this bill better. Yes, it’s not perfect—no bill probably is—but amendments were put forward to improve this bill, and they were refused by the government. And now we’re hearing from so many stakeholders, developers, municipal councillors and all kinds of groups in the community who advocate for things like more bicycle parking on properties; they want to see affordable housing in the province. How can that be done if we’re not all working together to make sure that happens?

Development fees don’t materialize out of thin air. They do not come out of the profits of developers. I think that’s the game everybody wants to play here. They come from the cost of purchasing a unit. That means higher mortgage expenses, higher fees, and it means that sometimes people are buying a new property and paying such high development fees—we hear in the neighbourhood of $60,000—that they don’t recoup on resale value.

If they have to be transferred a year later and move somewhere else, they could actually end up selling the property for less than they purchased it for and not just have to start where they left off, but they have to start further behind. That makes housing far less affordable.

As far as the parliamentary assistant, he is on record as saying that he supports moving from a five-year review to a 10-year review. I can quote what he said: “So the 10-year review period, I think it’s—I know that some of the municipal politicians in my riding, and others, really appreciate that change....” That change wasn’t supported by the government. And he said himself that oftentimes, they would do a five-year review just to have to start all over again.

Yes, it’s not a perfect bill; amendments were put forward to make it better, and they weren’t listened to.

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

M me France Gélinas: I appreciated the comments that were made by the MPP from Windsor–Tecumseh; he basically summed it up. You have to look at this in perspective: We have a government that has been in power for 12 years. For those 12 years, they’ve always said that they wanted an OMB review. For the last year and a half, they have held consultations on land use planning and development charges, and they have heard every single comment that the member from Windsor–Tecumseh brought forward this morning—they heard those through the consultation.

Then, what they brought forward is this tiny, weeny little bill. Sure, it goes in the right direction when we talk about development charges, but it does nothing to address the long-promised review of OMB. So the member was sort of surprised, because when we opened it up after second reading for deputants to come and do presentations, he heard basically the same thing that had been heard over the year and a half that the consultations took place. Those same issues were brought back.

The NDP put forward amendments to the bill so that what had been heard would be included into the bill. A bill doesn’t get—it’s not an incremental process. When a bill goes through the House, it is a huge process and they don’t come back on a regular basis. Those were not NDP amendments; those were amendments that, for a year and a half of consultations, the people of Ontario wanted to see. Those were amendments that the people of Ontario came to committee to tell us that we needed to do. But the Liberals don’t listen. They went ahead with their little bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now return to the member for Windsor–Tecumseh. You have a two-minute response.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I’d like to respond to the member for London West. I think she hit it on the head when she started off by saying that growth should pay for growth. That’s a concept we should all buy into. If you want to build, you should be paying a fair share of the cost that the municipality has to provide for you to open up that lot.

She also talked about inclusionary zoning. Again, I respect the minister; he says it’s going to be coming in his Long-Term Affordable Housing Strategy sometime next year.

I really hope that we can all work together in this House, the parties on both sides, and finally come up with—it’s just another tool; it’s not a magic bullet. But, like I say, if they would have brought it in 12 years ago, when we first started talking about it, we would have had—according to Jennifer Keesmaat, the chief planner for the city of Toronto—12,000 new affordable housing units within the city boundaries. That’s just in Toronto, not the rest of the province. So if we can think of that as another tool that’ll help us out, we should go for it.

As I said, I have great respect for the minister; his heart is in the right place. I just want him to move a little quicker on some of the things that we feel are important in this House.

The member from Thornhill, thank you, and to the member from Nickel Belt as well. When we talk about the OMB review, we all know it’s overdue. We’ve all seen the abuses, and we’ve got to do something about that.

I heard the other day, when they were bringing in closure on other bills, how members say, “Let’s get this to committee, where the real work is done.” Well, trust me, after my one experience at committee, there’s no real work that gets done. You listen to the people, you make a lot of notes—my stack of paperwork on this bill was this high. But when it came time to what we heard, going into the amendments, from the other parties, it didn’t happen.

Thank you for your time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Mr. McMeekin has moved third reading of Bill 73,

An Act to amend the Development Charges Act, 1997 and the Planning Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a—

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Deferred vote? Okay.

A recorded vote is required. It will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

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

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 2, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I now refer to the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m glad to be back on day two to continue with my leadoff for our party. I guess I have 48 minutes left to continue with my leadoff, and I’m proud to do so.

Yesterday, remember, I had just started talking about how technology has changed and how we continually need to ensure that the legislation to protect the information in our computer systems—online, in the cloud, wherever we have it—is as current as possible; and as we move further down the road to implementing a total move to computerized recordkeeping, that we ensure that the legislation is maintained. I’m glad this legislation has been reread in Legislature and that we’re actually proceeding in debating it.

As I said, this is the leadoff for second reading. I’m sure we have a few more hours of debate before it goes to committee. We just heard from the member for Windsor–Tecumseh, that when it hits committee, it’s kind of, I guess, frustrating on the opposition’s part that we partake in these discussions at committee and take notes and, based on what we hear at committee, bring forth amendments to improve and strengthen bills. However, I too have the experience quite often in committee where either the NDP or Progressive Conservative Party amendments are voted down each and every time by the government. It’s unfortunate.

But we still have two years and six months left to go before an election will occur, maybe sooner. I’m sure the people of Ontario are hoping for a sooner election. However, we do have that length of time to go, and maybe, by that time the government will be listening to our amendments, because I truly believe that all members of this House do have the capability and knowledge to improve any bill coming forward.

We will continue on our side of the House to bring forth amendments which we think strengthen legislation when they hit committee, and hopefully at that time the government will understand that we do make sense and we are doing it for the betterment of Ontario.

Anyway, as I said, this legislation has been brought forward again. Unfortunately, in 2014 there were 439 cases reported to the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s office of breach of information. Again, that’s 439 too many cases. We should have a system where there aren’t any breaches in the system. That’s the standard we want to hit. I know it’s probably hard to maintain that or reach that, but it’s a goal we should be going toward, and 439 is way too many that would be acceptable.

I did mention last time that Ontario is one of the last provinces to update the legislation to require mandatory reporting of breaches to a privacy body. It’s unfortunate, when Ontario is probably the epicentre of Canada and should be the best province, that we are last to put in the necessary provisions to protect our privacy, to ensure that breaches are reported to the privacy commissioner.

We look at eight other provinces that have already passed legislation: British Columbia, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Yukon. They all have passed legislation on privacy. You look at Alberta and Newfoundland and Manitoba: Those three provinces are leaders that have strong privacy legislation, that have had prosecutions from them. We have yet to have any prosecutions under our legislation, and unfortunately we are one of the last to update our system.

As we modernize health care, as we try to push the government to ensure that health care is patient-centred and it’s a priority, we feel that this bill will help improve patient care by protecting patient data, which will increase patient safety.

The Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, was aimed to protect the privacy of patients; however, as I mentioned earlier, no one has ever been convicted for the privacy breaches. As reporting was not mandatory in the act as it read in 2004, there could be many more than the 439 privacy breaches that we know of that occurred. The only way a prosecution could be launched was if there were reasonable grounds an offence had been committed, and it was left up to the police to determine this.

Even if the privacy commissioner investigates a breach and concludes that it should result in prosecution, a further investigation is still required to determine whether reasonable grounds exist to believe an offence has been committed.

Brian Beamish, the privacy commissioner, has commented to the media, saying that confusion over the roles of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Health and the privacy office has also hamstrung potential prosecutions.

This is not to mention the lack of consistency in hospital reporting. Twenty-seven hospitals in the GTA and Hamilton were surveyed and some said it was not their job, it’s the job of the privacy commissioner, while another argued that a police complaint would be a privacy violation in itself.

I think it’s unheard of that any hospital in the system does not think it’s their job to report privacy breaches. I think that’s an embarrassment to our system. People are going into the hospital with the faith and trust that they’ll get better, they’ll be treated, but also that their personal information will be protected and safe.

I don’t know how you would be able to fix the system, or go after perpetrators into the system, if there was no mandatory reporting on the side of health institutions throughout this province. I don’t know how you would ensure that we could go into the hospital and be safe—and somebody breaks into our health care system and looks at our data and uses it for whatever it’s used for today, and how we could ever fix that situation if it goes unreported.

It’s analogous to someone breaking into pharmacies in a city. If the pharmacist never reported that there were continual break-ins to steal, most likely, narcotics in the system, it would continue to go on. But once you report it—in our case we would report it to the police, who would have one of their divisions—they would probably get a better routine of monitoring the pharmacies in said city. If that is never reported, then that situation would never be fixed. The same could be said about the health information system: If you don’t report when breaches occur, you can’t fix a system to make it stronger and take care of the perpetrators.

Some background information: the Personal Health Information Protection Act was enacted back in 2004. It outlined the privacy policies and practices for health information custodians in the province of Ontario. Health information custodians, health care providers and organizations in the health care sector must follow these rules when collecting, using or sharing a patient’s personal health information.

The PHIPA also gives patients the right to see their health records and correct any mistakes. The legislation also has rules for non-health information custodians, such as insurance companies and employers that receive personal information from a health information custodian.

Health information may include the following: physical or mental health records of the individual; family health history; identification of an individual as a health care provider; plan of service; payments or eligibility for health care; donation of body parts or bodily substances; the individual’s health number; and identification of an individual’s substitute decision-making.

Back in 2014, we had Bill 78, which was the Electronic Personal Health Information Protection Act. Ontario first introduced Bill 78 in May 2013 to protect the privacy of personal health information that is collected, used or disclosed by health care providers. The bill reached second reading before it died on the order paper in 2014.

The EPHIPA proposed to establish rules for health care providers accessing shared electronic health records. The EPHIPA imposed specific obligations on prescribed organizations that create or maintain electronic health records, including requiring them to:

—take responsible steps to limit the personal health information they receive;

—ensure employees and third parties comply with privacy obligations;

—make available to the public and health information custodians a description of the electronic health record and safeguards to protect the electronic health record as well as any applicable directives, guidelines and policies;

—maintain an electronic health record of all instances in which the personal information in the EHR is reviewed, handled or dealt with;

—audit and monitor electronic health records, perform assessments on risks of the security of personal health information to the electronic health record, and make the assessments available to the health information custodians and the public; and

—notify the health information custodians that provided the personal health information for the electronic health record and the Information and Privacy Commissioner in the event of a breach.

Similar to the lockbox provisions under the PHIPA today, the EPHIPA also allowed an individual to provide to a prescribed organization a consent directive that withholds or withdraws the individual’s consent to the collection, use and disclosure of personal information.

The EPHIPA proposed to double the fines for offences under PHIPA from a maximum of $50,000 to $100,000 for an individual and from $250,000 to $500,000 if it was a corporation.

The EPHIPA would have eliminated the six-month limitation period for prosecution under the PHIPA.

So there have been discussions previously to upgrade the health system. Now, as I said, we have two-plus years left in this current session—unless they come up with a throne speech in the meantime—so the bill is on the table to be discussed, debated and to go to committee and get passed. I think it’s important that we do ensure that this legislation goes through and gets passed, because there is quite a bit of—as I said, there were 439 breaches in the last year that were reported, and that’s not talking about the ones that may have been missed.

As we’ve moved into the 21st century, we are looking after and ensuring technology and its protections are in place at the same time. As the electronic health records are going to expand—I know there has been quite a bit of difficulty in development in the doctor’s office, but as I mentioned last time, the majority of doctors are now electronic with their data.

The next step is the sharing of that data and who can access it. As I said previously, we’d love to have the hospitals, the doctors’ offices, the labs, the pharmacies and other health institutions be able to share data amongst one another. We need to ensure that when we reach that level—I’m sure, down the line, someone will eventually have coordinated a system where that is possible. If we can reach that level, we need to ensure that privacy is in place.

You do not want to say—for instance, you’ve been in the hospital and given a full and complete history, something that you weren’t telling, say, your pharmacy, just because you thought it was none of their business; it probably wasn’t any of their business. However, pharmacies are allowed to access that hospital data. There needs to be assurance that they don’t go over their boundaries and peek into someone else’s history—and maintain the privacy.

I’ll go over a few of the known breaches that have come forward and the importance to have the legislation in place to ensure our protection. Health information: Breaches have occurred more than they should. Just a few weeks ago, private health information made headlines when there was a breach. A former Rouge Valley hospital clerk received a $36,000 fine, but somehow avoided jail time, for selling thousands of confidential maternity records to RESP firms.

You’d think, when someone is breaking in, stealing your data and sharing it, that the end result would be malicious ways where you could frame the person or embarrass the person. But when you look at what happened, in Rouge Valley—they were doing it to improve their own business. She was making money, but the company buying the data was using it so they could focus their advertising campaign on the people who had just had a child so they could increase their business. That’s bad. That’s breaking the law, in my eyes. It should be banned. But when you think of needing protections in place, you’re only thinking that it’s to protect from malicious means,

whereas it also protects you from unscrupulous business folks who will do anything in their power to make a dollar. We need to ensure that there’s legislation put in place to ensure that this doesn’t occur.

This person, this hospital clerk, made roughly $12,000 off the deal. It’s unfortunate that that clerk betrayed her patients. After almost 20 years of working there, the clerk admitted to stealing upwards of 12,595 maternity records and providing them to the company, and then they went after the parents to buy RESPs. It’s kind of interesting that she only made $12,000 for selling 12,000 maternity records. I wouldn’t say she was a very bright criminal.

Mrs. Gila Martow: You would have made more.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Most business people would have figured that one out. That’s a vicious circle that had continued to go on for a number of years. It’s unfortunate that those parents received those tactics to buy RESPs. Their privacy was breached. Unfortunately, that’s something that can happen all too often. But the person only received a fine and unfortunately no jail time.

Mr. Robert Bailey: But the businesses are safe.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: The businesses? Nothing. Yes, it’s something.

As of May of this past year, at Orillia Soldiers’ Memorial Hospital four clerical employees were caught looking in the files of 52 patients over a five-year period. Those four employees were only disciplined. In 2014, the Centre for Addictions and Mental Health had five staff members go through the medical records of 22 patients. At St. Michael’s Hospital, a clinician posted an inappropriate comment about a patient’s behaviour during a procedure on Facebook. A Toronto East General Hospital doctor chatted on a cellphone about the private details of a patient, unaware that the patient’s relative was in the same room.

At the end of the day, people get disciplined and moved on. I think we need to ensure—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member knows that’s not allowed. I could have you ejected. I think between the two of you, that was totally inappropriate.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m sorry I missed that, Speaker.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Me too.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I wish I was watching; I could have seen what was going on.

Mr. Michael Harris: Keep talking.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Thank you. So anyways, they were disciplined, but that was it. That was the extent of it. I think people in this day and age have the understanding that their privacy should be protected.

One other story I want to bring around as well is—it goes back to October of last year. I think this really highlights why we need this type of legislation. We all know about Rob Ford. Last year, stories were breaking about his cancer treatment records. These records were breached on four separate occasions at three hospitals: Humber River, Mount Sinai and the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. As of July, three of those workers have been charged, thankfully.

I talked about the privacy breaches in maternity wards where everyday people—their information was taken and sold for profit to funnel towards these people, which is terrible. But then you look at famous people who live their lives in the media, such as Rob Ford, who creates news stories each and every day that he decides to create a news story. The fact that somebody thought, “Well, let’s figure out what’s going on in his private life,” where he’s having health treatments—something that should be between him and his health care team and that’s it.

It’s unfortunate that there are people out there who will think that this is a great idea, to go after that information. This is what we need legislation to stop.

I’m sure there are people out there who would love to go after any politician’s health records and display them for their own personal gain or to the detriment of that politician—people who’d do anything they’d like to do in order to ensure that that career is ended. And it’s not just politicians; it could be CEOs of high-ranking companies, it could be a neighbour that you dislike or it could be someone who wronged you in another way. It’s something that is out there, and, as I said, there’s not enough teeth or strength in legislation currently to probably stop this from occurring.

We hope this legislation actually gets through so that we can catch up to the other provinces and ensure the stories that we heard—either in the maternity ward or with Councillor Rob Ford—don’t occur again. No matter what you think of people, no matter what we think about how they operate and what their life is like, their privacy needs to be protected as much as anyone else’s. I think it’s very unfortunate.

Other topics happened in the news—tragic events such as death or serious disability—that occurred during the preparation of this legislation. The Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004 was being overlooked. There was an upsetting story in the Brampton hospital. Under the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004, a confidentiality cloak is surrounded by the internal investigation, encouraging health care providers to be upfront with what occurred to ensure an occurrence never happens again.

Under this legislation, the only ones involved in the release of information are the health care providers who were involved. No information is given to the families, which leaves them in the dark and looking for answers.

We’re waiting for a committee to review the findings on another tragic loss of life. A 20-year-old man had hanged himself while under the psychiatric care of a Brampton hospital. His family has been left with many questions and no answers as the Quality of Care Information Protection Act withholds them. This story brings a lot of questions to mind, the first one being how could this act be written in such a way as to keep the people most affected by the death of a loved one in the dark? As such, changes to the Quality of Care Information Protection Act have occurred under the legislation we are debating today, and has been replaced by the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2015.

But that still doesn’t answer our questions pertaining to mental health. The tragic loss occurred in a psychiatric ward within a hospital. That means the patient came into the hospital requiring immediate medical emergency care pertaining to mental health, but was left alone in a room. When a patient enters a hospital due to mental health reasons, it’s important that they are monitored extensively and stabilized with treatment. Mental health problems are only getting worse across the province as we see, and we’re seeing many, many more young people affected by mental health problems.

We just finished committee yesterday on Bill 122, which made changes to the Mental Health Act. That bill came forward because of a court case in the Ontario system that struck down the constitutionality of the bill. Unfortunately, at that time, the government had a year to bring this bill forward to fix this case in mental health, and yesterday we heard—this past week in committee, as the member from Windsor West—

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Windsor–Tecumseh.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Windsor–Tecumseh. I think I’m going to merge your ridings into Windsor West–Tecumseh.

The member from Windsor–Tecumseh was saying how it’s difficult in committee to get amendments passed. I sat with their health critic, the member from Nickel Belt, myself and the great member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. We brought forth a number of amendments to the bill; a few were accepted. However, the majority of what stakeholders brought forward was not.

The reason why we had so many amendments to bring forward was because, unfortunately, the government created Bill 122; however, they forgot to involve consultations with the majority of stakeholders, who would have had a say and had recommendations to create a stronger bill. I think it was a flawed process, and possibly leading to a flawed policy down the road.

We found that negotiations stopped mid-April and reconvened after the bill was introduced in September. I don’t know why we didn’t have time throughout the summer months to have consultation with the very stakeholders—I even asked in committee. Perhaps the Canadian civil liberties group—were they not available during the summer? Maybe they took the summer off? Unfortunately, they were available and were willing to have a discussion with them.

It was unfortunate that many of the stakeholders that wanted to undergo consultation for Bill 122 were not spoken to until after first reading, and even the bulk of them were after second reading, after we had debated. We’re in second reading right now for this bill, Bill 119, and we’re going to pass this bill probably in the next little while. But if you think of Bill 122, with a majority of the stakeholders not present, or not talked to until after all the debate has gone on—a lot of them didn’t even know the bill existed.

You’d think maybe a message would have been sent out that “We’re going to be changing the Mental Health Act.” The government took what was in place from the court’s decision, made the necessary changes, but they also changed other aspects of the Mental Health Act in addition to just taking care of the court case.

They had an opportunity to make other changes, and as has been brought up in this House with regard to mental health, the act isn’t opened too often. We have a mental health strategy that was an all-party select committee. They came up with key recommendations in order to fix the system, and we’re still waiting. We thought that we would perhaps get the opportunity to make the changes necessary when the Mental Health Act was opened. The government said they were rushed, and they had to quickly do it, but they didn’t speak to anyone for a number of months.

If they really wanted to make changes to the Mental Health Act, if they wanted to make decent changes and improve the mental health system in our province, they had the opportunity. They knew they were opening the act. They could have made the necessary changes and come forth with a stronger bill, with the input of Ontarians instead of the input of a few.

Back to Bill 119: It’s interesting, with Bill 119 we’re still at second reading, and Bill 122 is already finished committee and is coming back. It’s funny; people at home don’t realize how some bills get through quicker than others. Sometimes they’re time-allocated and rushed through.

With Bill 73, which we just finished, there’s a time allocation agreement between the parties to get this bill through. Bill 122 has already done committee; Bill 73 just finished third reading. Politics is interesting; working in the Legislature here is an interesting time. As an opposition member, my job and role is to ensure that we critique the government, and we will continue to do so.

It’s about priorities for this province, priorities for Ontario, priorities for our country. Sometimes it’s frustrating on our part when the priorities that we share with our constituents are put to the bottom of the list. This government, unfortunately, has their own agenda that we continually see seeping into the system.

I guess Hydro One would be one that the opposition here has brought forward; they didn’t even talk about it in their platform. They decided to go forth and sell off an asset, which even the Financial Accountability Officer said is a terrible idea. They’ve sold 15% already, and perhaps they can stop. There is still time. They’ve made a little bit of a mistake. Maybe they can stop and hold off selling off any more—

Mr. Robert Bailey: Take the pledge and stop.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Take the pledge; stop the sell-off of Hydro One. Eighty per cent of Ontarians agree that it’s the wrong plan to go forward.

We’re hoping that down the road, maybe over the winter break that’s coming up, maybe over Christmas, they’ll get a change of heart, kind of like Scrooge, overnight. I’m not saying the government is like Scrooge but, on the opposition side, we think they are like Scrooge.

Mr. Robert Bailey: They’ll get a lump of coal in their stockings.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: A lump of coal is coming.

But anyways, Speaker, I kind of went off track there. Thank you for indulging me as I went off on a small tangent. I’ll get back to the bill.

What is this bill going to do? This bill will create an electronic health record system that will enable health information custodians to store and use a patient’s health information over an electronic interface. The effortless exchange of health information is designed to improve patient care. It will become an integrated electronic system by creating the prescribed organization as an entity under this bill to manage personal health information in an electronic format and to create and maintain an electronic health record.

I could go off on a tangent and talk about the $2 billion this government has spent on creating an e-health system that is still in its infancy.

Mr. Wayne Gates: How much?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It’s $2 billion and still going. That is such a large sum of money to be spent on a system that is still in its infancy. There are so many providers that have gone out of business. There is a lack of compatibility between offices; I can just wait until they try to hook everyone together. It was mismanaged from the start.

I don’t know—is it the same minister who created the Green Energy Act who did the eHealth, too? It could have been.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Smitherman.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: George Smitherman?

I’m sure, going forward, this government will say, “That was a different government,” because I heard that yesterday with the Auditor General’s report. This government actually claimed that it was another government that created the energy mess. It was a minister who was in the cabinet, the Premier who was in the cabinet, when they created the green energy mess, or our energy system mess. They actually came to the Auditor General’s report with a straight face and said, “It was a different government, a different Premier.”

It’s kind of like what they did to poor Chris Bentley from London West. They threw him under the bus, backed over him a few times, and now they’re getting ready to throw the rest of the people back from those days—who were their colleagues—under the bus again. They do anything they can to not accept responsibility for their actions. I think that’s terrible.

Anyways, I didn’t want to go off on that tangent, Mr. Speaker. Unfortunately, I did. I’m sorry.

Back to what this bill is going to do: If a health custodian is in need of retrieving information regarding a patient, the health information custodian can make a request for the information, and then that information will be disclosed. Each time a file is viewed or requested, that information is tracked back to the health information custodian.

Health information custodians are only permitted to collect personal health information if they are providing assistance in a health-related issue to an individual, or eliminating or reducing a significant risk of serious bodily harm to a patient or a group of individuals. For example, if a patient arrives at a hospital and is having a serious allergic reaction, this would be a proper time for a doctor to look up what the patient may be allergic to.

This bill is also amended to allow patients to know who has accessed their records by requesting a copy of an audit of who has accessed their files. I think that’s pretty key. I think it’s very important that people own their own information. It’s theirs; it’s not the government’s, and it’s not the health care organization’s. It’s their information. The government is holding the information for them and protecting it. They should, at any time, know who’s peeking at their information and keeping an eye on what they’re doing.

This legislation also allows individuals a choice to conceal certain health files or all health files on their electronic health records from being viewed by custodians or prescribed organizations. Again, that’s key. As the system grows and gets larger and larger, more people are going to have the opportunity to peek into our files and take a look.

I know people’s privacy concerns vary. I have a constituent of mine who wants to be totally offline. It’s a hard task because she doesn’t want her health card information to be anywhere. She wants to know how to get out. She calls me from a pay phone. It’s an interesting thing, and I respect the fact that she’s that private, because she’s concerned of any breach of her information. And then I’ve got other people who couldn’t care less who knows what about them. This amendment will give them the flexibility to decide who can see what and when and where.

What many Ontarians might not be aware of—maybe we’ll have to do a public relations campaign, much like the one we saw yesterday on TV about all these animals on TV, about climate change. The government is reviewing how they’re going to fix climate change. It’s interesting. They have a polar bear; they have a moose; they have a badger, I think, in that. It’s a well-done commercial; I kind of enjoyed watching it.

Maybe when this bill is brought forward and introduced and passed, there can be an awareness, because every Ontarian is going to be added to this list where people can access their data, so maybe we need to get that message out that they can block certain people and groups from accessing their health files. We need to ensure—

Mr. Robert Bailey: We could put the taxpayer as an endangered species.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: That’s a good point, Bob.

We need to ensure that these requests to have information concealed are done, so people in Ontario are going to know that, when this bill is passed, everyone in Ontario with a health card’s information will be open in the system. There will be nobody blocked from seeing anything yet, so you’ll have to make that motion going forward to conceal information that you want to be concealed. So that’s a great idea.

When the government wants to spend money on self-promotion, perhaps they could use that money and teach people that, “Hey, you know what? We have protected your privacy information in the health care system; however, you need to come forward and say who can and can’t look at your health care records.” I’d be very supportive of a public campaign in that understanding. I think it would be money well spent on educating people on who can access their information. All that we need to ensure is that people need to be specific in their consent of who can access their information, so there is the opt-out part of it.

Patients can also ask to have their records masked completely, or just from certain individuals. Maybe that’s something you can tie into renewing your health card, because today I might not want so-and-so to access my health records, because maybe I don’t have an understanding.

Maybe I’m a general person in the public, and I don’t want my pharmacist to see certain things, but as I develop my relationship with my pharmacist and realize their strengths in the health care profession, I think they should know that information. In fact, I forget that they can’t access that information because three or four years have passed, and I’m assuming they’re accessing that information, and maybe something down the road went wrong because they couldn’t access that bit of information.

Maybe, when you’re redoing your health card—I just renewed my red and white one. I’m finally updated, Mr. Speaker. Maybe when you renew that, they give you a list of who you want seeing your health care information, and you check it off.

I went, Mr. Speaker, and they asked me about donating organs if I died, because you can only do it when you’re—I guess you could do it when you’re living. But I thought it was really neat because they gave me a checklist of what I want to do, and I became a full donor on Friday. I had never had my health card updated. So I am registered, and I would like anybody and everybody here in the Legislature to sign up and become a donor. It’s an easy process and—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Sorry? I’m done, again, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): We seem to meet at this point all the time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like all members to help me welcome Ruth Dolan, who is from my riding of York–Simcoe. She is attending today as part of pulmonary arterial hypertension action day at Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’d like to welcome a few constituents here today to question period. Both Sophia Tang and Tatiana Guzman are here on behalf of the Scleroderma Society of Ontario for pulmonary arterial hypertension action day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Our page captain, Rachael Young, an incredible young lady, is being joined by her mother, Pamela Young; her father, Christopher Young; her sister Gillian Young; and they even brought along a family friend, Beverly White. Let’s welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’d like to welcome the delegation from PHA Canada and the scleroderma society here today, including Dr. Sanjay Mehta from London Health Sciences Centre and Dr. John Granton from the pulmonary hypertension program at Toronto General. Welcome today.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have two friends here this morning, Speaker. Nick Lane is here because of your youth arts program. She’s a student at Walkerville Collegiate—and her father, Mike Lane. Welcome back to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to welcome two brave souls who braved the traffic all the way in from western Mississauga: Joan Paulin and Maria Realejo. Welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to wish my good friend the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, Mr. Rinaldi, a very happy birthday today.

Mr. John Fraser: We have some members of the Ethiopian community here with us today visiting Queen’s Park. We have my friend Samuel Getachew, Abebe Negash, Girma Desta and Taye Aragow. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I would like to introduce some guests today, in the west gallery for the pulmonary hypertension action day at Queen’s Park: my constituent Nicole Dempsey; Darren Bell, a director of PHA Canada; and Dr. Sanjay Mehta, the chair of PHA Canada.

We also have, from the scleroderma society, Rebecca Wissenz, Maureen Sauve and Ruth Mullin. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Bill Mauro: I’ve got a couple of friends from Thunder Bay whom I’d like to introduce to you today, down for constituency office training from my riding office in Thunder Bay–Atikokan: Lindsay Fron—my newest hire, who has been with us for about one month; and Karen O’Connor, a long-serving member in my Thunder Bay constituency office.

M. Grant Crack: Il me fait un grand plaisir ce matin de souhaiter la bienvenue à mes amis dans la galerie est. It gives me great pleasure to welcome three of my constituency staff here today: my executive assistant, Annie Lafortune, and also Sylvie Labrosse and Louise Coughlin here at Queen’s Park. Welcome. You’re here for training. Go.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I’m delighted to welcome to Queen’s Park Janoi Edwards, who is a staffer with me in Kitchener. He’s here for a training session. Welcome, Janoi.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It gives me great pleasure to welcome a constituent of mine, Jeannie Tom, to Queen’s Park today. She’s here with the pulmonary hypertension action day.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it’s an honour for me to welcome Kardinal Offishall. He currently has six records and four Junos, and he was a recent speaker at our culture strategy consultation in Ontario. Joining him today is Jeffrey Remedios, who is the president and CEO of Universal. I have to say, a couple of weeks ago, six of the top 10 Billboard hits were done by Ontarians, and Universal was representative of those artists. They’re over there. Stand up, guys.

Hon. Mario Sergio: It is my great pleasure to introduce my extended family to Queen’s Park today. Starting with my constituency office—they are here in the west gallery: Loris Fata, Phyllis Arturi and Alessia Fata. From the Queen’s Park office, I have Ferd Longo—everybody knows Ferd Longo, Speaker.

Interjection: Best ever.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Best ever—Celeste Bottero, Semia Kandahar, Gianluca Ferrari and Madier Anzari. And some good news and bad news: Sarah Campbell Morales, who has been working for me all these years, is going to greener pastures serving the newly elected MP for Newmarket–Aurora, Kyle Peterson. We hate to see her go, but it’s good that she goes because she’s a great person and she’s going to do much, much better in Newmarket–Aurora.

I welcome them all.

Mr. Arthur Potts: I’d like to have the House welcome the great, talented students from Neil McNeil High School and their civics teacher, Crissy Orr. Welcome to Queen’s Park—up the Beach.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’d like to welcome some constituents from the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West: Alana, her daughter Luisa, and grandpa Pat and grandma Louise. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Today is a very special day because Andre and Marlene Ceci have joined us. They are the parents of Brock Ceci, a wonderful staff member of mine. Welcome.

Wearing of buttons

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister for Children and Youth Services and the minister responsible for women’s issues on a point of order.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I believe you will find we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear buttons in recognition of the National Day of Remembrance, and that we observe also a moment of silence before question period with respect to the terrible tragedy that took place in 1989 and the women who were killed that year in Montreal.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister is seeking unanimous consent to wear the buttons and to ask us to take a moment of silence. Do we agree? Agreed.

Could I ask all members and our guests to please rise to observe a moment’s silence in remembrance of the tragic events in Quebec?

The House observed a moment’s silence.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Pray be seated.

George Stamou

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This morning, in the Speaker’s gallery, we have George Stamou and his wife, Helen. This is definitely not George’s first time at Queen’s Park, but it is his last. He has now retired as a photojournalist from CTV. May we welcome him to the throes of retirement. Congratulations, George.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I did have an agreement that he would always take a picture of my good side.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Which one is that? I’m looking for it. Show me that good side today in your leniency.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a feeling I’m not going to be able to do that today.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: After yesterday’s scathing report from the Auditor General, many on that side of the aisle have a lot to answer for. The AG told us that between 2006 and 2014, the people of Ontario have been overcharged $37 billion for electricity in global adjustment fees. Ratepayers will be overcharged another $133 billion in the future. As the Globe and Mail breaks it down, that’s over $12,000 per person; that’s $457 a person per year. Can you picture all the presents that could be put under the Christmas tree? That’s a year of hockey in rural Ontario. That alone deserves for the minister to be fired.

Will the Premier do the right thing and fire her Minister of Energy?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First of all, I haven’t had the opportunity to say publicly that I thank the Auditor General for her report. As I said yesterday, the job of the Auditor General is to look at government, to look at the way services are delivered, to look at the way government functions, and then to provide a critique of that. That is her job. It’s a very healthy aspect of democracy that we have that objectivity built into the system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to acknowledge that today could be heated, and I’m not going to let it get too hot. So let’s just—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I don’t need the armchair quarterback either. So let’s just pay respect to this, please.

Premier, finish.

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

I know that we want to get to the specifics around energy, but I think it’s very important to understand that this is a very important part of our democratic process.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I know it’s all nice to thank the Auditor General, but this is 773 pages of an indictment of your government. You may make nothing of this, but this is precious taxpayer dollars.

I’m going to break it down: When it’s all said and done, the minister will have overcharged an average household $32,000 more than they should have paid. With that money, a family could have bought one of the last Windsor-made Dodge Grand Caravans this year. It covers the cost of a Chevy Impala at the GM plant in Oshawa. And $32,000 is the cost of four years of tuition at the University of Ottawa.

Does the Premier think anyone overcharging Ontarians by this much should still have their job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just continue, because I think what is important about the Auditor General’s report, and all Auditor General reports, is that recommendations are made—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lambton, the member from Dufferin–Caledon, the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Renfrew, come to order.

Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Recommendations are made, and is the government listening to those recommendations? There are already initiatives in place to address many of the recommendations the Auditor General put forward. That includes addressing issues around CCACs and LHINs, strengthening the Ontario Energy Board through legislation and introducing a mineral development strategy soon that will bolster the sector. In many cases, we are already acting on the recommendations of the Auditor General.

Yesterday, I would say, as part of the report, the Auditor General said this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will conclude in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: It’s not just the overcharging that hurts Ontario; it’s the overspending too. According to the Auditor General, the government could have had the exact same renewable energy programs if it had listened to the experts. Instead, they ignored the advice, rushed ahead and overspent by $9.2 billion.

This isn’t about the merits of renewable energy; this is about political deals that cost Ontario $9.2 billion. That happens to be exactly what the government is going to get from the Hydro One fire sale. I still don’t understand how this minister has his job over such incompetency.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There are 150 countries and jurisdictions right now in Paris talking about how to do exactly what we have done, which is make our energy production cleaner. I think what the minister said yesterday is that we’re skating to where the puck is going, not where the puck is.

I want to just comment on what the Auditor General said in her follow-up—

Interjections.

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

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On the actions that we have taken, the Auditor General says, “I am pleased to report that 76% of these actions have either been fully implemented or were in the process of being implemented. I want especially to note the exemplary performance of the Ministry of Education, Ontario Power Generation, ServiceOntario and the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in implementing recommendations from our audits two years ago.”

We listened, we learned and we took action.

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, since I can’t get any remorse from the Premier for this indictment by the Auditor General, let’s try with the Minister of Energy.

Overcharging, overspending—I see a bit of a trend. It includes overproducing and oversupplying power in the province. Between 2009 and 2014, Ontario’s average annual electricity surplus was absurd. Ontario wasted almost as much as Manitoba produced. Ontario has among the highest energy costs in North America, and Ontario shipped away a province’s worth of power.

The minister can’t seem to get anything right. Can the minister name one corporate CEO who would still have his job after an abysmal mess like this?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I really want to address the issue of the global adjustment and the surplus power, and it does relate to corporate executives. The global adjustment, for example, is kind of a catch-all for costs that are in the system that are not associated with the price of power.

I’m going to use an example: Home Depot. They did 161 conservation projects in Ontario. They removed the equivalent of 3,000 homes off the grid. The cost of that conservation was put in the global adjustment. The global adjustment represents 3,000 homes taken off the grid. It represents millions of dollars of savings for Home Depot.

The global adjustment serves a good purpose. There are many examples, and I’ll refer to more, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: This isn’t just in the past. This problem will persist into the future. In the next five years, Ontario will produce so much surplus power, we could power the province of Nova Scotia for five years. I think our own bills are high enough, before we start giving away power for free to other provinces.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy House leader, second time.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Seniors can’t afford their hydro bills, and the government just ships our power to provinces at a loss.

Let’s be very clear: We are selling power outside of our province for less than it costs to produce. I repeat, we are selling power outside of our province for less than it costs to produce.

The minister has turned Ontario’s energy sector into the laughingstock of North America. Will he turn to his right, make the Premier’s job easier, and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: When we have surplus power, electricity exports help cover fixed costs that otherwise would have to be paid by Ontario consumers. A lot of people don’t understand that, but I have a quote here that makes it very simple, Mr. Speaker. They’re going to shout me down because—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I will remind the member from Simcoe–Grey that I have asked many times that we use titles or ridings. So consider yourself coming to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The quote says, “Any power we sell to the US, to Quebec, to Manitoba, or power they sell us, is surplus power. It’s opportunity power. It’s pure profit, in terms that it’s power that otherwise would go to waste or not be generated.”

That is from the member sitting across there, the member from—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is the IESO—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We’re getting to that point where I’m going to start moving to warnings, and I will. Once you’ve been warned, the next time I speak to you, you will be named.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The former PC energy minister says it would go to waste if it wasn’t sold and it’s pure profit. Now, the IESO last year indicated that—

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s it. I stand and you stop.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again, to the Minister of Energy: Fifteen years ago, we made money in the energy sector, but because of your interventions, you’ve made us into the joke around North America.

The arrogance of this minister is astounding. Rather than criticizing the Auditor General, you should listen to the independent oversight.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chief government whip, come to order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Let’s put this into simpler terms, so that the minister can understand: The government is overcharging an average family by $32,000 for their electricity needs. They have overspent $9.2 billion in renewable energy contracts. The last five years in Ontario—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Second time for the chief government whip. I need to hear.

Finish, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: For the last five years, Ontario has produced as much surplus power as Manitoba could produce in that total time. For the next five years, we’ll produce so much surplus power that Nova Scotia could use it for five years combined.

Overcharging, overspending, overproducing and oversupplying: Someone needs to be held accountable. Do you find this acceptable? Do you have any remorse?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, he’s comparing a population of one million in Manitoba and one million in Nova Scotia to 13 million in Ontario. How ridiculous is that? It’s comparing apples and oranges.

I’ll tell you why we have a surplus. In 2020, Pickering is coming offline. That represents 3,000 megawatts. We have to be ready in a short couple of years. That’s why we need surplus.

Next, the contracts of some of the original gas plants are starting to come up, Mr. Speaker—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington is warned. I’ll gladly put the rest of you on the list. I’m going to hear the answers.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Some 3,000 megawatts, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Tell us about the gas plants again, Minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nipissing is warned. Who’s next?

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Some 3,000 megawatts from Pickering coming off. Some of the gas contracts are starting to expire and we don’t have to renew them. That creates some capacity for us. During refurbishment, 15% of the total nuclear capacity will be out of commission. We’re doing wise management, Mr. Speaker—

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. It is clear from the Auditor General’s report yesterday that we need more oversight of Hydro One and the energy system, not less. Can the Premier explain to Ontarians why this year was the last time that the Auditor General of this province will be able to report on Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One is motivated by the need to invest in infrastructure in this province. The organization will be a different organization. I think it’s clear from the Auditor General’s report that there is a need for this to be a better-run company. There are problems with the company that need to be rectified, and that is exactly what will happen. As a result of the broadening of the ownership—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I feel like I’m being challenged, so the member from Renfrew is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: There will be new oversight in place. There are different mechanisms in place, but there will nonetheless be oversight and Hydro One will need to disclose information as per those regulations and legislation.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s very clear that there are problems at Hydro One, and the way to serve Ontarians is to actually fix the problems. Instead, after years of politically motivated decisions and failure on the energy file, the Premier is waving the white flag, handing control over to private shareholders and simply abandoning Ontarians and hoping the problems will go away.

By selling off Hydro One, is this Premier admitting that she is unable to fix the years of bad decisions her government has made when it comes to this province’s energy sector?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the decision that we have made is to invest in the infrastructure of this province, which will allow us to grow, will allow communities to thrive, will bring investment to the province. That is the decision that we have made. Part of that decision was to look at the current assets that are owned by the province of Ontario, and to leverage those assets in order to be able to make new investments. That is exactly what we’re doing.

It is quite clear that there are improvements that need to made at Hydro One. Those improvements will be made in order to provide better service to the people of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Oh, there are improvements that need to be made, that’s for sure. Hydro One’s maintenance backlog has increased by 47% since 2012. Two thirds of the transformers replaced by Hydro One in 2013 and 2014 were perfectly fine. Outages are increasing in this province.

How do we know this, Speaker? Because the auditor can go in, order Hydro One to give her all the information, and she can then make it public, which she did yesterday. But instead of using that information to fix Hydro One, the Premier is selling off Hydro One and hoping that privatization will magically make everything better.

Can this Premier explain why she thinks Ontarians deserve less oversight, less transparency and less accountability in our energy sector, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think it’s very important that there be oversight and that there be accountability.

Hydro One, under the new configuration, will be regulated by the Ontario Business Corporations Act, the Ontario Securities Act and the Ontario Energy Board. They’ll have to file information with the Ontario Securities Commission. They’ll have to disclose the compensation of their top executives. The Ontario Energy Board will continue to have oversight and approve electricity rates. In fact, we’ve taken action through legislation to strengthen the oversight of the OEB. We’ve made those decisions to change and to strengthen oversight.

At the same time, the fundamental decision is that we must invest in infrastructure in this province. It is critical to the future competitiveness of Ontario that we make those investments, and those are the investments that we are going to make.

Government’s record

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Yesterday’s Auditor General’s report showed what Ontarians have been feeling in their gut for a long time: The choices that this government is making are not about them.

Can the Premier explain why her government handed out almost 80% of its business grants to companies that didn’t even have to apply for them and that they may not have actually needed, while inadequate funding means that seniors are waiting 200 days for the home care that they have applied for and that they desperately need?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: First, let me say to the leader of the third party: It’s our responsibility to attend to many things at the same time. It is our responsibility to make sure that we work to improve the home care system, to provide services for seniors. That is a fundamental responsibility, and it’s one of the things that the health care system is being transformed to do better on.

At the same time, it is our responsibility to make sure that we work with businesses in this province to ensure that they have the capacity to expand, that they have the capacity to move into the 21st century.

I sat with CEOs who are part of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters yesterday, and they raised the exact investments that we’re making through the Jobs and Prosperity Fund as necessary to their ability and their members’ ability to make the investments to be able to become part of the advanced manufacturing sector.

If we don’t work with businesses—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s true that many things need to be done by government at the same time, but it is all about priorities when it comes to government. People want their government to work for all Ontarians, not just the select few. Instead, the Premier is failing to protect the most vulnerable children in our province. They are failing to look after seniors in our province. They are failing to ensure that Ontarians can afford their basic hydro bill.

Will this Premier own up and admit that her government is failing Ontario families?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me go back to my original comment because I think it’s very, very important. There are a number of areas that the Auditor General has looked at. That is her job. It is her job to look at the way government delivers services and it is then her job to critique those. It’s a healthy aspect of our democracy.

The important question, once that critique has been made and once those recommendations have been made, is does the government take them seriously and act on them? Absolutely.

In order to assess that, we need to look at the follow-up reports, because those are the reports that demonstrate, when there’s a recommendation made, does the government follow through.

Yesterday, the Auditor General said this: “I am pleased to report that 76% of these actions have either been fully implemented or were in the process of being implemented.” That’s how we learn and we take action.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Five years ago, this government was told that they needed to fix the problems in home care. Five years later, this Auditor General says the problems are worse and not better. So I agree with the Premier: She needs to get to work.

Governments should be able to get the basics, the fundamentals, right: Help the most vulnerable people; make sure people can afford to keep the lights on and the heat in their homes on; make sure that seniors can actually get home care without waiting for 200 days; make sure that when kids get on the school bus, it’s safe, and that when they arrive at their school, their school isn’t crumbling around their ears. This is the minimum—the minimum—that people should expect from their government.

How are the Premier’s priorities so backwards that she is getting the fundamentals so wrong?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I would say to the leader of the third party that in each one of those instances, we are working, as a matter of our policy and our priorities, to make sure we make the investments that are necessary.

There are billions of dollars that are going into the repair, the renovations, the maintenance and the building of new schools. There are, again, billions of dollars going into the building of new health care facilities. We recognize that there is work that needs to be done in terms of the provision of home care. In fact, the Minister of Health is committed to announcing a discussion paper on the future of that system, which is in direct response to the concerns of the Auditor General.

I will be the first to admit that over the last number of years, we have worked to invest in the home care system to make sure people get what they need, but there is more that needs to be done and I think there are structural changes that need to be made.

Energy policies

Mr. John Yakabuski: To the Minister of Energy: The minister calls surplus power an opportunity. It has certainly been treated as an opportunity by our neighbours, who have picked it up from you at yard-sale prices.

Energy planning should not be done for short-term political gain. The government shouldn’t be intervening in energy day after day to save seats in the Legislature, yet this Liberal government wasted $9.2 billion playing politics with their renewable energy contracts, $1 billion playing politics with the Lower Mattagami hydro project and the infamous $1.1 billion playing politics with the gas plant scandal.

If this government just listened to the experts, like any reasonable government would, ratepayers would have saved $11.3 billion.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Transportation is warned.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Does the minister think the auditor still doesn’t know what she’s talking about, or is $11.3 billion just another Liberal cup of coffee?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased to talk about Lower Mattagami in the first instance. First of all, that project came in under budget and under time. As well, there were comparisons made to the cost of power to Lower Mattagami and other hydroelectric projects. The other hydroelectric projects referred to were built 15, 20, maybe 50 years ago. The capital cost has already been paid.

The other issue is that building a modern facility has tougher environmental requirements and has tougher requirements in terms of accommodating First Nations. There are now the legacy grievances of all the old hydro programs that are now under dispute and will eventually cost money.

It was a good project that created 1,800 jobs, 500 jobs for First Nations, and we make no apology—

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

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I definitely want to make sure I get to the supplementary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Back to the minister: This isn’t about renewable energy, it isn’t about climate change; it’s about what we could have saved. We could have had the exact amount of those renewables for $9.2 billion less if you had just listened and done your job.

The energy experts told the minister—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie is warned. If you haven’t figured it out, I’m into warnings.

Carry on.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The energy experts told the minister what to do. He did the exact opposite, plain and simple. Now the minister wants to silence energy experts by passing Bill 135, which won’t even let the experts bring forward their concerns with your directives that have already wasted $11.3 billion.

Will the minister listen to the experts and withdraw Bill 135, or does he just not care about the cost of hydro and the people of Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in terms of renewable energy, at the time the previous cabinet, the previous Premier were doing good green things for the province. They looked at the Green Energy Act. They looked at the renewable promise. What they did was, they looked at other jurisdictions: 80 jurisdictions around the world had equivalent prices. They had standard offers. It was not a competitive process. This administration has eliminated the standard offer. It’s a competitive process.

There have been no large solar or wind projects approved in this province since 2011. The ones that are out there now in the system are under the old process. It’s more competitive, it’s less costly, it’s renewable energy and it’s greening—

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

Home care

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre. This morning, right across Ontario, there are thousands of seniors sitting alone at home, waiting for the home care they need. Some of them are in pain, some are at risk of falling, but they’ve been told to wait for weeks, for months—for some of them, over a year.

Back in 2010, the Auditor General told the Liberals to fix the wait-list crisis in home care, but five long years later, a staggering 65% of home care clients are forced to wait for their assessment.

On behalf of every senior waiting for home care, I have a simple question for our Premier: How much longer will this Liberal government force frail and vulnerable Ontarians to wait for the home care they need now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I completely agree with the sentiment of the member opposite, that it is unacceptable for people who are in pain, who are frail to have to wait an inordinate amount of time for care, which is exactly why we have been increasing funding for home and community care. We are increasing it by $250 million over the next three years. That is allowing us to provide 80,000 additional home care nursing hours and to help in the transition of people from hospital to home, because that is when people are at their most vulnerable. Last year in Ontario, the home and community care sector provided service to more than 800,000 individuals.

The reality that we’re dealing with is that the demographic in Ontario is aging. We need to do more in order to support people, and that’s why we need to make structural changes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: The Premier says things, but her actions show that she just doesn’t get the priorities of Ontario families. When the Liberals want to sell off Hydro One, things move really quickly, but when thousands of seniors suffer for months on end waiting for home care, the Liberals wait five years and let the problem get worse.

She talks about investing money, but there are things such as: How come, five years later, we still don’t have a minimum standard of care? How come, five years later, we still don’t have oversight of the private providers of home care? How come, five years later, the wait-list has ballooned, not gone down?

How can this Premier defend five years of inaction, five years of broken promises and, frankly, five years of suffering for the people who needed home care but were on wait-lists?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, because for the last five years we have been working to improve the system: 35 million visits from our personal support workers and nurses, an increase of 1.3 million visits in the last year. The increases have been going up every year, and we’ve reduced administrative costs. Since the 2010 Auditor General’s report, we’ve decreased administrative costs by 12%. That was money that we were able then to invest directly in front-line care.

In May, we released Patients First: A Roadmap to Strengthen Home and Community Care. We understand that there are changes that need to be made. We have invested more money. We have increased the supports in terms of wages to personal support workers in order to try to deal with the precarity of their work, because we need them as the front-line workers. We know now that we need to make some structural changes and we will be consulting with Ontarians on that.

Consumer protection

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: My question is to the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. With the holiday season approaching and academic terms winding down, many Ontarians are planning vacations. During a long winter, a trip to warmer destinations with friends or family can be a welcomed escape. With this in mind, I know that constituents in my riding of Burlington will want to know about consumer protection when it comes to the travel industry. With significant planning and financial investment going into their vacations, Ontarians will be comforted knowing that they will be able to take the trips they planned under the terms they agreed to.

I know the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services takes these concerns seriously and works closely with partners like the Travel Industry Council of Ontario, or TICO, to ensure consumer concerns are well represented.

Can the minister please explain to us how his ministry helps ensure that vacationers are protected from misleading, unscrupulous business practices?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member from Burlington for the question and for her advocacy on behalf of her constituents. I certainly appreciate the importance of a family using their hard-earned money for a vacation or a well-deserved break, and I’m pleased with the progress that we’ve made in this area as one of only three provinces in the country that regulates its travel industry.

Ontario consumers are protected by the Travel Industry Act as well as the travel industry compensation fund, both of which are administered by TICO. Our regulation of travel agents and travel wholesalers adds a level of accountability to the Ontario travel industry.

The same level of accountability cannot be guaranteed with organizations that operate from outside Ontario, so I encourage Ontarians to book their trips or vacations with local businesses.

As a result of the Travel Industry Act, consumers now get full disclosure of pricing, all transaction details are provided to them, they get prepaid deposits protected in a trust account and they’re also eligible for the travel industry—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the minister for his explanation of the protections that Ontarians enjoy under the Travel Industry Act. I know many of my constituents looking forward to vacations will be pleased to learn that their arrangements are subject to industry-wide oversight, and I will be watching closely for more from the TICO’s consumer awareness campaign.

The minister mentioned a series of important regulations put in place to protect consumers. In addition to learning about these safeguards, my constituents would like to hear more about how our government has worked to level the playing field and ensure a fair and equitable tourism sector.

Can the Minister of Government and Consumer Services please outline how our government has worked with the act to build a safer, fairer tourism market?

Hon. David Orazietti: Thank you again to the member from Burlington. Our government continually reviews trends in industry and identifies areas of consumer concern, adding protections where appropriate. In this regard, we’ve amended the Travel Industry Act, improving consumer protection by enhancing financial reporting requirements from travel agencies and ensuring trip compensation claims are fair and effective in the event of closures.

The Travel Industry Act has been extremely effective in adding accountability to the travel industry, as TICO includes over 2,500 registered travel agents who fall under the act. As of this past spring, TICO’s dedicated reimbursement fund was valued at $21 million, allowing for payments of up to $5,000 per person and up to $5 million per event. Since its inception, TICO has provided over $13 million in compensation to consumers and has had 39 convictions so far this fiscal year.

I’m pleased with our government’s track record in protecting consumers so that all Ontarians can plan any trip with confidence.

Hydro One

Mr. Todd Smith: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday the Auditor General revealed that Hydro One has consistently been one of the least reliable among large Canadian electricity distributors. She continued: “In a scorecard published by the Ontario Energy Board ... Hydro One was ranked worst ... of all distributors in Ontario....” Yet in May, your Minister of Energy said, “Hydro One is one of the most reliable companies in North America. It has been recognized as such, as one of the top five.”

Speaker, for too long, the Minister of Energy has attempted to keep the House in the dark when it comes to Hydro One. My question for the Premier is: Now that the auditor has revealed the truth, will she accept the truth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m wondering exactly where the member is going with this question, because we have said that there need to be improvements at Hydro One. There are serious challenges with this organization. In broadening the ownership and changing the way this organization is going to be governed, there actually will be improvements made.

I’m going to take from the question from the member opposite that they actually support the broadening of ownership of Hydro One and the changes that need to be made to the company.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Todd Smith: I can tell you categorically that the answer to that inference is: No, we don’t.

Back to the Premier: In May, the minister went on to say that Hydro One, in terms of the infrastructure, is extremely reliable. What we’re getting at here, Premier, if you don’t understand the question, is the credibility of your Minister of Energy. He says that it’s a reliable system. He says that they know how to plan infrastructure. Yesterday, the auditor said that a project that was extending a corridor from the Ottawa Valley to the Peterborough area forgot to include 47 kilometres of roads, three bridges and 35 towers. The auditor also revealed a $4.4-billion infrastructure deficit at Hydro One because your minister and your government are completely incompetent.

Is it acceptable to the Premier that her minister has either been ignorant of or complicit in the incompetence at Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: At least this question is consistent with the ideology of that party. At least it’s consistent with past positions, which are that broadening the ownership of Hydro One—improving the company—would be a good thing to do. Our motivation on this side of the House has been to invest in infrastructure. That is why we are repurposing; that is why we looked at assets; that’s why we are broadening the ownership of Hydro One: In order to be able to leverage that asset to invest in infrastructure across the province—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is a company that needs improvement, and that improvement will happen. But the motivation is to invest in infrastructure that is needed in every riding, in every corner of this province.

Children’s aid societies

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Premier. The Auditor General’s report on child protection services in Ontario made it clear that this government is putting our most vulnerable kids at risk. Societies are not always checking the Child Abuse Register before placing children, meaning that even 13 years after the death of Jeffrey Baldwin and while the Katelynn Sampson inquest is ongoing, we continue to place children in homes with people who have records of child abuse.

Ontario is taking an average of seven months to complete abuse investigations, when the guideline is 30 days. “In more than one third of investigations we reviewed, safety assessments to identify immediate safety threats to the child were either not conducted or not conducted on time.”

Speaker, can the Premier please explain why she is allowing children to be placed in homes when the abuse register hasn’t even been checked?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Children and Youth Services is going to want to talk about the specific things that we are doing—the initiatives that we are taking—but this is a perfect example of why it’s so important that we have an Auditor General: that we have those eyes on what government does and what the organizations do, and pushing a government to follow up and to take action, which is what we do.

As the Auditor General said in her follow-up report, 76% of the recommendations have been followed through on; initiatives have been taken. There are things that have happened in terms of children in care that are unacceptable; that is absolutely the case. We are taking action, and the Minister of Children and Youth Services will talk about what those actions are.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Miss Monique Taylor: Unacceptable? What is unacceptable is that report that was given to us by the Auditor General yesterday. We need leadership on this file. We need to immediately remedy these disturbing results.

Children in care are some of our most vulnerable citizens in this province of Ontario. We have a duty to protect children in care, and this government is failing them again.

To make matters worse, the ministry isn’t even ensuring that recommendations following the death of a child in care are being implemented by societies. How is it possible that we aren’t learning from mistakes after children are dying in care?

Will the Premier take responsibility for the fact that children in Ontario continue to be placed in homes with convicted child abusers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the critic for raising these very important questions. I think we all agree that the protection and support and safety of our most vulnerable children is paramount to all us.

I want to thank the auditor for her recommendations. While she has recognized the tremendous progress that has been made in the child welfare sector when it comes to the safety and support of our children, there are some serious issues that have been identified. I take these issues very seriously.

With respect to the child abuse registry, I’m very concerned these checks aren’t happening as often as they should. My ministry previously issued a directive on this to all children’s aid societies in Ontario. I’ll be issuing another directive and following up very soon. It’s very disappointing that this is happening, and I take accountability to make sure this is followed up on.

When it comes to completing investigations in time, as we’ve heard from the association, some take longer, some take less time. However—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I stand, you sit.

New question.

Correctional services

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. As you know, Minister, the Maplehurst Correctional Complex is located in my riding of Halton. I often hear from the community of concerns they have about the safety and well-being of correctional officers and inmates in the facility. I know correctional officers in my community and communities across the province work hard every day to keep us safe, and we are grateful.

What many people may not know is that our correctional officers are often faced with difficult challenges as greater numbers of inmates suffer from mental health and addiction issues. It is important that, as we modernize our correctional system, we focus not on building more jails, but instead on addressing these realities and providing better services to help break the cycle of reoffending.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, can the minister explain what he is doing to transform corrections in Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to thank the member from Halton for this important question. The transformation of corrections is a key part of my mandate from the Premier, and something we are working hard on every day.

We are absolutely committed to moving forward with better mental health supports and enhanced rehabilitation and reintegration programs so that we can help break the cycle of reoffending. We have opened the forensic early intervention service, a partnership with the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health that is the first of its kind in Canada, at the Toronto South Detention Centre. It provides early intervention forensic mental health services to remanded inmates.

In addition, as part of our transformation, we have launched a comprehensive review of Ontario’s use of segregation within our correctional facilities, particularly in relation to its use for those with mental health needs.

These are just a few of the important things we are working on in relation to inmate mental health as we work to ensure we break the cycle of crime and reoffending.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Thank you to the minister for your tireless efforts on this issue. I know that Halton residents and Ontarians across the province will be encouraged to see the important steps that you are taking to transform corrections in Ontario. I think your emphasis on providing more mental health supports and a greater focus on rehabilitation and reintegration programs is particularly important.

But, Mr. Speaker, it is also important that the minister work closely with all of his corrections partners to deliver these key programs and services. Staff in the Maplehurst Correctional Complex and other facilities will play a key role in this transformation.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can he please provide some information on the role he sees for correctional officers as his ministry works so hard to modernize the correctional system?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, correctional officers and probation and parole officers are integral to my ministry’s efforts to bring about change. These are our front-line workers. They are the experts in the field and I wanted to thank them for their hard work and dedication.

We have hired nearly 500 new correctional officers since 2013 and are working to hire more. In fact, we have a class of almost 100 in the Ontario Correctional Services College who are graduating tomorrow.

The recent tentative agreement with the corrections bargaining unit is further evidence of our government’s continued support for correctional officers and our probation and parole officers. If ratified, Speaker, it will provide the framework for a stand-alone correctional bargaining unit collective agreement for future rounds of collective bargaining.

Correctional officers are a vital part of the work that is under way to modernize our correctional system. We have a renewed opportunity to work together under this new framework.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday’s report from the Auditor General is the last time she will be able to review Hydro One. It’s too bad because, as usual, her reports are very revealing. She wrote that the Ontario Energy Board is the “protector of consumer interests,” and yet, we now know the OEB wasn’t even consulted on the sale of Hydro One.

The minister ignored the OEB and the Liberal government silenced the Auditor General when they voted down the independent oversight of Hydro One. Is the Premier afraid of independent oversight because she doesn’t like what it reveals?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Energy Board has a very important role to play in terms of the regulation of the system. The Ontario Energy Board will continue to play that role in terms of setting rates.

The broadening of the ownership of Hydro One was a decision that we made in order to have the capacity to invest in infrastructure. That was a decision that our government made. It is a decision, I believe, that will put us in a very good position in the immediate, the interim and the long-term, because it will mean that roads, bridges and transit—investments that could not have been made otherwise—will be made.

The member opposite is asking me whether I think that we should have asked the OEB. The OEB has a totally different role. That role will remain consistent once the ownership of Hydro One is broadened.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Speaker, the Premier’s words do not match her action. She did not allow the OEB to participate, to have any feedback on whether the sell-off of Hydro One occurred.

When the Premier wrote the Minister of Energy’s mandate letter, she said, “It is of the utmost importance that we lead responsibly, act with integrity, manage spending wisely and are accountable for every action we take.”

The people of Ontario have 37 billion reasons to see that the minister has failed in his mandate. It’s very clear from the Auditor General’s report that the Liberal government has been meddling in the energy file for the past eight years, costing homeowners and small businesses $37 billion.

Will you finally admit you need to start listening to the AG, the municipalities, the people of Ontario, and stop any further sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the point I made earlier today and yesterday—that there are 150 countries right now that are in Paris trying to forge a deal that would allow the globe to move to a low-carbon reality. The fact is, the initiative that we took to shut down all the coal-fired plants, to move to more renewable, cleaner energy is a decision that jurisdictions all over the world are going to have to move to if we are going to avoid the devastation of climate change.

You only have to look across this country. Look at Alberta and their plan. They have said that they are going to move off coal. It’s going to take them 15 years. The fact is, we’re there. As the Minister of Energy said, we skated to where the puck was going and now we will work with all of those countries to make sure that they can take the same kinds of initiatives that we’ve already taken.

Social Assistance Management System

Mr. Percy Hatfield: To the Premier: Good morning, Premier. Yesterday’s Auditor General’s report on SAMS made it clear that the Premier and her government were well aware of the problems with SAMS but rushed it through anyway. SAMS problems impact our most vulnerable citizens in Ontario: people with disabilities, people who are marginalized and impoverished. Clients with developmental disabilities had their bank accounts frozen when ministry mistakes were made. This is unacceptable.

More unacceptable still are the minister’s prior comments that problems with SAMS could be compared to a BlackBerry glitch.

Speaker, will the Premier explain to vulnerable Ontarians why she rushed the implementation of a computer program she knew didn’t work?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Community and Social Services is going to want to speak to the specifics, but I want to say to the member opposite that we know there were problems with the implementation of SAMS. We’ve acknowledged that. We are working very, very hard to correct that. The minister has been on the front line, has met with front-line workers. There are changes that have been made.

We know there were challenges, there were problems with the way this system was implemented. We will learn from those problems, as we have in other sectors. We will demonstrate that we have learned from those problems, and we will correct the challenges in order to improve the service to the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I don’t know if the Premier knows, but I know that city staff in Windsor caught a SAMS cheque for $1 million before it went out to a client.

SAMS is forecast to be $90 million over budget and still isn’t working properly.

The ministry had no oversight over consultants. Consultants were overseeing consultants. Front-line workers shouldered the brunt of this disastrous implementation while somehow the minister was unaware of what was going on in her own ministry.

Speaker, will the Premier admit