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

May 28, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-May-28 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 28 May 2009 Jeudi 28 mai 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

TAXATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

DRIVE CLEAN

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRAD FORWARD

CITY OF BRAMPTON

ABORIGINAL LAND DISPUTE

JIM TOVEY

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK

LEONARD AND LOUISE PRESKETT

GEMS OF THE LAKESHORE

CHILDREN'S WISH FOUNDATION

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CONDOMINIUM OWNERS

PROTECTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES PROPRIÉTAIRES DE CONDOMINIUMS

TECHNICAL STANDARDS AND SAFETY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI A TRAIT AUX NORMES TECHNIQUES ET À LA SÉCURITÉ

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

TECHNICAL SAFETY STANDARDS

PETITIONS

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

AIR QUALITY

LONG-TERM CARE

PUBLIC HEALTH

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

POVERTY

CHILD CUSTODY

PROPERTY TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

CAPPING EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DES CADRES SUPÉRIEURS

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL

SURGE PROTECTOR ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS

RÉSIDENTIELS ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

CAPPING EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DES CADRES SUPÉRIEURS

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL

SURGE PROTECTOR ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009

SUR L'INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS

RÉSIDENTIELS ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

CULTURAL DIVERSITY

CAPPING EXECUTIVE

COMPENSATION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE PLAFONNEMENT

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DES CADRES SUPÉRIEURS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(KEEPING OUR KIDS SAFE

AT SCHOOL), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L'ÉDUCATION

(SÉCURITÉ DE NOS ENFANTS

À L'ÉCOLE)

HOUSE SITTINGS /

HEURES DE SÉANCE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORONERS AMENDMENT ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES CORONERS

Mr. Levac, on behalf of Mr. Bartolucci, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act / Projet de loi 115, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les coroners.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Mr. Dave Levac: It's an honour and a privilege to speak on behalf of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Minister Bartolucci. On October 23 last year, he introduced Bill 115, the Coroners Amendment Act. I'm very pleased to rise in the House today to support the legislation, which, if passed, will significantly strengthen Ontario's death investigation system.

Ontario's coroners and forensic pathologists make a vital contribution to the safety of all Ontarians. The motto of the Office of the Chief Coroner sums up the contribution quite eloquently: "We speak for the dead to protect the living." And so they do. They provide important answers for families, as well as communities, about the circumstances of a loved one's death, and they provide recommendations on how to prevent deaths in similar circumstances, not to pass judgment. However, public confidence in our death investigations system has been shaken to the core as a result of previous history.

This government is committed to restoring that confidence, and this legislation is an important step–a step—in that process.

The proposed amendments to the Coroners Act are part of our ongoing efforts to ensure the quality of Ontario's death investigations. We want to make sure that the system has appropriate checks and balances to prevent the tragedies and miscarriages of justice that led the government to call for a public inquiry on this issue. The Honourable Justice Stephen Goudge published his report and recommendations from that inquiry on October 1, 2008. And 21 days later, our government introduced Bill 115 to address all of the legislative amendments—all of the legislative amendments—recommended by Justice Goudge, which we understand he was quite pleased to see.

Progress to date, however—this legislation is not just about responding to the recommendations of the public inquiry. The legislation represents the vital next steps in the process that started several years ago, to ensure that the highest quality of death investigations in Ontario take place. Since 2003, a great many changes have been made to the death investigation system in this province, and it's important to ensure the quality of death investigations, especially in criminally suspicious cases.

The chief forensic pathologist has developed detailed guidelines for the conduct of autopsies in criminally suspicious cases. All criminally suspicious autopsies now undergo a peer review process to make sure that everything that should be done has been done, and has been done correctly. Now, when a pediatric autopsy is required, it is performed in one of four centres: Hamilton, London, Ottawa or Toronto. This ensures that the most experienced and knowledgeable pathologists conduct complex pediatric autopsies. There's a difference between the two.

In June 2008, we appointed Dr. Andrew McCallum as Ontario's chief coroner. Dr. McCallum, along with chief forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Pollanen, have embraced the challenge to lead Ontario's death investigation system through this period of intense change. I've had conversations with both, and both are extremely professional.

As well, work continues on the project to develop the new forensic services and coroner's complex. Just last week, the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services and Infrastructure Ontario released a request for proposals to design, build, finance and maintain the new facility. I recall, back in 1999 when I was first elected, speaking in this House about that need. The previous government started a process and didn't complete it, but I will say that everyone in this House agreed about the complex that was needed.

When completed, the complex will house the Centre of Forensic Sciences, the Office of the Chief Coroner and the provincial forensic pathology unit under one roof. It will provide state-of-the-art technology and laboratory facilities to meet the province's forensic needs now and into the years to come.

By moving this project forward, we're addressing Commissioner Goudge's recommendation that a new, modern facility is needed to house the Office of the Chief Coroner and related forensic sciences in up-to-date facilities.

Each of the proposed amendments for the Coroners Act meets with the intent of the legislative framework recommended by Commissioner Goudge's report and builds on the progress our government has already been making to strengthen Ontario's death investigation system.

I'd like to spend a few moments reviewing some of the key elements that we are proposing. Defining the death investigation itself: For the system to be transparent, it's important that people understand why a death investigation is held and what it's designed to achieve. The legislation before us would set out in statute the purpose of the death investigation.

In clear and simple terms, each investigation is conducted in the public interest to find five basic answers to the questions about a death: Who died, how did they die, when did they die, where did they die and by what means did they die? The answers to these questions determine whether recommendations are needed to prevent similar deaths or whether the death requires the additional public scrutiny of an inquest. Once the investigation is done, a decision is then made as to whether or not an inquest is necessary.

Establishing effective oversight, the next objective: It's clear from Commissioner Goudge's report that establishing effective oversight of the death investigation system is key to winning back the public's confidence in this system. That's why the proposed legislation would create a death investigation oversight council. The new council would oversee the work of the chief coroner and the chief forensic pathologist and hold them accountable for the quality of death investigations in Ontario. I believe this was supported by all parties.

Members of the council would be appointed by the Ontario Lieutenant Governor, based on the expertise and the experience needed to effectively advise and oversee the chief coroner and the chief forensic pathologist. To ensure transparency, the council would be required to submit an annual report to be tabled before this assembly, as recommended in the amendments during committee.

Strengthening the complaints process is another objective. When a death is investigated, we must never forget that it means a family has lost a loved one, and usually friends and neighbours. This is a time of great stress and anxiety for families. Some never get over it. And while our coroners are experienced professionals, there exists a risk for misunderstanding and miscommunication in such situations.

A strong death investigation system is a transparent death investigation system, a system that is not afraid to listen and respond when a family expresses concerns over how the investigation into their loved one's death was handled. Under the proposed legislation, a new complaints committee would be established that would report to the oversight council—another added transparency system. The committee would track complaints made about the conduct of a coroner or pathologist and would deal directly with complaints about the chief coroner or chief forensic pathologist—one more system.

Recognizing forensic pathology services is the other issue. In his report, Commissioner Goudge identified the vital role that forensic pathology plays in Ontario's death investigation system. Several of his recommendations were directed at improving the oversight of forensic pathologists, defining their roles and ensuring quality within the system. The proposed legislation addresses those recommendations and would, for the first time in Ontario, establish in law the roles and responsibilities of a forensic pathologist in the death investigation system, as well as establishing the framework needed to hold pathologists fully accountable for their work.

Roles and responsibilities needed to be defined. The proposed legislation would establish the chief forensic pathologist as the head of forensic pathology in the province. This would allow him or her to ensure the quality and consistency of services being provided by pathologists in the death investigation system across the entire province. There will be no patchwork here.

Ontario Forensic Pathology Service is another one of the goals. To further ensure consistency, accountability and oversight, a new service, the Ontario Forensic Pathology Service, would be created. Reporting to the chief forensic pathologist, the new service would bring together all of the province's forensic pathology services. These services are currently decentralized and run by regional forensic pathology units and other hospital facilities where autopsies are performed.

The register of pathologists was another recommendation. The chief forensic pathologist would also be responsible for maintaining a register of pathologists authorized to perform coroner's autopsies in support of a coroner's death investigation in Ontario. To be included on the register, a pathologist would have to demonstrate appropriate qualifications and credentials and continue to meet the strict performance requirements set out by the chief forensic pathologist.

Interjection.

Mr. Dave Levac: I'm sure that we'll just keep it moving right along for the member from Niagara.

Another important area of a death investigation that requires clarification is that of retained organs and tissue samples. Retaining organs and tissue samples, including whole organs, is a critical part of the death investigation process. Testing done on retained tissues can help determine the cause of death and can contribute to public safety after investigation. The proposed legislation would formalize the current policy of the Office of the Chief Coroner dealing with organ and tissue retention and appropriate family notification through regulation. That's something that wasn't happening.

An independent death investigation system: There have been several recent cases where families who have lost loved ones have called upon the minister to direct the chief coroner to call an inquest. The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services currently has that authority under

section 22 of the Coroners Act. While these cases are undoubtedly compelling and gut—wrenching, the decision to hold an inquest must be based on factors set out in the Coroners Act.

In a death investigation system based on the principles of professionalism and accountability, there is no place for political considerations, however well intentioned and requested. There are two schools of thought on this. One is that it be retained for that purpose, and the other is to move in the direction that this government has chosen. It is the chief coroner who has the experience and expertise to decide when a death investigation warrants an inquest, and the chief coroner should be free to make that decision without any political intervention. That's why the proposed legislation would repeal

section 22 and so remove the power of the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to order inquests.

This was controversial. The decision was made. We fell on the side of the other option that others were presenting. That's not to say that a decision regarding an inquest cannot be questioned or reviewed. Decisions on inquests routinely undergo three levels of review within the Office of the Chief Coroner. This includes the local investigating coroner, the regional supervising coroner and the inquest committee. The chief coroner can review the case if the family of the deceased is unhappy that an inquest has not been called after these three separate and independent processes are used.

The chief coroner's decision regarding an inquest could still be the subject of a judicial review if there was a desire to seek a review of the particular ruling that the coroner made.

It does not mean that we will not still do inquests. Every child in any kind of public custody will receive an inquest automatically. Anyone in police custody will receive an inquest automatically. Any death in a correctional facility will automatically receive an investigation, and the coroner will decide if an inquest is necessary after that.

Northern First Nations and other remote communities were brought up in the inquest. When we talk about a strong death investigation system, we mean a system that delivers a consistently high-quality service to everyone in Ontario regardless of where they live in this province. In his report, Commissioner Goudge recognized that delivering a consistently high-quality service is challenging in areas of the province. The current shortage of doctors in northern, First Nations and remote communities can result in long response times in the event of a death, and sometimes coroners are unable to attend a death scene at all.

As recommended by Commissioner Goudge, the new legislation would provide for the appointment of individuals other than medical doctors to perform a coroner's duties. This provision would provide coroners with the flexibility to meet local needs and provide improved services to northern and remote communities, as well as any other community that might benefit from a more flexible death investigation model. For example, paramedics or nurse practitioners might be appointed to fulfill that role.

It is important to note, however, that all death investigations would continue to be supervised by the regional supervising coroner to ensure quality and consistency: the very purpose for this bill being introduced.

Focusing resources on public safety: Making the best use of available resources is of paramount importance to the delivery of public services, and death investigations are no exception. Coroners' inquests can make significant contributions to public safety; however, they are time-consuming and costly. It's important that they are held only in cases where there is a reasonable expectation of meaningful recommendations to prevent similar deaths, which indeed is the purpose of doing an investigation.

The proposed legislation makes several changes to the circumstances that require an inquest to be held. An inquest would no longer be mandatory in the case of an adult who dies of natural causes while in the custody of a correctional facility. Such cases rarely result in meaningful recommendations. However, inquests would now be required for individuals detained in psychiatric facilities or in secure treatment programs who die while being restrained—something that was offered as an amendment by the opposition, which we accepted.

And there would be no change in the requirement for inquests into deaths in police custody; there will be inquests under police custody. These changes would allow coroners to better focus their resources on those complex cases where an inquest could result in meaningful recommendations to make Ontarians safer, and that's the job of the chief coroner.

Just to clarify: Coroners would continue to have the discretion to call an inquest in any case where they believe it is warranted; all deaths of adult inmates in correctional facilities would continue to be thoroughly investigated by a coroner, who would still be required to call an inquest in cases where he or she believes a person may not have died of natural causes—no changes there; as well, all deaths in police custody or of minors held in secure-custody facilities would remain the subject of a mandatory inquest.

In

summary, the proposed legislation builds on the significant progress our government has already made to strengthen Ontario's death investigation system. If passed, the legislation would lay the foundation for further improvements. Therefore, I ask for the support of all parties in this House for the legislation so that we can create a more effective, more transparent and, above all, more accountable death investigation system that Ontarians demand and deserve.

I appreciate the work of the minister, I appreciate the opportunity to follow this through the system and I appreciate the opposition's recommendations and the discussions we've had in committee. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I will be speaking myself in just a few moments, so I just want to point out—I've got a few comments to put on the record, but our party will be supporting Bill 115. We do have some concerns with it—but I will be speaking in a few minutes myself.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member for Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I listened carefully to the passionate and exuberant comments of the parliamentary assistant. I do want to make note of the fact that he, of course, did all the heavy lifting. The Solicitor General was nowhere to be seen while this bill was winding its way through the legislative process but will undoubtedly take credit for its successes and leave its failures to be borne by his parliamentary assistant.

I too will be speaking to the bill this morning. I had hoped and anticipated that the bill would have passed, but the lengthy discourse by the parliamentary assistant may have made that an impossibility in terms of this morning, because, of course, we can only sit until 10:15. His House leader may well want to speak with him about his frustrating the passage of the bill in a rather speedy manner this morning.

I have some things to say about the bill. It's not the be-all and end-all. The parliamentary assistant appeals to the opposition and says—he knows we're supporting the bill. For Pete's sake, stop that; stop that. We've been on the record from the get-go. He wants to create the impression that somehow his oratory and his exhortation have prompted us to come over onside. He knows we're supporting the bill. The bill's going to pass. What's remarkable is that it's taken this long and that this government has been so lax in responding to the critical matter that the bill, in fact, in itself responds to.

I do have some very special concerns about the repeal of

section 22, and that's something that the parliamentary assistant didn't address. Maybe he's going to in the time allotted to him in his response.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It's always interesting to listen to the member for Brantford—and of course he did a job of the heavy lifting, as the prior member said, to bring this bill to where we find it today. Speaking passionately about it: As you bring something through like that, you have an extra attachment to it, so it's kind of interesting, listening to the member speak.

Where this bill is going to end up today, I'm not sure.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Oh, you're not?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Well, we may help the government out on this one.

Interjection: Yes?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Yes, we may help the government; we may not. It depends; it depends on where we come out on this. But we do have some time available for people to express their interests on this bill.

The Coroners Act, of course, is a very, very important part of Ontario's legal system and in our system of confidence in the government and the system, especially when we have state-sponsored health care.

The Coroners Act is very important to ensure that the health industry in our province is working in the way in which it should, and the coroner's department is one that is very, very important to that end—to make sure that people remain confident in the system we have and that diagnosis, treatments, the way people are treated in hospitals, the way people are treated in retirement homes and nursing homes and old-age homes are appropriate and are done with the kind of care and attention that all Ontarians hope to have. The coroner is the one who ultimately justifies those actions.

I look forward to the rest of the debate on this bill.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

The member has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Dave Levac: I'm glad I got everyone's attention. It's really important for me to make sure that everyone understands the depth and importance of this bill, so I really do appreciate the comments made by my colleagues opposite—the member from Simcoe North, the member from Welland and the member from Halton.

To respond directly to the member from Welland, I'm glad we were able to spend some time together during this bill and receive all of the information that was required, but he would be very interested to know that I was briefing and discussing with not only the staff, but the minister, on an ongoing basis, who did show an interest in this bill and did show me that he was concerned as much as anyone else was about ensuring that this was done in a way that represented his beliefs. He takes his job seriously. I'm sure the member would accept that as fact because that's what I'm telling him. That's exactly what it is.

Having said that, I do look forward to the comments from both of the opposition parties. As I said earlier, there were two schools of thought on this particular issue, and we wanted to see which side people were falling on on

section 22. I happen to believe that the decision the government is making in the circumstances with regard to

section 22 provides for the chief coroner and his complete team to come to the most professional, the most practical and the most accountable decision when it comes to doing an inquest.

Having said that, I definitely appreciate all of the feedback that I've received throughout the coverage of this bill. There were some very good deputations, and I'm sure that both members will make some references to those. Some of those deputations brought to light some issues that we did end up dealing with in the bill, and I believe all of those people deserve credit. The biggest group of people that deserve credit are those who had to suffer during the process of the unfortunate circumstances that we found ourselves in around Dr. Smith.

Having said that, to those families and to any family that has lost a loved one and that requires the Coroners Act to kick in, we offer our condolences, obviously. Hopefully, when we continue to rise in this House, we continue to offer legislation that continues to make us the greatest place to live, work, play and raise a family.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm very pleased to rise today to comment on the third reading of Bill 115, the Coroners Amendment Act. First of all, I want to thank all the people who came to the committee hearings. Any time we can have open committee hearings and people are allowed to come and voice their concerns on a particular piece of legislation, it's what this place is really all about.

One of the things that I wanted to put on the record is that when we listen to the deputations that are made at the committee hearings, quite often, from my perspective as critic for community safety and correctional services, I like to take the opportunity to listen to their proposed amendments, and if I agree with those proposed amendments, I like to put them in the form of an amendment that the government can at least consider. We've seen that with a number of the deputants.

I talk to, in particular, people like Terence Young, who was here. He made a deputation and in fact, he has written a book called Death by Prescription. It should have been launched between the time we had committee hearings and now. He is a former member of this House and now an MP up in Ottawa. He talked about what he dealt with in his life and his family's life when he lost a daughter—I believe it was right at the kitchen table.

We had also in attendance Tim and Barb Farlow. Tim made a presentation to the committee, and I applaud him for his deputation. I know that when we originally had done second reading debate, Tim and Barb were in the House. They had lost a little girl at Sick Kids. She'd passed away at 80 days of age, and they're wanting answers in the death of that child as to exactly what happened. I put that all on the record in second reading debate. Tim Farlow was good enough to come to the committee and voice his concern again about the types of amendments and what some families have gone through.

One of the things I noticed that I thought was very, very important about the committee hearings was the fact that it was a very, very emotional time. A number of people had a difficult time coming to those hearings, voicing their concerns, putting on the record what their families had gone through. I think, as parliamentarians, this kind of legislation is often difficult to accept, and the committee hearings are difficult to put up with, because you relate to your own family all the time when you're listening to some of the tragedies that some of the folks have gone through.

At the very beginning of this process, we felt that we would be supporting this legislation. Our party will continue to support the legislation. I wanted to put on the record, though, that we cannot agree on

section 22. We think it is a mistake to repeal the section. I think everybody who came to the committee hearings felt the same way. No one said this was the right thing to do. They thought it was an opportunity for the minister to dodge some responsibility. So, although we will be supporting the bill, we think that the

section should not have been repealed and that the minister should still have that responsibility.

The comment coming from the government was, "We've only used it one time." But, you know, there might be an opportunity where that could happen next month or six months from now, when you might have that circumstance, when you might want the minister to intervene. For that reason, we felt that that

section should have been left alone.

However, our party made 18 amendments to the bill. I thank the government for allowing at least three of them to be accepted, with a couple of minor modifications. We put a lot of effort into it; we take this legislation very, very seriously. I know that in my own office, my executive assistant, Gaggan Gill, put a lot of effort into research. She worked with Sarah Ellis, from our research department. These two young ladies did a remarkable job of listening to the concerns of those who made deputations to the committee.

We took those concerns and put them in the form of amendments. We felt they were very well-thought-out and well-researched amendments that made a lot of sense, and for every one of the amendments, we put on the record the reason for the amendment. Although as an opposition we don't expect the government to accept every one of our amendments, I think the government and the ministry staff would at least look at the amendments as though they were professionally done.

I know that when the parliamentary assistant addressed the amendments, he always came back with a lot of reasons why the amendment would not be acceptable to the government and the ministry. We accept that that's their job and their responsibility. But in the end, they're not wishy-washy amendments; these are amendments that made a lot of sense, and a lot of thought was put behind the drafting of the amendments. So I thank Gaggan Gill and Sarah Ellis for the hard work they've done on the bill. I'm very proud of the work that they did.

With that, I'm not going to speak all morning on this or spend a whole hour on it. I want to leave the rest of the time to the third party. I know they'll want to use the rest of the time. However, our party congratulates Justice Goudge for his work on this, for his recommendations, and we look forward to implementation of the bill. Any regulations that will have to be drafted, we look forward to seeing implemented as quickly as possible. As I say, our party will be supporting Bill 115.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Yes, I will be speaking to the bill in short order. Unfortunately, the lead is an hour and we're going to adjourn at 10:15. That creates some problems—I suppose not for me, but for the government. But there's lots of time. They've filed motions for midnight sittings, and I suppose we could sit until midnight tonight, or even Monday night. I know the government members look forward to that.

I know that from time to time those midnight sittings tend to get rather raucous, because people, after they eat their dinners, are upset by what they ate or they're fuelled by what they ate, and things get pretty wild and woolly in here on midnight sittings. We don't have the pages here, because it's not one of those—it doesn't get the G rating. It's a more adult-focused type of sitting, which doesn't diminish the public's interest in it, because of course it's televised.

So as I say, in short order, in a few minutes' time after we hear Mr. Dunlop's response to these questions and comments, we'll embark on the NDP participation in third reading of this bill, which undoubtedly is going to pass. Make no mistake about it: The bill will become law as soon as the government proclaims it once it receives third reading. Third reading may not be today; it could well be on Monday or Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. In fact, because the House is adjourning on June 4, the bill can always be held over. There's going to be a motion to preserve legislation in the event of a prorogation.

A prorogation, of course, is when the Premier joins Michael Bryant on a lifeboat and looks to sort of renew the branding of the Liberals in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me a chance to comment on the speech from the member from Simcoe North. I think it's a very important piece of legislation, as he mentioned. I'm glad to see the opposition supporting this bill. I'm also glad to see the government put some kind of qualifications in place in terms of hiring pathologists and coroners who are qualified to practise in the province of Ontario. I know he has a comment on making sure that everyone practising in the province has certain qualifications in order to make sure the job is done in a professional manner. It's also important to remove the power from the minister, being like—

Mr. Peter Kormos: Because you can't trust him.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I guess the member from Welland doesn't want to hear or listen. I guess he's having fun. That's very good.

I want to congratulate the member from Simcoe North.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Now he gives up; he surrenders.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I'm not surrendering.

I think it's important to remove

section 22. To give them power from the minister is not, I think, the professional manner. When you give it to these chief coroners, who have special qualifications to do their job, it's important, because we know that exactly no political influence will be put on the onus of the minister or any one government in place. It's very important to have a qualified person who decides when we call for inquests or who inquires on any important issues, and also to allow that the council be appointed by this bill, if this bill passes, to oversee the context of the investigation. It is very important to make sure everyone in the province of Ontario has a right to express his or her feelings.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Again, speaking to the bill, our member from—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Simcoe North.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I knew it was Simcoe North.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It's time for a GPS. You need a GPS.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: You need a GPS to get to Simcoe North.

It's interesting listening to the member from Simcoe North. Of course, in supporting the bill, he also pointed out that there was one

section of the bill that does give us some difficulty:

section 22, which was removed from the bill. That

section allowed the minister to order an inquest to be made. Why that would be removed, I really don't know. From time to time in Ontario an inquest may not be judged to be necessary in some cases, but the public opinion may demand it. In those cases, the minister would have the authority to order an inquest into that passing.

That would be a very valuable thing to have in the toolbox. It's not something that would be used an awful lot but it's something that the minister would have available to him. Whether this is an attempt to remove the government of Ontario from governing entirely, I don't know. I don't know what the minister's thought process would be. I know that this government seems to be very interested in photo ops and making announcements and a little less interested in following through on some of those photo ops and announcements. Certainly the removal of

section 22 would keep in line with the line of thinking this government seems to have. The bill itself is a good one, although I would like to have seen

section 22 remain.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments?

Mr. Dave Levac: I'll be very brief.

Just to bring some clarity and maybe some straightforward discussion on

section 22, there was a concern raised earlier, and somebody at the committee level had said that the coroner wasn't even in favour of this—and I wanted to bring some clarity to that comment. First of all, it was never made in his report. Number two, once he saw the government's response in legislation, in an interview with the minister and his staff—I wasn't there, but the minister was there—he said specifically that now that the government has responded so fully to the legislation in the recommendations, it didn't matter whether

section 22 was there or not. I wanted to make sure that was clear. The chief coroner said that he did not need

section 22 once he got the legislative changes he was looking for. Since he got them all, he basically said, then the professionalism and the expertise that is going to be put inside of this legislation and provided for the chief coroner would be sufficient to deal with the concerns raised before.

Having said that, I think it's important for us to stay focused on that. And I don't mind hearing the comments. I really do look forward to the comments from the member from Welland on the specifics behind

section 22. Other than the bluster, other than the emotional outrage, I'd like to hear the logic of why we would not listen to the coroner in his recommendation. I am allowing him to provide some time, and I'm giving him an opportunity to engage in this. I look forward to that.

As far as the member from Simcoe North—I knew that one right away—I appreciate his comments on the amendments. We did take some, as he noted, and I thought it was a good process.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'd like to thank the members from Welland, London—Fanshawe, Brant and my colleague from Halton.

By the way, it's Simcoe North, and it's the freshwater sailing and boating capital of the world.

Mr. Dave Levac: Lake Simcoe?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Lake Simcoe, Georgian Bay, Lake Couchiching, the Severn River—500 kilometres of shoreline in my riding. It's a great area, a wonderful area to represent.

As I mentioned earlier, we'll be supporting this bill.

I want to repeat the fact that we support the bulk of the recommendations made by Justice Goudge. We think it was a thorough investigation, a thorough response. It was a tragedy that a lot of families need not have gone through if some of this legislation would have been in place before.

Really, in the end, as I say, we were pleased to take

part in the committee hearings. It was one of the most emotional types of committee hearings I've been at in my 10 years at Queen's Park. I was intrigued by the stories that came forward from our presenters and those who told the stories of the loss of their loved ones. The child advocate was another person who came forward and did a very, very professional job in making their comments.

With that, I'm hoping this bill will be passed, and we hope that the bulk of it will be put to good use and it will make Ontario a better place to raise our families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I'm doing my best to get this into the next 30 minutes. I'm not sure it can happen, but I will do my humble best so that this matter can get to a vote. If the parliamentary assistant, as I indicated earlier, hadn't consumed so much of the morning's time, he may have been more successful at facilitating passage of third reading.

I should compliment the parliamentary assistant, though. I have high regard for him. I consider him a friend. I have great respect for him. I was with him witnessing his carriage of this bill through second reading and through the committee process. Indeed, as Mr. Dunlop has said, it was a very interesting experience. All of us learned, I believe, a great deal. So I do compliment the parliamentary assistant for his carriage of this bill. Of course, he's paid well for doing that, just as he's paid well for praising the bill.

He has his script, and were he not to follow that script he would be a parliamentary assistant for but 30 minutes more today and would find himself over here in the rump with his rumpmates, who aren't even considered important enough to sit with their government backbench colleagues.

So I understand why the parliamentary assistant finds himself obliged to read the scripts. I'm not sure whether I would do the same thing, but far be it from me to judge. I don't want to impute motive to the parliamentary assistant. But he is a very capable member of the Legislature, and I tell the Solicitor General and the Premier—

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Please, Speaker, don't give him Hansard recognition. It's the only way he has to get on the record. Were he to participate more actively he might find himself over on the other side.

Enough of my praise for the parliamentary assistant; enough of my praise for Mr. Levac. I should also acknowledge—because people here have been acknowledging the role of various people in the course of the bill's process—Margaret Drent, whom you'll agree on, because she's the research officer. Margaret Drent was just stellar in her assistance to all of us in terms of her research materials. We're all very grateful to her. She works non-partisan; her role is non-partisan, of course.

Look, the elephant in the room is this fellow Charles Smith. The Goudge inquiry was all about this incompetent liar's contribution to the unjust conviction of countless people, many of them parents. I accept the Goudge recommendations. I'm confident because I've heard no criticism of them from the legal community. Members of the defence bar especially, similarly, support the implementation of the Goudge recommendations. But I have serious, serious concerns, notwithstanding what Goudge says. Charles Smith, a liar? Goudge said so. Incompetent? Goudge said so. A bit of a whack and a flake? Goudge said so.

Not his words; he used far more judicial language, but I'll put it in language that perhaps we're all a little more familiar with.

This guy Smith, for 24 years, while working for the Hospital for Sick Kids just down the road, lied and bungled his way through countless prosecutions of people charged with injuring and, more tragically, killing children, babies—countless unjust convictions.

We're not talking about people who are sentenced to a couple of weekends in the local lockup; we're not talking about people who are sentenced to house arrest; we're talking about people who, almost inevitably when you murder a child, are sentenced to penitentiary time, where they do what is called colloquially "hard time." Let me tell you, when you're a baby killer, you're pretty darned close to the bottom of the ladder. Even in protective custody, you're a victim. Some of those people have been successful in having their convictions overturned.

None of them will ever be successful at having their losses restored.

What bothers me significantly is how Smith could flourish—he did for 24 years. Was his stellar batting record not of some concern to crown attorneys? Was his stellar capacity to indict and convict people accused of killing children not of concern to the police officers themselves, for fear that they had picked the wrong person to be charged? Was Smith's capacity to find criminal culpability with the named accused not of concern to judges?

Smith didn't work in a vacuum. What about the coroner? Wasn't the coroner's office concerned? During the course of, if not the first or the second or third of those 24 years, at least well into the 15- and 20-year range, wasn't the coroner's office a little concerned about how effective Smith was at providing evidence that supported the crown's case and didn't support the defence argument? What about his colleagues? What about other pathologists? What about other people in the medical profession? What about the Hospital for Sick Kids, who kept him in their employ?

Smith wasn't a solo operator, and although Smith has been appropriately condemned—I only wish he could spend a portion of the jail time his victims have—we haven't recognized the culpability of other players in the system. Smith was supported, nurtured, tolerated, reinforced, aided and abetted by any number of police officers, crown attorneys and judges; I have no hesitation in saying that. And bring on the e-mails, folks, because I have absolute confidence in that observation.

He was giving public testimony. He was appearing in front of judges who have heard case after case after case and who, one presumes, were highly experienced. What I find incredibly frightening about this is that it reveals that tunnel vision of the criminal justice system wherein the presumption of innocence is given but lip service. My fear is that Smith could survive 24 years of lying and cheating and misleading because people in the criminal justice system don't really believe in the presumption of innocence. In fact, the presumption is that if you have been charged, you must be guilty, and if not of the crime you're charged with, at least guilty of something: a very dangerous precedent.

Look at the Attorney General's tinkering with jury panels—"tinkering" is putting it mildly—and the Attorney General's office only stops doing it once it gets caught. Don't think for a minute that the rationale for background checks of potential jurors is so that the crown attorney can find the people who are the most neutral and unbiased. Bullfeathers; the crown attorney is looking for the people who are most likely to convict and wants to exclude those people who might be a little more tolerant and a little more inclined to the defence. If you believe anything otherwise, then you're from some other planet than this one.

While Goudge has addressed procedural means whereby we can incorporate oversight, he didn't address the culture in those Bay Street towers—the Ministry of the Attorney General, amongst others, is over there on that side road; is it Grosvenor where the coroner's office is?—the culture wherein these professionals support each other, cover up for each other, cultivate incompetence.

Mr. Dunlop was there; Mr. Dunlop has referred to some of the heartbreaking stories of families who lost a loved one: daughters, children, partners and parents. They told stories about coroners' offices that were oh, so high and mighty, that dismissed them with a little wave of the hand: "Go away, go away; you're bothering us." Is that a fair observation?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yep.

Mr. Peter Kormos: Mr. Dunlop responds. Of course, they weren't speaking about all coroners. We only heard about the bad ones. Nobody came forward—because people aren't inclined to do that—with good stories about coroners or other officials who treated them with fairness, respect and dignity. We heard about coroners' offices that refused to listen to family members who had lost a loved one, who refused to embark on investigations and subsequent inquiries and who had an aloofness, an attitude of, "We know it all, and you're stupid." That's a dangerous phenomenon that Goudge, of course, didn't address.

While it wasn't Goudge's job to indict Smith, he, in a very careful and judicially toned comment, did as much. Goudge wrote: "... Smith was adamant that his failings were never intentional. I simply cannot accept such a sweeping attempt to escape moral responsibility." In other words, the inference that you draw from that comment is that Goudge said these were intentional and that Smith knew full well what he was doing in his zeal to convict people, in Smith's zeal to pander to his bosses, in Smith's zeal to be seen as a caped crusader, in Smith's zeal to be seen as a friend of the victim, and in Smith's zeal to be seen as a friend of the police and the prosecution.

Unless and until we move beyond this and address the culture in which Charles Smiths can be cultivated and can be nurtured, we are going to have more Smiths—notwithstanding all of the oversights that have been proposed by Goudge.

We heard a lot of fascinating stuff. Members who were on the committee will remember Dr. Alexander Franklin, a wonderful, brilliant gentleman, speaking on behalf of the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London. Who might they be, you may ask?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Is that really their title?

Mr. Peter Kormos: That is the body in Britain, a long-standing one that goes back centuries, that provides training for pathologists. Dr. Franklin came before us speaking about the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries of London to urge the committee to incorporate into the legislation a requirement that pathologists receive specific training as pathologists, because in Canada there is no formal training for certification process for pathologists.

That in itself is pretty remarkable—ain't it?—that pathologists, especially those engaged in forensic pathology, where criminal prosecutions are contemplated or are under way, hold the fate of an accused in their legal pad, yet we don't have any specific training or certification for those people.

I want to thank Dr. Alexander Franklin for his submission. Of course, it wasn't incorporated into the legislation; the legislation couldn't accommodate that recommendation. But I would urge this government to be the first in Canada to consider that recommendation of Dr. Franklin's and to consider the incorporation of standards of certification for pathologists here in the province of Ontario.

I was delighted when the government backed off on its efforts to amend

section 10 of the existing act.

Section 10 lists any number of causes of death that could prompt a coroner's investigation: violence, misadventure, negligence, misconduct, malpractice or death by unfair means. I saw the amendment that says "repeal paragraph B of subsection 10(1) of the Coroners Act," and I said, "Why would we repeal that cause of death by unfair means? Would the brain trust please perhaps tell me what 'by unfair means' means?" Well, nobody knew. Well, hell's bells.

Just like we have no business whatsoever passing legislation that nobody knows anything about—and Lord knows that happens often enough; you don't get a chance to sit in committees anymore. But you might well recall how especially government members are just little voting machines who vote as they're told and when they're told, with no idea whatsoever of what they're voting for; none whatsoever. They haven't got the slightest clue.

They never read the legislation, never went to any briefings, and sit there doodling, writing love letters, picking fabric samples, nodding off so that the saliva, the spit bridge, forms between the side of their head and the desk. I've seen it, and so have you. And finally, they come to in time for a vote because the whip gives them the old elbow hook in the ribs. They vote, and then from time to time, they vote the wrong way. We've seen that happen too.

Sometimes the opposition is accommodating and lets them recall the vote; other times, when the opposition wants to be a little more mischievous, we're disinclined.

But I was so pleased that the government backed off on its effort to repeal the "death by unfair means" provisions in the existing Coroners Act. I have no idea what it means still. I speculated. Nobody was about to refute my speculation, and I still intend to pursue the history of that provision of the act. But, heck, it might be useful at some point in the future, "death by unfair means." If there's such a thing as death by boredom, perhaps when one of the government backbenchers is speaking and an opposition member passes away by boredom, would that be unfair means?

If the member, for instance, from London—Fanshawe took it upon himself to finally rise in the House and deliver a rational speech but remain tediously boring and I were to die from that boredom, would that be death by unfair means? I don't know, but I don't want the possibility of that being considered to be excluded from the legislation, and I applaud the government for abandoning that goal.

Section 22: When you talk about what is contentious about this bill, that probably is the target.

Section 22, a long-standing provision of the Coroners Act, says, "Where the minister has reason to believe that a death has occurred in Ontario in circumstances that warrant the holding of an inquest, the minister may direct any coroner to hold an inquest and the coroner shall" etc. etc. See, right now it's totally discretionary on the part of coroners as to whether or not to hold an inquest, and Mr. Levac, the parliamentary assistant, has been told to say that people have access to judicial review should they disagree with the coroner's decision not to hold an inquest, and he's right. The new legislation will provide for judicial review.

Well, let's talk about Jared down in Hamilton. Remember him? We should. He was the little boy who was killed by his father, and then his father was shot by police in a standoff. Two tragic deaths, two very different players—interconnected, no two ways about it, no doubt. But Andrea Horwath and the NDP have, from the very beginning, been pleading to have separate inquests.

Think about this: an innocent little boy, a kid, slaughtered by a parent, butchered by a parent, and his mother's search for justice has to be clouded by the fact that the father's inquest is being held contemporaneously with the inquest into the death of the kid. Is it legal? Of course. The Coroners Act provides for a coroner to use his discretion to join inquests. Is it moral? I don't think so. Is it ethical? I don't think so. Is it productive? I don't think so, nor do a whole lot of people.

That an innocent child has the consideration of the circumstances surrounding his slaughter clouded by the consideration of the police shooting of his murderous father is not fair to that child's memory, isn't fair to his mom or his grandparents and isn't fair to the community.

Judicial review would be unsuccessful in that event because, as you know, Speaker—and there are lawyers here in this chamber who will correct me if I'm wrong—a judicial review is capable of determining only whether or not the law was properly applied. A court would have to say: "Yes, the law was properly applied. It's within the discretion of the coroner to join two inquests." That's why we need the discretion of the minister.

What is this bizarre flight from power that's increasingly taking place in government, ministers who increasingly want to distance themselves from the real world, the creation of these arm's length bodies so that ministers can stand up here in the chamber as they do on a daily basis, and say, "Don't ask me. It's at arm's length"?

Mr. Paul Miller: "Ask the LHIN."

Mr. Peter Kormos: "Ask the LHIN," Mr. Miller says. So when the Niagara Health System anonymous unelected gang of trustees shut down small-town hospitals and I stand in this chamber and put the question to the minister, the minister says: "Don't ask me. I'm not responsible. LHINs make those decisions." It's this flight from responsibility, this flight from power, this flight from accountability.

The Minister of Community Safety, the Solicitor General, was pestered, hectored, by Ms. Horwath, who repeatedly called upon him, the Solicitor General, to use his—the Solicitor General's—discretion under

section 22 to order a stand-alone inquiry into the death of Jared. Response after response consisted of the minister saying: "The coroner has made a decision. It's not for me to get involved." Well, that's why you're paid the big bucks. Of course you're supposed to get involved.

The repeal of

section 22 wasn't part of the Goudge considerations; it wasn't part of the Goudge recommendations. The repeal of

section 22, I suspect, was as much a result of the hectoring by Ms. Horwath of the Solicitor General about Jared as it was about anything else.

The argument, "It hasn't been used often"—well, good. That means it hasn't been abused, doesn't it? That means that ministers haven't being, willy-nilly, using

section 22 to order coroners' inquests. The minister doesn't go home and take a walk around the block saying, "Should I use

section 22 or shouldn't I?" The minister makes no decisions, by God, of that nature. The minister, appropriately, relies upon advice given to him by any number of civil servants, bureaucrats, lawyers, counsel, people who have far greater tenure than any politician ever does, people in the ministerial bureaucracy.

It is extremely troubling.

Section 22 is a safeguard.

Section 22 allows the public interest to be given effect from time to time, and for the life of me, I don't know what's wrong with that. Surely politicians, elected people, should be pursuing the public interest rather than what is necessarily prescribed or proscribed by the law at any given point in time.

We are very concerned about the repeal of

section 22. And make no mistake about it: It's never going to be re-enacted—is it?—ever, ever, ever. Increasingly, politicians, especially those who are in the executive branch, want to keep themselves pristine by not having to do anything, which means doing nothing, not having to worry about dirtying their hands or having to roll up their sleeves and make decisions that reflect the assumption and the recognition of some responsibility on their part.

The stonewalling by the minister around Jared was, in and of itself, frustrating. And then the Solicitor General's solution—oh please; it's not the Solicitor General, I give him too much credit; it's the Premier's office—the Premier's office's solution is to simply repeal the

section so that Mr. Dunlop will never, ever, in the course of his parliamentary career—and I expect it to be lengthy; I've been up in his riding—be able to stand up on behalf of a constituent who's been denied an inquest by the coroner and appeal to the Solicitor General to "Please, use your discretion." Never will Mr. Levac, the member from out Brantford way, the riding of Brant—and I've been in his riding; I expect he'll have a similarly lengthy political career.

I have no doubt that not all of it is going to be spent over on that side, and when he's a member of the opposition and has a little more freedom to act for his constituents and he's compelled to stand here and appeal to a Solicitor General to "Please, use your discretion under

section 22 so that the public interest—so that justice can be obtained," why, it won't even be a question that's in order because there won't be a

section 22. I would expect that he'll sit here in silence, biting his tongue, swallowing the blood and saying, "I can't even ask that question because, oops, in 2009, the Liberal government repealed

section 22"—section 22, which has never been abused, has been used very, very cautiously. Indeed, there was only one instance in recent history where it was used—and very effectively, I might add; very effectively. You recall the boating incident where there was a suspicion of death and where, in fact, the coroner's inquest determined that nobody had died—a not at all inappropriate role for the coroner's inquest to perform.

We'll be voting for the legislation. I suppose we might as well get it done and over with. I've already laid too much blame for delay at the feet of the parliamentary assistant. I don't want him to be hauled into the Premier's office or, even more worrisome, into Ms. Smith's office, the House leader, where the beating he'll take will be far more severe than anything that the Premier's office could administer. But I've got to tell you, I don't look forward to the occasion when government members are called upon by their constituents to appeal to the Solicitor General around a tragic death in their own communities, only to realize that they've repealed that very

section that gives them the final appeal in terms of obtaining justice for, oh, maybe a dead kid or a dead wife or a dead grandma or a dead husband. I truly rue this day.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Questions and comments? Further debate?

Mr. Levac has moved third reading of Bill 115,

An Act to amend the Coroners Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It being 10:16, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to welcome and ask all members to welcome the citizens of the town of Innisfil, who will be here shortly to witness question period and particularly, the issue around their boundary.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I'm pleased to welcome a guest, a good friend of mine, Jordan Goldblatt, in the members' east gallery. I ask that members join me in welcoming him on his first trip to the Legislature.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I'd like to welcome to the House long-time residents of south Mississauga—over 40 years—most recently now in Clarkson: Ms. Sonya Banquier and Mr. Jeremy Beaty. Welcome to Queen's Park and thank you for being here.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I wish to welcome Mr. Shahram Khorramshahi, parliamentary secretary of international affairs, the Parliament of the Federative Republic of Brazil, to the east gallery.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to introduce Bernard and Marlyene Brooks, who are from my riding and are down visiting. We're delighted to have them here today. I'll be having lunch with them and giving them a bit of a tour, so we'd like to welcome them.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Hanane Bouji is doing some work part-time in my office for the summer, and she's here watching question period for the first time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the Minister of Education and page Mariah Palantzas, we'd like to welcome her mother, Eleni Palantzas, to Queen's Park today, sitting in the members' gallery. Welcome to Queen's Park.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to introduce Royston Simon from my community, who's with us today and hasn't arrived yet, but will be here in a moment to watch question period.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would like to introduce my constituency assistant, who is here observing today: Mr. Andrew Lauer.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the CBC reported that another of your government agencies has been playing fast and loose with taxpayers' dollars and spending money like it grows on trees. Premier, can you explain to overtaxed Ontarians just why Sarah Kramer, the CEO of eHealth, your appointee, receiving a salary of $380,000 a year, was able to give herself a $114,000 bonus after only three months on the job?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm pleased to take the first question. I know my colleague Minister Caplan will speak to some of the details in the supplementaries.

Let me say at the outset that the very reason that we want to move ahead with an electronic health record system in Ontario is to deliver better health care by finding greater efficiencies and being more respectful of the Ontario taxpayer dollar. I know that all my colleagues would agree with the importance of that, just as we would also all agree that as we set up this system we should be, throughout, respectful of the Ontario taxpayer dollar.

I know that there are some facts that have been brought to the fore which do not sit easy with us in government, as they do not with my colleagues opposite. I understand that the auditor is taking a look at this. We welcome that observation. If he wanted to come out with recommendations sooner rather than later, we would welcome those as well. I just want to assure my colleague that this is a concern to us as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I think most people assume the government is responsible for safeguarding tax dollars. This is your appointee; this is your agency. To say you're concerned is cold comfort, I would think, to hard-pressed taxpayers.

Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians have lost their jobs. Communities are hurting; families are suffering; yet week after week we hear of this government and its agencies abusing the public trust, spending tax dollars like there's no tomorrow. There's a growing sense of entitlement in this government. It's infecting their agencies, clearly. You can't distance yourself from this. It's happening on your watch. You get up and explain to Ontarians: How could this happen?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I do thank the member for the question. I must admit I do not agree with his characterization.

I can tell you that electronic health is significant. It's an important investment in the modernization of our health care system. What it will do is connect medical professionals together. What it will do is provide greater information for the kinds of decisions that will go into better patient care. What it will do is eliminate errors and have better patient safety. I think that those are the results that Ontarians want to see from their health care system. I think that those are important investments. I think that Ontarians understand that south of the border, President Obama, as part of his stimulus package—a $50-billion five-year investment in electronic health.

This government is determined to modernize our health care system to ensure that patients have better health care and have the electronic health infrastructure in place. As the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That was unadulterated pap. People are sick and tired of those kinds of responses. I asked you a specific question about a $114,000 bonus, taxpayer dollars, after just three months on the job—no explanation or justification for why you were asleep at the switch.

Over a four-month period, Ms. Kramer spent nearly five million tax dollars on consulting fees. She awarded those contracts without going for public bid. She broke the rules but still gave herself a $114,000 taxpayer-paid bonus. You can't wash your hands of this. You're responsible for the agencies and the people you appoint to them. Stand up and tell hard-pressed Ontarians why this happened and why you failed to do your job.

Hon. David Caplan: Once again, I disagree with the member opposite. No rules were broken.

In fact, eHealth has accomplished much since they began in September. They've unveiled Ontario's first-ever comprehensive, published eHealth strategy. They've launched ePrescribing, which is the first of its kind in this country, connecting pharmacists with family physicians in two communities, Collingwood and Sault Ste. Marie, cutting down medical errors when it comes to filling prescriptions. They're partnering with OntarioMD to roll out electronic medical records in primary care physician offices throughout the province.

They've launched the baseline data set for a diabetes initiative to measure the current state of diabetes care in Ontario, providing physicians with information needed to improve care. They've established a diagnostic imaging network across Ontario so that images are available digitally, resulting in faster turnaround times for patients.

These are tangible results, benefits for patients, and we're going to continue driving forward—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Back to the Premier: Obviously we're not getting any answers to these legitimate concerns. Months ago, our caucus raised concerns about what we saw as a sense of entitlement at play within the management ranks of eHealth. The red flags were flapping in the wind, alarm bells were ringing, but you and your minister chose to ignore massive expenses and breaches of government rules. Now it has come back to bite you, and you can't walk away from this, Premier. The buck stops with you. Why did you and your colleagues not act months ago when the arrogant misuse of tax dollars first became known?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: The fact is that this government did act months ago. Previously, an organization called the Smart Systems for Health Agency was put in place with an incorrect mandate. In fact, it was through the timely intervention of my predecessor that an operational review was ordered and acted upon, to the formation of eHealth Ontario. And eHealth Ontario has moved forward quite aggressively and, I would say, with some urgency to be able to deliver the electronic health infrastructure that Ontario patients would want, that Ontario health care practitioners tell us they need.

I have had a chance to speak with the board, with the chair, Dr. Alan Hudson, and with Ms. Kramer. I have impressed upon them the need to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and with sensitivity, given the factors that the member mentioned in an earlier question. I know they are following—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: That's a typical cavalier attitude when it comes to misuse of tax dollars with respect to this government. This minister was clearly asleep at the switch. Now he's defending his lack of action.

CBC's The National last night revealed that one of the consultants hired by Ms. Kramer was paid $300 an hour for reading newspapers, watching TV, and even for conversations on the subway.

This is your agency, Minister. The Premier met with this lady before she was appointed. This is your appointee. You can't walk away from responsibility.

I would ask you today to stand up and explain to struggling families in Chatham, Windsor and Cornwall just why you allowed this to happen, why you failed to protect scarce tax dollars.

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, we treat tax dollars very seriously on this side of the House, and I know that all members would want that to happen.

eHealth is an expensive undertaking; I acknowledge that. We're drawing on expertise from around the world because I'm determined, and this government is determined, to build the best electronic health system for all Ontarians.

We're not alone. We're using specialized consultants, specialized talents for large-scale IT initiatives. It is standard practice in public and private sector around the world.

These are important investments in improved health care for Ontario residents. They are important to transformatively see better patient safety, as I mentioned earlier. We're going to continue to drive forward for improved health care for Ontario residents.

I do understand that in fact the percentage of consultants, for example, as the member mentioned, when started by the Conservatives, started at 27%—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: The folks over there would make David Dingwall proud, for feeling so entitled to your entitlements.

This Minister of Health is no stranger to scandal. He left his previous position under a cloud with the extravagances at OLG. Where Minister Caplan goes, scandal and sloppy oversight, when it comes to the expenditure of tax dollars, are sure to follow.

Not so long ago in this place we were asking about millions of tax dollars being thrown out the door by the former Minister of Citizenship. Well, he's now sitting in the backbenches.

I ask the Premier—this should really go to the Premier: Along with Ms. Kramer, we would hope both of you will soon be given your walking papers. When can we expect that to happen?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to keep delivering on the mandate we talked to Ontarians about, which is improving health care in the province of Ontario, lowering wait times, expanding access to family health care and, yes, making sure that we modernize our health care system with an important eHealth platform.

We do have a legislative officer who is and has been engaged, as I mentioned back on April 9 in this House, at the behest of the federal Auditor General. Provincial counterparts were asked to look at these very expensive undertakings and these investments of public dollars in health care systems. I look forward to the Auditor General giving us his advice about the efficacy of those investments and about ways that we can improve.

I know that Ms. Kramer, and Dr. Hudson too, have just recently met with Mr. McCarter, the auditor, and in fact have engaged him. We are determined to deliver value—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. Premier, everyone in Ontario's health care community agrees that we need an electronic health record. But Ontario has continued to lag far behind other jurisdictions, and this after the government has poured close to $1 billion down the drain. Yet the bungling and the mismanagement continue at the new eHealth Ontario agency, which doled out close to $5 million in questionable contracts during the first four months of operation.

How much desperately needed health care money is this government prepared to blow before it steps up and cleans the latest eHealth mess?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the member opposite. In fact, her leader had said in this House that we should pull the plug on electronic health initiatives, so I'm glad that she agrees that these are important investments in the modernization of health care.

As well, there are no questionable contracts. I disagree with her on that. These are important guidance and investments during the transition from an agency start-up toward its maturity and the development of a plan.

I shared earlier with the leader of the official opposition some of the accomplishments just in September, and I'll list them for the member opposite: We've unveiled the first-ever comprehensive, published eHealth strategy and we've launched ePrescribing. This is a project which will connect pharmacists to primary care physicians to ensure communication and the reduction of errors. We're partnering with OntarioMD to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: What we're talking about here is a lax approach of the eHealth president and CEO, who is living large on the taxpayers' dime. Sarah Kramer spent—blew, really—$50,000 on office makeovers and brought in $114,000 in bonus money after five months on the job. This is, of course, on top of her $380,000 base salary. She also found nothing wrong with handing out million-dollar contracts with no tendering process. Is it okay to let consultants bill us $300 an hour for reading newspapers and riding the subway?

When will this minister say that enough is enough? This is a gross and appalling misuse of taxpayers' money.

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the member opposite. In fact, we are tracking the best talent not only in Canada but from around the world in delivering an eHealth infrastructure which is going to improve care for patients.

They're developing an electronic system to store images from hospital CT scanners on surgical and neurological care to improve patient access to care. They're managing and delivering a managed drug profile viewer in order to be used in all hospital emergency departments across Ontario to help health care providers quickly identify and prevent harmful drug reactions and provide more informed emergency care. They've established a major network service provider for Telemedicine in Ontario, enabling over 42,000 clinical consultations in 2008 alone.

Those are impressive achievements in just a few short months, and I look forward to more as they move forward on a—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: I think this minister has proven time and time again that he is incapable of managing the start-up of an electronic health records system and infrastructure for Ontario. This incompetence is mind-boggling, and it is the taxpayers who are picking up the tab all around. I sincerely think that heads need to roll, starting at the very top.

When will the minister look in the mirror, realize that he is not capable of bringing an electronic health record to the people of Ontario, realize that he is incompetent as a Minister of Health, do right thing and resign?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm going to keep driving forward on electronic health infrastructure in the province of Ontario.

I can tell you that we have already had expressions of interest in public tendering on a diabetes registry, and the request for qualifications will be going out quite shortly.

I think it's understandable that, in the transition from a start-up agency to full maturity, you would see taking on expenditures, as eHealth Ontario has, but I can tell you that Ontario is quickly making gains and quickly making strides to eliminate that gap which exists between where we are today and where we hope to be.

I have every confidence in Dr. Hudson and in Ms. Kramer and in their abilities to deliver on the most ambitious agenda that this province has undertaken when it comes to eHealth.

I can tell you that we know from the operational review that the Smart Systems for Health Agency was not set up with the proper—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. According to today's Toronto Star and the reports, you are considering a plan to bury the HST in the price tag of goods and services. Clearly, this government is doing everything it can to hide the 8% tax grab from unsuspecting Ontarians. They know this unfair tax grab will make life harder for them and their families. My question is, why is the Premier trying to fool Ontarians about the real impact of the tax grab by burying it in the final price?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member points out that a number of sources have talked about a single price. We appreciate his insights and advice on this. I will remind him what both the Premier and I said: that the HST, the single sales tax, will be transparent and plain, both on the shelf and on the receipt a customer has.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The McGuinty Liberals think that they can act like magicians and make the tax suddenly disappear by hiding it in the final price, and it seems that this government will go to any lengths and say just about anything to downplay the real impact of the 8% tax grab.

Speaking to reporters yesterday, the finance minister mistakenly suggested that the tax grab was revenue-neutral for families, but his own tax calculator shows that it's not. Instead of trying to bamboozle Ontarians, why won't this minister and the Premier say no to burying the tax, right out front, right now?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I thought I was pretty clear about that in the first question. Let me say it again, as I said it yesterday, to my friend and colleague: The tax, the single sales tax, will be plain, transparent and in view, both on the shelf and on the receipt.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Michael Prue: I'm not sure what that means. I'm asking for him to be more candid than that. It's going to be plain to whom? Is it the same as the GST and the PST taxes on alcohol and on gasoline, which are hidden and nobody sees? Is that the "plain" that you're talking about?

In the newspaper today, one law firm gave the real reason this government is considering burying the tax. According to Blakes, it "will likely have less of a psychological impact on consumers if tax-inclusive pricing is adopted." That's apparently the basis for this government's policy decisions: psychological responses to tax proposals.

Maybe the McGuinty Liberals think hiding the sales tax will make it easier to hike it again. Maybe that's the real plan. Why won't the Premier do the right thing and axe the tax altogether?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'll speak to the people of Ontario this time and say to them that number one, the single sales tax will be plain and transparent at the shelf and it will be plain and transparent on the receipt. There's no question about that. I don't have any other words to express it to help the member understand the answer.

I will not scrap the most important tax reform in the history of the province. It's too important to unemployed auto workers to get this economy going. It's too important to the forestry sector. It's too important to this province's future growth. And so we are embarking on a tax reform package that will keep our businesses competitive. Unlike the members opposite, we have a plan, which they voted against, that shows the compassion and care of this government and this party for the future of our people, for the future of the province. It's the right plan—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is going to go to the Premier. We now know, according to the CBC, that over a four-month period, eHealth has spent about five million tax dollars on consultant fees. Premier, as you know, all of these contracts were awarded in secret by the agency's CEO without any public bidding and without any tendering. This goes against established provincial rules. Premier, why did you allow this to happen?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, no rules were broken. In the case of start-up, as has happened under previous governments, it is allowed. Of course, I have stressed with Ms. Kramer and Dr. Hudson the need to have a procurement process that is competitive in nature, which in fact they have fulfilled starting with the diabetes registry.

I find it interesting that when the member and her colleagues started up the Smart Systems for Health Agency, consultants represented 27% of the cost and of the expenditures. Today it is down to 16%. We are taking more of that work in-house. We are ensuring that taxpayers receive value for the dollars that they are investing. They are substantial, but I know that these individuals—I have full confidence in their ability to drive out on better patient safety, better care, connecting—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'm not surprised that the Premier didn't answer the question. He wouldn't respond to our questions on Smart Systems for Health either, which was quietly disbanded after wasting $800 million of taxpayer money.

The other thing the Premier knows, and I guess the minister knows, is that much of the money is being awarded to Liberal-friendly firms in the name of Courtyard, which has donated hundreds of dollars certainly to Liberal ridings. But we also know that Courtyard is being paid by the Ministry of Health.

Why, Premier, are you allowing the squandering of taxpayer money to pay for consultants' fees to both the Ministry of Health and eHealth?

Hon. David Caplan: The member is simply wrong. This is a company, a consulting firm, that is well known and is doing work worldwide, in Canada and elsewhere. They have particular expertise, and we'd be foolish not to take advantage of the expertise of these individuals when it comes to delivering on an e-health agenda. In fact, the member says that money for Smart Systems for Health was squandered. She and her colleagues set up this organization with an incorrect mandate. They took on consultants at the rate of 27% of their expenditures; we have changed that. We have eliminated that kind of situation and brought more of that work inside.

I can also tell you that Smart Systems, while it did not have the proper mandate, did have and has had a network of connected sites, 7,000 of which—50,000 users across the province of Ontario on the secured network. This is an important—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Premier. On July 20, 2008, there was a horrific explosion at 2 Secord Avenue in East York. Nearly 1,000 people were forced from their homes. On March 19 of this year, there was a second electrical explosion, this time at 3640 and 3650 Kingston Road in Scarborough. Five hundred people were forced from their units and none have been allowed to return to date. Many thousands of multi-unit buildings could be ticking transformer time bombs and there hasn't been a word from the Minister of Community Safety's office.

Can the Premier tell us when these residents can expect the fire marshal's report to be released by your government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure.

Hon. George Smitherman: As the minister isn't in the House today and since the matter at hand does have to deal, at the heart of it, with an important piece of the electricity sector infrastructure, I could tell the honourable member that we're also working very, very closely with the officials from Toronto Hydro and other local distribution companies and the Ontario Energy Board to allow for the necessary investments to ensure that the infrastructure, much of which is below the surface of roads and the like in vaults, is receiving the necessary capital investments.

I'm not entirely familiar with the angle that the honourable member has spoken to, but I do want to let him know that we have been working to try and address whatever capital deficiencies may sometimes cause these very, very challenging circumstances for our residents. I'll take the rest of his question under advisement and seek to get back to him.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I am happy the minister wants to take some of it under advisement, but really, the question is, we have hundreds and hundreds of families locked out of their homes for months at a time and the government doesn't seem to be doing anything or even releasing the report.

Millions of Ontarians live in high- and low-rise multi-unit buildings. They need to know their homes are safe. They need to have the confidence that if such accidents occur, there will be provisions to assist them. They also need to know why these transformer explosions occurred in the first place. The release of the fire marshal's report will start the process of ensuring safer high-rise communities and shed light on how the explosions happened and how to prevent these ticking time bombs.

The government must act now to speed up a report that will prevent more tragedies and get people back into their homes and into safety. Will the government release the report now?

Hon. George Smitherman: In the earlier answer, I already acknowledged to take the matter up with the respective minister and to report back to the honourable member in a timely way, and I will do that.

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. We know now, more than ever, the urgency of action required to protect our environment. Climate change is our generation's greatest environmental challenge, and Ontarians expect their government to take action. Our government has set ambitious greenhouse gas reduction targets of 6% below 1990 levels by 2014 and 15% below by 2020, and we have laid out an integrated plan to achieve those reductions.

Yesterday in this House, the minister introduced a bill that would enable the province to establish a cap-and-trade system for Ontario, another key step in ensuring Ontario achieves our greenhouse gas reductions. Could the minister provide this House with further details of how a cap-and-trade system would enable Ontario to meet our ambitious environmental goals?

Hon. John Gerretsen: This is indeed a great question. As you know, a good piece of legislation was introduced yesterday, because cap-and-trade is one of the most important ways in which we can combat climate change. It will reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and that's what we should all be interested in. But not only will it do that; it will also attract investments in new technology and create new jobs.

The proposed legislation that was introduced yesterday is enabling legislation, and it's a good first step. It will deliver on our promise to reduce greenhouse gases from industrial sources, it will give us the ability to link with other trading systems to ensure maximum trading opportunities for our industry and it will promote Ontario's interests, especially in future discussions on a broader cap-and-trade system, not only across Canada but across North America. It will allow us, in effect, to align our system with the American system that President Obama's been talking about. It's a good first step.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: In today's economic climate, I know some will be concerned about the impact of such a proposal on Ontario industries. Our government understands that this is a pivotal time for the province, for our environment, our economy and the future well-being of our people. We know that we face two enormous challenges: climate change and a global economic crisis. Both must be addressed.

As we act on the economic crisis, we must at the same time move forward to lay the foundation for a low-carbon economy. How will the minister ensure that cap-and-trade both protects and promotes Ontario businesses as they transition to the new, green economy?

Hon. John Gerretsen: We have been meeting as a ministry, together with the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and industrial leaders from across the province, to discuss the system for the last four to five months. We've heard one consistent message, loud and clear, and that is that no-carbon pricing is coming and that they want certainty in the system. They also want a system that is in effect North America-wide.

Enabling the development of cap-and-trade through future regulations will provide the certainty that industry wants and needs. It will also allow us to establish a reliable price signal, which is what they're interested in, ensuring a level playing field for Ontario industry and avoiding duplication with federal regulations.

But what it's really all about is reducing greenhouse gas emissions so that all of us in Ontario can lead a better lifestyle, particularly for the younger generation, such as the class that is here from Our Lady of Lourdes School with Mr. Joe Bush, who's here—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I'd like to go to the Premier again. We know that contracts worth about $2 million were secretly awarded to the Courtyard Group. We also know that the wife of the head of Courtyard got a contract for $268,000, which included such things as $300 an hour for reading the New York Times, $300 an hour for listening to voicemail, and $300 an hour for talking to somebody on the subway. How can you justify this type of waste of taxpayer money?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: The risk of not bringing in a transition team would have been further delays in the implementation of eHealth. As I said earlier, Smart Systems for Health, the legacy agency, was given an incorrect mandate by members opposite. My predecessor ordered an operational review, we've changed that organization, and, through its ashes, we see eHealth Ontario.

There's a need to move quickly. I do agree that Ontario is not where it should be when it comes to electronic health records in this province. That's why they did move fast. The new organization is improving transparency through increasing public disclosure of contracts. It's also co-operating, as I've mentioned earlier, with Mr. McCarter, our provincial Auditor General, as he does a review at the behest of the federal Auditor General. This is an organization which is committed to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I find it shocking that this minister doesn't condone that type of spending—I mean, that you do condone it and that you don't condemn it. It's simply unbelievable. It seems that wherever you go there's scandal, there's sloppy oversight and there's incompetence. You haven't been able to come forward with a 10-year strategic plan for health, and now, in this case, we have an agency that again has postponed eHealth until 2015. Why will you not resign and recognize you're over your head?

Hon. David Caplan: I don't agree with the member opposite. I don't think she really understands the importance—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member may want to be in his seat. Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree with the member. I think she doesn't understand the importance of electronic health and what it will do for patients in the province of Ontario. I know that, for example, a mother in Sioux Lookout sees the value in being able to get advice from a specialist at the Hospital for Sick Children without having to travel to Toronto during the winter. Just ask the librarian, for example, who lives in Waterloo with failing eyesight if she sees value in a wait-time information system that tells her she can get her cataract removed in less than one third of the time than she had to wait for that surgery when this government was first elected.

We're going to keep driving forward on innovations like that. I know that's difficult for the member opposite, because she didn't get it when she was on this side of the House. Clearly she doesn't get it today. But I can tell you that we will keep driving forward to ensure that Ontarians have better patient safety, that they have better health care systems and they have connected—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

DRIVE CLEAN

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Talking about driving, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. As he knows, smog leads to the premature death of as many as 10,000 Ontarians a year. Reducing vehicle emissions is key to reducing smog. Can you assure Ontarians that the government's Drive Clean program is working as effectively as possible to identify high-emission vehicles and reduce smog in Ontario?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me put it this way: This government has been working for the last five years to improve the air-quality standards in so many different ways. We've introduced over 57 new air quality standards with only one thing in mind, and that is to make the air that we all breathe on a day-to-day basis better for everyone in this province. We're working hard on that. The Drive Clean program is working as well; we will continue to work on that. There's a lot of work that has been done. A lot more needs to be done in the future as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I'll certainly agree that a lot more work has to be done. The 2007 report indicates that Drive Clean reduced vehicle emissions by one third. The program is identifying fewer and fewer vehicles with high emissions each year. Test failure rates fell by almost 50% between 1999 and 2005. Concerns about Drive Clean testing units have been raised for years, and it's been asserted that as many as one third of these units do not meet California Bureau of Auto Repair standards. Minister, can you provide proof to this chamber and to Ontarians that lower failure rates in Drive Clean tests are a reflection of cleaner cars and not the deficiency of the testing equipment itself?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, I think the member to a certain extent answered his own question. That is the fact that, in effect, through the Drive Clean program the standards have risen dramatically over the last number of years. Yes, cars are a lot cleaner now in the way they deal with fuels than they have in the past. A lot more work has been done and needs to be done in the future as well. But we've come a long way, and this program in the long run is to the benefit of all of us.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Culture. There are more than 400 community museums in Ontario that reflect the diversity of Ontario's histories and cultures. Community museums in Ontario provide us with the opportunity to learn about the growth and progress of our province. I know that museums and historical sites in my riding of Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry help instill in our citizens a sense of pride for the communities in which they live.

Providing all Ontarians with greater access to learn more about their cultural heritage is something the government should actively promote. In the government's 2007 election platform, the government committed to creating a fund which would enable museums to use new technology to make history more accessible and tangible to Ontarians. Would you please tell us what the status is of this fund?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: I'm delighted to respond to my colleague from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry. I joined him just last summer—it seems longer than that in some ways—to tour a number of facilities in his riding. He's a tremendous supporter of the cultural agenda of this government. Those museums of which he spoke indeed provide us with an opportunity to learn about our past, and they contribute hugely to local economies by attracting millions of visitors every year from across Ontario and from outside.

Last week, I was delighted to announce that our government is investing $6.5 million over four years to make Ontario's history more accessible. And how is that? Through innovative technology. This new museum and technology fund will enable museums of the 21st century to become centres of innovation promoting their culture and heritage. It's a tremendous initiative and one I'm delighted to enable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Brownell: I know community museums in my riding and all across Ontario will be happy to hear that the government is fulfilling its commitment to help museums use technology and innovative methods to increase and expand their reach beyond their local communities. Each year, more than three million people visit Ontario's community museums to learn about our unique cultural heritage and to gain a better understanding of who we are as Ontarians. As the keepers and interpreters of our heritage, it is important that we provide ongoing support to help community museums maintain their collections and implement programming.

Again, can the Minister of Culture tell this House what investments the government has made to ensure that community museums have the resources to tell the stories of our province?

Hon. M. Aileen Carroll: The museums are indeed vital cultural institutions in our society and in the development and growth of our society. They engage us by increasing our understanding of the world through museum collections, museum programs and special events. Museums inspire passion for the communities in which we live and for this wonderful province. This new fund is going to build on our government's substantial investments in community museums.

In 2007, our government nearly doubled our investment in the community museum operating grant to $5 million, and since 2003 the Ministry of Culture has provided almost $21 million in operating funds to museums throughout this province. We are committed to them, we understand how vital they are, and we will continue to support them.

ABORIGINAL PROGRAMS

AND SERVICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. You will know that back in May 2009 both Jamie Goodwin and Ricardo Wesley died as a result of being incarcerated in a Kashechewan jail. Those buildings, those jails, those police detachments did not have the type of fire suppressant system or detection system needed in order to make sure that those prisoners were kept safe. The coroner's inquest, under

section 43, has set the following recommendation: "It is recognized that as many as nineteen (19) of the NAPS detachments do not meet the National Building Code standards and do not have sprinkler systems installed." It says it recommends that Canada and Ontario, along with NAN, meet by June 30 in order "to determine the most expeditious way to resolve this ... problem." Do you plan on meeting this deadline?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Attorney General.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member for the question. Of course, the deaths are very, very tragic circumstances. I know all of our sympathies go out to the families and to the friends. I'd like to thank the jury members for the very hard work that they did on this very, very difficult case. I know that the government, my colleague Minister Bartolucci, is reviewing the recommendations, taking them very, very seriously, and will make sure that whatever needs to be done will be done to ensure the safety of all persons who would be involved in circumstances in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The question was to the Premier, and we would have liked to have had a response from him because, quite frankly, this cannot continue to happen.

Your minister Mr. Bartolucci met with NAN, NAPS, me and others on numerous occasions in order to deal with this issue, much before the inquiry had finished its recommendations.

We now know that there are a number of detachments that don't meet the minimum requirement to make sure that police officers and those who are incarcerated within those police stations are kept safe. Our question to you is simply this: Do you find that this is acceptable, and if not, what are you going to do about it, and when?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: As I indicated, we're taking the recommendations very, very seriously. Whatever needs to be done will be done.

To put some of the other comments of my friend in a little bit of perspective, we have invested in First Nations policing, which we take as a priority. We have invested $112 million since 2003, $30 million in 2007-08 alone, and that represents, just for the member's information, a 37% increase since 2003. So we are serious about making the investments. We're making the investments. We're working with our other partners in justice—the federal government and others—and we're taking the recommendations to heart, and we'll be coming forward with whatever is required in the future to ensure the safety of all.

RESEARCH AND INNOVATION

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question this morning is for the Minister of Research and Innovation. Minister, earlier this month, the Premier's Innovation Awards took place here in Toronto at MaRS, one of the world's top research incubation centres.

The importance of innovation can be seen in the fact that our Premier had the vision to create the Ministry of Research and Innovation in 2005 and make innovation part of our five-point economic plan. Yet for many of us, it's difficult to envision the impact that the phenomenal research undertaken by Ontario's world-class scientists will have on our daily lives.

Could the minister please tell us about the importance of recognizing the world-class ideas and innovators such as those who won the Premier's Innovation Awards this month?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my friend from Kitchener—Conestoga for the question.

What we do in this province is, we actually celebrate our world-class excellence. The reason there is a brain gain into this province is because one of the things that we do is actually celebrate and tell those special people that we are so very proud of them.

The Premier's Summit Award is a $5-million award: $2.5 million from our ministry and $2.5 million matched by the institution. I think of this year's two recipients of this penultimate award: Dr. Ben Neel, who was recruited from Harvard University, who is a leading cancer specialist and the head of the Ontario Cancer Institute; and Dr. John Wallace at McMaster, who is the new head of the Farncombe Family Digestive Health Research Institute in Hamilton. Both of these amazing scientists are doing groundbreaking work. In this province, we understand that we have to take great ideas and turn those into great jobs, and both of these unbelievably qualified and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: Minister, in my riding of Kitchener—Conestoga, a company by the name of Unitron is breaking new ground in the field of hearing instruments. At the awards, it was announced that Unitron won a Premier's Catalyst Award as the company with the best innovation, for their Yuu intelligent hearing aid.

Released in 2007, the Yuu is a premium hearing aid that quickly established a new industry benchmark for performance, aesthetics and ease of use. In an industry that's growing by 3% to 6% a year, Unitron has seen sales increase 30% annually since the launch of the Yuu. Pardon? That was 30% annually since the launch of the Yuu.

Could the minister outline the importance of supporting groundbreaking, innovative companies such as Unitron through the Premier's Catalyst Award?

Hon. John Wilkinson: There are a number of awards, and the thing that struck me, I say to my friend who represents part of Canada's Technology Triangle, is the number of firms and individuals from the Waterloo region.

Unitron is a good example. They make, we're very proud to say, the greatest, the best hearing aid in the world today, because of groundbreaking technology. We're proud of them, but also Dr. Bin Ma, who is part of Bioinformatics Solutions, who added groundbreaking work on the identification of proteins, which allows our researchers to find new and novel cures. As well, I do want to pay tribute to his colleague—and I'm right with you here, Mr. Speaker—from the University of Waterloo, Dr. Ming Li.

But particularly, I want to talk about Dr. Scott Vanstone, who created Certicom. In our BlackBerry, the reason that they're secure is because we have world-leading encryption software provided by Certicom—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, in the gallery is a delegation of citizens from the town of Innisfil, led by Mayor Brian Jackson. They are here today because they are worried about the future of their community.

Preserving the high quality of life enjoyed by residents of Innisfil depends on preserving the town's economic viability and its tax base. Barrie's desire to annex large sections of Innisfil puts the town's viability and quality of life at risk.

Minister, what message do you have for my Innisfil constituents who are seeking to keep their town a great place to live?

Hon. Jim Watson: I thank the honourable member for her question, and I do welcome the delegation from Innisfil. I know Mayor Jackson was here just a few moments ago, and we thank him in absentia for the good work that he and his council do, day in and day out, on behalf of the people of Innisfil.

I've always maintained that the best solution to these kinds of disputes between one jurisdiction and another is a local solution, and that's why I convened a meeting of Barrie officials on February 11 and Innisfil officials on February 18, which the honourable member attended, and then Simcoe county officials on March 4. I further convened a meeting of all three groups, facilitated by my ministry, on March 23. Regrettably, to date, we have not been able to find a local solution.

Let me quote the mayor of Innisfil when he said that Minister Watson "wants us at the table and he wants us to work this out ... he said he is not going to allow" this to "drag on for another year"—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: The town of Innisfil is a leader when it comes to sensible development and the environment. Innisfil's council and citizens have worked hard with the rest of Simcoe county to devise a sensible growth plan to meet your Places to Grow requirements.

Innisfil is an environmental leader as well, particularly when it comes to Lake Simcoe. On the key issue of discharge of phosphorus into Lake Simcoe, the city of Barrie puts two and a half times as much phosphorus per litre in the lake as Innisfil does.

To continue providing quality services, including environmental protection, Innisfil needs a secure tax base. Will you guarantee Innisfil that it will not lose its ability to provide services at an affordable cost?

Hon. Jim Watson: We know that when one community prospers, the adjoining community also prospers, so when Innisfil is doing well, Barrie does well, and when Barrie does well, Innisfil does well and the entire county does well.

But the business community and those people who want to create jobs need certainty. They need stability and they need predictability when it comes to what's going on with boundaries and what's going on with growth plans, and we want to make sure that we are in a position to help facilitate the growth and job opportunities for the people of Innisfil, for Barrie and for Simcoe county.

In my meeting with the mayor of Innisfil on February 18, I asked the mayor, "What would you do if you were in my shoes?" And he replied, "I would impose a solution because I would have no other options." We still want a local solution, but at the end of the day, we feel that the province does have a role to ensure that the growth—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, you and the Premier have stated very clearly that the demographic information on the school information finder website will remain. You said that you had some positive feedback from parents on this, and I want to share some of the feedback that I got from parents.

"I appreciate your voice on this ridiculous website. This site contains information out of context and should not be applied as the ministry implies."

Another one: "Thanks for sticking up for those smaller, rural, and other demographically challenged schools, students, teachers, and support staff."

Another: "I completely share your views; however, find very saddening and disturbing that the Minister of Education and Premier are seeing it quite differently and stereotypically."

In the face of this kind of opposition, why do you insist on leaving this unnecessary demographic information on the website?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'll just share some e-mails that we have received. "I was very pleased to see the data presented in such a clear and useful way. The comparison tool really allows people to process and understand the information better ... removing the ability to analyze the data from the website doesn't change that, and both the ministry and education interest groups would do well to focus more on solving the problem and less on protecting people from valuable information."

Another one: "There's no question that programs should be informed by evidence and that evidence should be made public."

We can have this back and forth. What is important is that there is some disagreement. There needs to be a conversation about what data, what information should be available on this website. As I said to the member many times, we are going to be having a round table with all of the stakeholders and we are going to be having that conversation. But we believe that profiles of schools and information should be made available in a consistent and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, there isn't much back and forth. The federations are against it—all of the federations, clearly against it. OPSBA and the trustee associations are against it. Student trustees are against it. Most of the parents that you know who support you are against it. You've got very little by way of a back-and-forth, I say to you.

We support the idea of making information available to parents. Parents can benefit from knowing if the school has a physical education or music teacher, a teacher librarian or wraparound daycare. That's fine. However, nothing that you can add to this site is going to make the demographic information more acceptable.

We are happy that you are consulting about this, but will you at least agree to remove the offensive, unnecessary demographic information from the site while you are engaged in this consultation process?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I will guarantee is that we will have that conversation with those people who are interested in talking about what other information should be on this site so that the school profiles can be as complete as possible. That is the conversation that I have had with all of the stakeholders who sit at the partnership table and who have expressed their concerns to me. I think they're very aware that I am open, that we are open, to having that conversation.

It seems that at the root of this member's concern is that somehow there's a problem if there's a disagreement in the education sector between some folks who hold one opinion and others who hold another. The fact is that even among the folks who support us, there can be disagreements. We can have that conversation. As I've said before, having those conversations means that at the end of the day, we have a stronger relationship and a—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for the Minister of Education as well. In the riding of Brant, as in other ridings across the province, grade 3 and grade 6 students are sitting down this week and next week to write the EQAO test for reading, writing and mathematics. I wish them all the best of luck.

I know that the students in my riding have been tremendously improving since 2003. That speaks highly of the classroom teachers, the principals, the support staff and the parents, not to mention the students themselves. For example, in 2007-08, results of the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic District School Board indicated that the percentages of grade 3 students at or above the provincial standard in math was 71%, up from 57% in 2003. At Grand Erie, last year's results had grade 6 students doing better in reading: 61% when it had been only 52%.

I understand that we haven't reached our target of 75% in the entire province. Would you tell us what that trend is across the province—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In fact, across the province, there is exactly the trend that the member for Brant is speaking of. As a former educator, he knows how critical it is that we have an ability to track what's going on in our schools. We've got a majority of boards where we see a noticeable improvement in the writing, reading and math scores for those grade 3 and grade 6 students.

Right now, 65% of Ontario's grade 3 and grade 6 students are achieving 75% or higher on their EQAO test. That's a B grade, so it's a substantial majority of kids achieving at that high level. When we took office, just 54% were at that level, so there's been a significant increase since we've been in office; that's 11% since we came in office. It's clear from the facts that the resources we've put into the system to allow teachers to work with their kids, professional development—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Dave Levac: In my first classroom I had 62 students, and I can tell you that I've been visiting the schools in the riding and I've seen smaller class sizes, more teachers, more support staff and more individual attention that is so critical to the students' success.

In the Grand Erie board, 100% of the primary classes have 23 students or less and 90% of the primary classes have 20 students or less. There are 132 new teachers and 314 new EAs, thank you very much, and all of this despite 3,000 fewer students.

In the Haldimand Catholic board, 100% of primary classes have 23 students or less and 91% of primary classes have 20 students or less—40% before the cap. There are 52 new teachers and 110 new EAs despite declining enrolment as well.

There's been criticism by some people about teaching to the test. Is this an accurate assumption about our approach?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the teachers in our schools do is teach to the curriculum. The tests that are being administered this week—and I wish all the students in Ontario who were sitting down to write those tests last week and this week all the best of luck. Those tests, as opposed to being standardized tests, are tests that look at the curriculum and the way the curriculum is being delivered. What we do is use them as a diagnostic tool.

So they are not a randomized, standardized test that is used to take a snapshot of a particular part of the province; they are used as diagnostics in every one of our schools and in every one of our boards in order to improve the practice of our teachers and to improve the outcomes for our students. That's what they're for.

Indeed, when the NDP government introduced the EQAO process, that's exactly what they were looking for. They were looking for that—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is to the Premier. We've been witnessing quite a spectacle here today, with the Minister of Health condoning scandalous misuse of tax dollars by officials at eHealth. Premier, at least earlier today you said you were concerned about some of these revelations, and in the past you've indicated that you support greater involvement of legislators in the business of government. I'm going to test your sincerity here today. Will you agree to have Minister Caplan and the CEO of eHealth appear next week before the Standing Committee on Public Accounts to explain just what's happened at that agency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the overture made by my colleague, but I think what the public would prefer is that the Auditor General be allowed to continue his work. He's independent, he is non-partisan, he is objective, he's impartial and he's nothing if not thorough. The good news is that he's already in there. He's on the ground and he's making some inquiries. I think we should allow him to complete his work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 o'clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1134 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Reza Moridi: It's my pleasure to welcome the following individuals to the east gallery: Mr. Sarkis Assadourian, a former member of the House of Commons for Don Valley North in 1993 and Brampton Centre in 1997; Dr. Reza Baraheni, former professor at the University of Toronto, former president of PEN Canada, poet, writer, literary critic and human rights activist; Mr. Hassan Zerehi, editor-in-chief of Shahrvand Publications; and Mr. Bahram Bahrami, editor-in-chief of Mehr-E-Iran.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BRAD FORWARD

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's my pleasure to be back in the Legislature today.

Firmly back on Canadian soil, I want to take t