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

October 20, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Oct-20 (PDF)

L108 - Tue 20 Oct 2015 / Mar 20 oct 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 20 October 2015 Mardi 20 octobre 2015

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Ontario economy

Hydro rates

Arts and culture

Steel industry

Automobile insurance

Government regulations

Wind turbines

Domestic violence

Rural infrastructure

Access to justice

Notice of dissatisfaction

Visitors

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Community Health and Wellbeing Week

Peggy Nash

Members of Parliament

Navratri

Women in politics

Defibrillation equipment

Ontario Environment Industry Association

Turkish Canadian community

Halton Equitable Drug Strategy

Private members’ public business

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Introduction of Bills

563523 Ontario Limited Act, 2015

1064514 Ontario Inc. Act, 2015

Motions

Sign-language

interpretation

Private members’ public business

Private members’ public business

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Disability Employment Awareness Month

Petitions

Lake Nipissing walleye fishery

Environmental protection

Hospital funding

Environmental protection

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Taxation

Gasoline prices

Lung health

Orders of the Day

Invasive Species Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les espèces envahissantes

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Adjournment Debate

Steel industry

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Police Record Checks Reform Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la réforme des vérifications de dossiers de police

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 7, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 113,

An Act respecting police record checks / Projet de loi 113, Loi concernant les vérifications de dossiers de police.

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: It is my pleasure to speak to Bill 113 this morning,

An Act respecting police record checks. I think everybody would agree that police record checks have multiplied exponentially over the years and that our administration, oversight and transparency of police record checks have not kept pace with that exponential growth. In effect, we don’t even know how many police record checks are taking place or under what circumstances and what information is being provided. So this bill is a much needed and long overdue attempt to address some of the unknowns, the uncertainties and the failings of that system that we have at the present time.

Although Bill 113 does make a significant attempt and initiative to improve that system, there are some failings with the bill, in my view. I want to take a moment or two to illustrate to the members in this assembly what some of those failings are and what some of the criticisms are that I have on Bill 113, in hopes that you will take them with sincerity and consider these criticisms when it comes to committee and a further examination and evaluation of this bill.

First off, there are three clauses in Bill 113 which I think need to be seriously re-evaluated. The first one is

section 22(1). I believe these next criticisms that I’m going to speak about are really about a significant undue delegation of authority by this assembly to individuals without the proper oversight.

Section 22(1) allows cabinet to exempt anyone from any provision of this bill. Seldom do we see such broad powers being provided to cabinet to exempt any person or class of persons from any provision of this act. That could be done by order in council. The Legislature would not be aware of that exemption or who it applies to. That, clearly, is not in keeping with a transparent and open administration.

It goes on.

Section 22(2)(

c) allows the minister to create new offences under this act. There are offences enunciated and enumerated in this act. We can all look at them, evaluate them and debate them. But then the bill goes on to allow the minister to create new offences without legislative oversight. That’s 22(2)(c). Both of those are serious and, I believe, undue delegations of authority.

Lastly—this, again, is one that I’ve never seen, and it speaks to our adherence, our convention and our knowledge that politicians ought not to interfere with the administration of justice or the prosecution. I’d like to ask everybody to take a look at

section 19(3) of the act.

Section 19(3) says, “A prosecution shall not be commenced under this

section without the minister’s consent.” That is a worrying clause. If there is anybody here on the Liberal benches who can respond to these comments this morning, I would be very happy to hear what the rationale is behind these undue delegations of authority, specifically this one: Why will it be a requirement that the minister consents to any prosecution? No prosecution can go forward under this act without the minister’s signed consent. We would never allow that, and we have never allowed that in any other statute before this House, that I’m aware of. None.

It is a very, very troubling clause, especially when looked at in light of the previous two clauses that I spoke about. I do hope someone on the Liberal benches will respond to that.

Just think of it, under this act—as we know, police record checks are provided in large part by police services boards. There is a growing element of third-party providers as well, which I’ll speak to later during this debate. But anybody who is not in compliance, anybody who provides improper disclosure, would generally be the police services board, as it now stands. A complainant, somebody who would be upset or found that their privacy was violated and improper disclosure was made, would, of course, have to go back to that police services board that they have the allegation against in the first place.

And now, that individual, if the police services board refused to bring in information to the justice—first off, they would have to get the minister’s consent to bring a charge against themselves.

Second off, if an individual wanted to lay a private information with the courts to proceed with that allegation, he wouldn’t be allowed to enter a private information. He would not be allowed to go to the courts to seek recourse or remedy; he would have to first go to the minister, and we know how easy that is. We know how easy it is for any individual to approach a government minister and get his or her consent before he or she puts a private information forward. That cannot be allowed to stand, in my view—cannot be allowed.

During committee hearings—because obviously this bill will pass; it’s a government bill, and it will pass. But we cannot turn our administration of justice into such an animal that requires the minister’s approval prior to any laying of charges under this act.

Those are the three most serious concerns that I have on this bill that I am absolutely confident to assert need to be remedied. But another important part of this is the requirement for the providers of police record checks to compile, record and document statistics, which is a great thing because we don’t have any—or we have very few—statistics at the present time. That’s a good step in the right direction. However, the act does not identify which statistics are to be recorded and documented. We don’t know how many applications will be recorded.

We don’t know, if there are any refusals to disclose, if they are going to be recorded. We don’t know if the duration or length of time to comply with a background check is going to be incorporated into those statistics.

I see the Attorney General. I would love the Attorney General to take a look with a fine-tooth comb at some of these comments I’m making on this bill and provide this House with some level of assurance that the right and appropriate and relevant statistics are going to be recorded. They should be enumerated within the legislation so that we know, and so we also know, then, that it becomes a requirement of the provider to provide that information.

One more element on that topic specifically is that this act is to be reviewed by the minister after five years. That is

section 21, and it says, “The minister shall conduct a review of this act within five years after the day this

section comes into force.” But again, in the interest of transparency—and democracy demands transparency—that clause ought to include “and table his or her review with this assembly,” so that we can all examine and evaluate the review. We can then examine and evaluate the statistics that have been collected, and we can then move forward in an informed and intelligent fashion about the effectiveness of Bill 113.

I think that’s an important consideration. It’s just not good enough for the minister to review the bill after five years and be silent or have no obligation or duty to inform the House of his or her review. That would strengthen it. I think it would also be consistent with the Premier’s assertions that she wants to be the most open and transparent of all governments. You can’t be open and transparent if there’s no requirement to table reviews, investigations and evaluations with the House.

I want to put this forward for the minister’s consideration: The enforcement of this act is in a very murky and muddied area, in my view. As I identified, anybody who has a complaint under this act is most likely to go to the police services board, who provided that disclosure. That individual is, in essence, prevented from seeking remedy in the courts for any improper disclosure. This is not just the police services board; it could also be a not-for-profit, a charitable organization or anybody else who inappropriately seeks background police record checks on an individual.

Again, prosecution is dependent on the minister exercising his authorities under this act to allow a prosecution to go forward.

I think the bill would be far more substantive, complete and effective for the people of Ontario if there was an independent body that was authorized to be the enforcement and compliance agency for this legislation. I can think of groups such as the OIPRD. The independent police review might be an effective and appropriate organization for allegations or complaints under this act to be brought forward, just as we do today. If a police officer is alleged to have been engaged in improper use of force or misconduct, individuals have the opportunity to go to the OIPRD. The same could apply with this legislation. There are other avenues; the SIU, I guess, could be another one.

Right at the moment, we’ve created a real juggernaut for individuals, when this act gets passed, that will have statute to protect their privacy, will have statutory authority to indicate how it is to be done, but there will be no remedy for failure to perform to the standards that this act sets forward. I think those are important clauses for the government to re-examine.

At least, in the minimum, I think there is a duty to this House that the government provide us with the rationale and an explanation of why we have this tremendous undue delegation of authority and this complete contradiction to the separation of our courts and separation of our law enforcement from the political arm of government.

I know the Liberal members will have two minutes to respond. If anybody there could respond as to why it is that the minister must consent to a prosecution under this bill—I know the attorney general is here. Can you imagine, if every time a police officer goes to lay a charge, instead of going to the crown attorney and seeking advice in the laying of the charges, the police officer would have to go to the Minister of the Attorney General and get her consent before a charge is laid. Absolutely astonishing—I don’t understand how that can be viewed as an appropriate clause.

So once again, table the review. After five years, after the government has reviewed, examined and evaluated the efficacy of Bill 113, table that review with the House so that we can all see it.

Second, consider that enforcement and compliance be done by a separate agency, not this less-than-clear view that we see now, and certainly without the need for the minister’s consent for any prosecution.

Also, enumerate the statistics and the data that are to be collected so that we can all understand. I would think the minister would want this as well. How can the minister review

an act in five years’ time if it’s not enumerated what data is going to be collected and how it’s going to be documented and who is going to have access to it?

Finally, that cabinet can exempt any person or any class of persons from any provision of this bill: I always grew up and understood that neither prince nor pauper is above or beneath the law, that we have a general application of the law that affects everyone. Why we would give this authority to cabinet to exempt anybody or any class of people from any provision of this bill without coming back to this House and seeking our consent is unacceptable, as well as

section 22(2), where the minister can create new offences by regulation without coming back to this House seeking our consent.

With that, Speaker, I’m looking forward to other members in the House responding to those concerns and looking forward to getting a handle on police record checks. I’ll finish off with this one statement—I think it’s important—from the civil liberties: “The bottom line is that widespread, unnecessary police record checks do not contribute to public safety; they undermine it.”

I think it’s important that we get a handle on them and we do these police record checks properly.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: It’s always great to get up and respond when a member is debating in the House.

I just want to focus in on two areas of this bill, though. The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington actually spoke about this general application piece and the ability for cabinet to exempt certain classifications or individuals. In my experience in the health care field, there certainly have been a couple of issues while I was working there. One was the length of time it actually took to get police checks. We would have 100 vacancies, for example, in a large health system in Niagara, with nurses waiting to get a job, so their employment was impacted.

Sometimes it could take eight, nine, 10 weeks to actually get a police check, so not good for patient care when you are actually working short in our health care facilities.

I’m not saying that it’s a bad thing to do police checks in a sector where we are dealing with a lot of vulnerable patients, but there needs to be a way—if the government is going to put in new regulations, then it needs to put the resources in place as well to be able to actually accomplish those checks in a timely way.

The second piece was also in the health care sector. You could have a nurse who had practised faithfully for 40 years, retires, decides to come back and work casual in the health care field, and suddenly now requires a police check, after having practised for 40 years without any issues whatsoever, reporting to their respective college—nothing on their college record. Suddenly, they too have to go and get a police check, and they have to stand in line and wait for that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity to speak in support of Bill 113.

I’m very, very pleased to support our bill, the government bill. I listened very attentively to the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington and to my colleague from Welland. Some of the suggestions and comments he made will also be heard when we go to committees and hearings. But I want to bring the member’s comments forward. He focused specifically on enforcement and the role of the minister, the cabinet minister. I heard you, but I think the member opposite also has to recognize that this particular proposed legislation has been heard from various stakeholders as well.

I know every member of this House needs to recognize that we need to balance public safety and respecting privacy.

This past week we had a constit week, and I spent much of my constit week dealing with the issue of police background checks. One issue—we have been very, very clear that when constituents need to go to work, as well as in a volunteer capacity, because every child who graduates from Ontario’s system must do 40 hours of volunteer work—we know that. They may be asked to do a police background check. I had to be dealing with this all last week with respect to this particular area. We now have kids who are 14 or 15 years of age being asked to do a police background check.

It is absolutely important that we make sure we have a balance between public protection and safety, and respecting and protecting privacy, because at the end of the day, there have been records shared—especially mental health—that affect careers, but, more importantly, employment opportunity and also travelling. We’ve seen all that. It is a concern, and I know the government is prepared to repair that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions or comments? The member for Leeds–Grenville and official opposition House leader.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks very much, Speaker.

Interjection: Deputy leader.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Deputy leader; I apologize.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you for your kind words, Speaker. I appreciate that.

I just want to thank the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington for his comments. I think his speech this morning was very well thought out. I was disappointed that the members opposite haven’t addressed some of his concerns. I think he was pretty clear that subsection 19(3):

“No prosecution without consent

“

(3) A prosecution shall not be commenced under this

section without the minister’s consent”—I agree with him. I think, before this bill gets to committee, one of you has to stand up and address that. Why is that in that section?

As well, I want to commend the member. Over and over again, he talks about the fact that—not just with this bill, but with many other bills—we’re taking our responsibility as members of the Legislative Assembly and we’re allowing the minister to deal with it. To have a review by the minister five years after this bill is proclaimed and not bring it back for a debate or discussion on the floor of this House—I can’t believe that we allow that to happen time after time after time. We need to make sure that we have meaningful debate, discussion and evaluation after this bill becomes law.

I also feel that we should get the government to address some of his concerns about enforcement and compliance. I think he makes some very valid comments about the agency and that review process.

I do, just before I sit down, want to give credit, again, to my colleague the member for Dufferin–Caledon. She has a bill, Bill 79, the Helping Volunteers Give Back Act, that I think would make an exceptional amendment. It would require that volunteers would not have to get multiple background checks. I think it’s a good bill. I’m going to put it on the record again that I think it should be an amendment to this act.

Thank you, Speaker, and I want to congratulate Mr. Hillier on a fine speech this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions or comments.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s always an honour to be able to rise in this House and, today, talk on Bill 113,

An Act respecting police record checks. I don’t think anyone is arguing that we don’t have to improve this situation, when volunteers want to volunteer, good people want to volunteer, and information comes up for something for which they have never been charged, never been convicted, and yet it could impact how they want to help the community.

I think we support the principle of this bill, but I would also, although I disagree with him on many political issues, like to commend the member from Lanark–Frontenac—that’s a longer name than my riding, Speaker—Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. As I was listening, and I listened attentively, and I don’t have a long history here, but it did strike me as passing strange—a phrase I haven’t heard in a while—that the minister would have to approve if there was a prosecution.

In the body of the bill—it hasn’t been mentioned yet—even the minister’s method of approval seems a bit odd. Subsection 19(4), the minister’s proof of consent: “The production of a document that appears to show that the minister has consented to a prosecution under this

section is admissible as evidence of the minister’s consent.” Even that is kind of murky. This is a bill about getting away from the murkiness of police record checks, and, instead, while they’re trying to do a good thing, they’re making it even more murky. This has to be fixed as this bill goes to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our questions and comments. The member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington has two minutes to reply.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I want to thank all the members who commented. I am a little bit disappointed that the member from Scarborough from the Liberal benches did not respond to any of my comments about why. Obviously, she is just willing to accept that some smart people that they listened to said they should do the bill like this. That’s not good enough when you’re in what appears to be contravention of our conventions and traditions, and contrary to even the spirit and the essence of due process and the rule of law. We need more than “I’ve listened to some smart people, and they said it was all okay.”

I didn’t speak about the delays, but it was brought up in the comments of the member from Welland. I could have gone on for 20 minutes, easily, just on the number of constituents who have come to my office who have lost job opportunities because of delays in getting their background checks done. That’s why I was focusing on this review and the enumerating of the statistics. If we don’t know what statistics we’re going to demand, we have no way of ensuring the accountability; there’s no way for us to help our constituents or be able to save them down the road.

“We’ve made it better”? We don’t know. There are hundreds, thousands, millions possibly, of these background checks going on. We all hear of the tremendous delays that can occur, and also lost files and all kinds of things that have a consequence to our constituents. Oftentimes they lose either some period of work or lose out on job opportunities altogether. I do hope the Liberal members rise to the occasion and make this bill better.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I want to thank the member for his presentation this morning.

Further debate.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: It is always my honour to stand and speak on behalf of the residents of my riding of London–Fanshawe on this bill today, Bill 113,

An Act respecting police record checks.

Last week, the NDP critic, my colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, commended the government on introducing this bill. We’ve heard positive responses from members on this side of the House that this initiative is definitely something that is long overdue. There have been contradiction, and conflict, on this issue when people are looking for background checks and sometimes what results come out, and there are limited opportunities because of the information that is presented.

I want to echo some concerns that the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton has also presented. Several organizations, as well as people from across this province, may have the same concerns as well. There are some very good aspects to those bills, so first I want to start with those.

The bill indicates that non-conviction information about an individual will not be disclosed in response to a police record check, in response to a criminal check or a judicial matters check. This

section is imperative because there are cases when non-convictions actually appear as part of a police check, and they restrict, as we mentioned before, volunteering and employment.

My colleague from Bramalea–Gore–Malton highlights some of these facts, but I think they’re well worth repeating so that members of Legislature really understand the impact of what’s happening with this bill. It is a good bill, but we can’t forget that our job is to be very critical of what’s in the bill so that we can make improvements and offer suggestions to the government.

What exactly are non-conviction records? These involve, according to the John Howard Society, calls to 911 for assistance, victimization, mental health crises involving the police, being questioned by the police, and arrests and charges that did not result in convictions. Another thing that some people may not realize in this bill is that if you were a witness to a crime or just a witness in some kind of incident and the police spoke to you, you could have that on your record. If you get a check done, that will appear just because you were questioned. Most people don’t even realize that that’s something that can come up on a background check for them.

The examples that we’ve been talking about today are on mental health. I presented a bill in this House, Bill 95, a mental health and addictions bill, which helps people who are experiencing mental health issues and addiction have a better opportunity for access to those services.

Right now, many health care treatments, programs or therapies are in the community. We all know that those things belong in the community. That’s what patients want, but we also need to have the resources and the management of those therapies and treatments that are out in the community to be implemented so that patients have access to those things in a timely fashion.

What I think I can say from what has been going on in London is that the police services have contact—I’ve talked to the police chief. Once a year, I contact him to get an update on what’s going on, and each year he expresses to me that a disproportionate amount of their emergency 911 calls are coming from mental health patients—mental health issues.

What has happened there is that people are not able to access mental health. They’ve gone to the hospital or to other areas or organizations and there’s a backlog. They are confused on where to go. So their mental health illness continues longer than really they need it to, perhaps, because they haven’t been able to seek assistance. Then they reach a crisis point where they don’t know where else to turn. What they do is they call 911. The police respond. There are incidents where perhaps things are said of a violent nature. So the police will write the report. In that case, there is a record of that incident.

It may have been a result of the person coming to a boiling point where they couldn’t access health care in the time that they needed it and now they’re at a crisis point. That’s a really, really unfortunate status of events, when someone who’s in a vulnerable position ends up with a record check because of other reasons—they couldn’t access health in a timely fashion—therefore limiting opportunities such as employment, education, as well as even rental homes, insurance and volunteering.

I have had a couple of examples, as we all have had, of constituents calling my office, and the examples that they have articulated are very real effects in their life that have disadvantaged them. One person applied for funding through the MTCU, and they just had fines, apparently, on their record which were years and years old. They made arrangements to pay those fines, but then they were told it was going to take at least—again, the length of time—five months for that to come off their record.

There are many opportunities that have gone by for people in the London–Fanshawe area where they are trying to get funding for a second career, and they may have this situation where there’s a fine and now they’ve got to wait five months. That affects which career choice you’re going to make. It is something that we need to address. We need to make sure that record checks that don’t include criminal behaviour or criminal convictions are not part of this equation.

The member from Scarborough–Agincourt talked about high school students doing their 40 hours of volunteer work in order to graduate with their diploma. Speaker, I can tell you that’s something that is a concern as well. I was talking to a staff member just recently in the legislative building about this particular issue. My concern, when I read through the bill, was that if you’re going to submit an application or your name to an organization where you want to volunteer, and they say to you, “Mrs.

Smith, you need to obtain a records check,” and you say, “Sure, no problem”—as far as they know, they have nothing on their record, so they go to the police and they ask for a police records check. The police records check then comes back—and one good thing in this bill is you have to give consent. I applaud the government for putting consent in this bill so the person who is applying for any position realizes that is actually happening. They give consent for that. So they go to the police station, they get their records check back, they get called by the police, they go in and they see their records check.

Lo and behold, there’s “I’m a witness to an event.” There’s really nothing that prevents them from becoming a volunteer or getting a job. But in this particular incident, where the high school student that the member from Scarborough–Agincourt was talking about—there’s an example: The high school student was a witness to an incident. Prior to this act—that’s what I want to clarify—that records check was taken by the person who was ordered to get the records check and given to that organization. There’s a problem with that. I think that’s flawed.

That records check should not be a document that you pass on to a third party. All kinds of questions are raised in that respect. What happens to that records check? What kind of privacy and confidentiality practices does that organization have? That organization can have good intentions, because a lot of not-for-profit organizations do have good intentions. But even though it’s an innocent example of a records check piece of information that can come out on a records check for someone, it shouldn’t be public knowledge to anyone but the police and the person ordering it.

This is where we’re talking about the high school student. High school students may not question the process. This is where information shouldn’t be out there without proper checks and balances before it’s released. I don’t even agree with the fact that it should be released to a third party. I think it should be between the police and the person ordering it, and if there is a concern, then the organization is called and told there’s a concern. They don’t need to know what kind of concern or what the context of it is. That’s all they need to know.

Or even better, the person who is getting the records check can identify if that is going to be a concern to the organization or not-for-profit where they are applying for a job and they can just say, “You know, I’ve decided I’m not pursuing that opportunity.” Then that leaves it so that they don’t have to actually say, “There’s something on my records check and I’m not willing to volunteer,” or “I’m prevented from volunteering.” That’s another reason why it should go no further than the person ordering the records check.

I’d like to know, and I guess I’ll have to enquire about this and I’m going to ask the government: Is that in place, where once that records check is ordered, it doesn’t go any further than the person ordering it? If there’s a concern, it’s either the police say there is a concern or not a concern, and no one needs to know what the context is of that. I’d like to know what happens at that point, because right now, my understanding is—and I’ve had calls in my office—the practice is the organization gets a copy of that.

Another example I had in my office, Speaker: A young man was wrongfully accused of a crime, went through the terrible experience of being put through the court system, and then he was acquitted. That was on his records check. His parents called, thoroughly upset, just devastated that their son’s future was going to be affected because of this record information on there. Again, the son was applying, a young man, and he was told it was going to take five months for that records check to be corrected. So even when you have the expunging or the pardon on things, it can become a serious issue.

The last example: A student in our area was applying for the nursing program, as the member from Welland talked about. She wanted to become a health care provider. Many, many years ago she experienced—this is an illness. Mental health is an illness. We’ve got to get away from the stigma of mental health. People have an illness, they have a mental health concern; they seek help, they get medication and they can get better. They do get better and they’re very functioning citizens in our society.

The student had a situation where she wasn’t feeling well. Police were involved. Again, phrases were expressed that were of a violent nature and she couldn’t get into the course because it’s a requirement to have a records check in order to get your co-op experience.

That was really devastating for that student. She wrote a wonderful piece to us, an email, explaining how she did have a difficult time in her life as a young woman, experienced some stressful situations in her life that were out of her hands, that affected her inadvertently, and therefore she had some mental health issues, and she’s not denying that. Identifying that you have mental health issues and seeking help is wonderful, because it is an illness, a mental health issue, and should be treated as such.

Now she’s gotten better. She’s healthy and she wants to pursue her career in nursing, and she was stopped.

I definitely think that looking at non-criminal offences is a huge piece of the positive nature of this bill. It’s going to help a lot of people in functioning in life in many ways.

I want to talk about my mental health bill again, and the reason I want to do that is because Bill 95 is affecting so many people when it comes to issues, even housing. When you go to get a home, people are discriminated against when they have mental health issues. Having Bill 95 pass through committee—it’s gone to committee, but bringing it to committee for debate and for people to present—I think would help people access mental health and give them a little bit of hope that they can move on with their life.

I was at a poverty seminar this weekend and there were different aspects to poverty: homelessness, as we all know; health care is another, accessing health care. There was also food stability. That was important. Food security, that was important. We talked about those different aspects of it.

The other one, of course, was jobs. The precarious work that’s happening, the contract work that’s happening—people don’t have benefits. When you don’t have benefits and you’re working in a stressful situation and you don’t know if your job is going to be there for a few years to come, sometimes that adds stress to mental health. You don’t have benefits, so you can’t even access services. It all ties in: precarious work, food security, homelessness and health care. I think passing Bill 95 would be a positive step to addressing some of those issues that I talked about and that we had a discussion about in a seminar this weekend.

I also went to an event last week in my riding: international World Homeless Day. We were at the London InterCommunity Health Centre and we were talking to a gentleman who has been working with homelessness issues and people experiencing homelessness for about 26 years. The question was posed to him, “What do you think the main cause of homelessness is?” You know what he said, Speaker—which is actually quite surprising, because there are an accumulation of reasons why people end up homeless. He said it was poverty. Poverty is the number one factor of homelessness. You can have mental health, you can have all kinds of other issues, but if you don’t have the means to afford a home, to buy—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Drugs.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Yes—to buy the medication you need, to buy the food that you need—at this poverty seminar, we heard a real case example of two people. This woman came from out west. She came to London. She was promised a contract position that fell through. She had to wait five months until her unemployment insurance kicked in. She ended up in a situation where she was homeless. She is still struggling to get out of that. It affected her self-esteem and her confidence. It was a true-to-life story.

I think the face of poverty has changed. It’s not just the stigma that people have, the stereotype that people have perpetuated in their mind. Poverty can hit any one of us when there is illness in the family or you lose your job.

Tying that in, unfortunate situations that occur when someone has interaction with police when they’re not criminal need to be addressed. Having this bill at least is a good step forward into looking at non-conviction, non-criminal records check information that will help people with those employment and volunteer situations that we talked about.

I did want to mention a comment by the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington. He is correct in saying that the powers that the minister is being given under this bill with regard to determining whether prosecution is going to be admissible in this situation when someone does commit an offence—when an organization wilfully contravenes this act, there’s a fine of $5,000. That is concerning because the powers given to the government, whether or not they decide the law has been broken, are in question. Definitely, we want to talk about that a little further, even examine it in committee.

Being in that process when it does go to committee, I’d really be interested, even if I’m not assigned to that committee, to sit in and listen because, in many ways, this touches all of us. We can have unfortunate situations where we are involved with the police, whether it’s health care, whether it’s being a witness, whether it’s fines or whether it’s being falsely accused of something. It needs to be addressed.

This is a very serious bill; I’m glad it’s being talked about. I’m glad we’re looking at it in the intent that it’s meant to help people with non-conviction criminal offences on their records check.

Thank you for the opportunity to talk to this bill. I look forward to questions and comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Good morning. I would just like to add a few comments and respond to the member on the opposite side. I’ll just go back to my speaking notes and the opening remarks made between the minister and myself as the PA. It’s says that this legislation, if passed, will establish and standardize three types of record checks, as follows: a criminal record check, which is where only criminal records will be released; a criminal record and judicial matters check, which is pretty straightforward; and I think the one that the member across the way expressed, a vulnerable sector records check.

I would like to assure her, because the minister quite clearly stated—I will read his exact words. It says, “Quite simply, a police record check should never disclose personal health information or identify that someone was a victim or witness to a crime.” She was outlining someone having a problem before; they had a mental health situation and their information was revealed. Clearly, what we’ve put in this legislation will stop that from happening in the future.

The other issue that she raised was someone trying to seek employment or volunteering. The legislation is very clear, and the Hansard would have it very clear that the minister made it very clear that in the vulnerable record check, the person that is being checked receives a copy of the record, has an opportunity to ask for a review and, based on those circumstances, that person can clearly state, “I’m not interested in the job I’m applying for and, therefore, do not proceed to send my record check to the particular employment opportunity” or agency or whatever. It’s clearly in the minister’s speech and it’s clearly in the legislation.

Basically, the rest of it, I would say that the member supports the legislation, so let us all support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): The member for Dufferin–Caledon and deputy leader of the official opposition.

Sylvia Jones: I’m pleased to rise to comment on the member from London–Fanshawe’s 20-minute speech on Bill 113.

You might appreciate that I have a personal interest in Bill 113, not because I ask for a lot of personal police record checks, but because I know a lot of people in my community, and I’m sure we all do, that spend a great deal of their time volunteering for organizations and community groups throughout Ontario. There is an opportunity in Bill 113 to improve that process and make it easier for people to volunteer. So I will once again put in a plug for one

section of the bill that specifically references that individuals have the opportunity to review their police record check information before deciding to release it to the requester i.e. an employer or volunteer organization.

I would like to suggest that we add an amendment to that and say allow that police record check, once it has been provided and reviewed by the individual, to multiple volunteer organizations. We all know that people who volunteer tend to volunteer in more than one organization—on behalf of more than one organization. This will simplify the process so that that mom or dad who is reading in their child’s school can take that same police record check and volunteer for the local Big Brothers Big Sisters and volunteer for the local organization that has an event once a year.

The process of getting a police record check for a one-time event is too onerous and too time consuming. That’s the amendment I’d like to see in Bill 113, and then I’d be proud to support it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’m glad the member from London–Fanshawe had the opportunity to really zone in on the whole mental health piece, because I believe that police checks probably disproportionately affect people with mental health issues. Many times, people with mental health issues, during a 911 call, for example, or a call from their family, are combative. They can be combative. They’re off their medications. They’re not really in control of themselves initially. In many cases, I’ve seen them being charged by the police.

They’re initially charged with either assaulting police or resisting arrest because the police—they’re not necessarily known to the police. That record follows them for the rest of their lives. Many times, people with mental health issues don’t have continuity in the workforce, and so volunteering is an opportunity for them to actually gain those skills that they need to perhaps get into the workforce when they have been able to successfully access mental health treatment.

But mental health is sorely underfunded in this province and across Canada. The services are just not out there and available. Every day I have parents, of teenagers in particular, coming into my office trying to access even an initial assessment for their child, let alone any psychotherapy which would assist these teenagers.

To have something like this on a record following a 15-year-old or a 16-year-old for the rest of their lives really is discriminatory in my view, and so we need to do what we can do to fix this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one more question and comment.

Mr. Granville Anderson: I’m very proud to speak to this bill. I thank the member from Welland and all of the members that have spoken prior to her.

It is one of those things—I have had several police record checks during my time. As a school board trustee, I had to go through a police record check. As a baseball coach, I did the same. It was a benefit to me—I have been stopped by the police on several occasions for driving infractions at times and that didn’t appear on the record during that time that I was known to police. That would have prohibited my progress and maybe I wouldn’t even be in this House today.

So although there is a value in police record checks in protecting civil liberty, we also have to be mindful that it can restrict a person to gain employment; it can be a black mark for a person going forward, whether it is to college or to university and so forth.

It’s a good bill. It’s a bill that provides a balance—a balance that protects civil liberties and also protects the vulnerable sector, as children and elderly folks have to be protected and we have to ensure those protections are in place. But at the same time, we have to value the liberty and the freedom we have in a democratic society for people to move about freely and to take

part in the democratic process without the impediment of a police record check standing in the way for something that was not criminal—they were just pulled over perchance, for whatever reason.

Again, I support this bill wholeheartedly. It’s a step in the right direction.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our time for questions and comments. I return to the member from London–Fanshawe for her reply.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker. And thank you to the members that gave the questions and comments.

I do appreciate the fact that things are changing under this bill, but the reason we’re here is to give—I had given a little bit of background as to the barriers and blocks that people have found before this bill came into effect, so it’s good to see that this bill is a positive step in changing those things.

The reason this bill has been presented is because it’s been far too long that many of us who have known people or have received calls in our constituency offices know that there is a need for this bill. People have been needlessly prevented from opportunities for their future, to get on with their lives.

So I’ll have to say, I congratulate the government for coming up with this bill because there was a need and they are trying to meet that need. Yes, I think there is still room for improvement and the reason being is because when the legislation is presented in this House, my thought is that it should be scrutinized the most that we can right now. Once it gets released, we don’t want it coming back where people have been negatively affected because we haven’t looked at all the pieces that we can to make sure that each part of this bill is going to help people and not adversely affect them.

In committee, I hope that when presenters come through, they look at each part of this bill and give feedback, and that the government listens if there are ways to improve upon what they’ve presented.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Pursuant to standing order 47(c), I am now required to interrupt the proceedings and announce that there have been more than six and one half hours of debate on the motion for second reading of this bill. This debate will therefore be deemed adjourned unless the government House leader or his designate specifies otherwise.

I recognize the Minister of Northern Development.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: The government wishes to continue the debate.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you, Speaker. I wanted to let you know that I’ll be sharing my time with the member for Burlington and the member for Eglinton–Lawrence.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today on behalf of the Cambridge constituencies. I know that they will join me in thanking Gary Goodyear for his years of service to our community in Cambridge. They’re also with me in congratulating Bryan May, our new MP for Cambridge.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I’m sorry to interrupt, but of course we’re dealing with police record checks, with Bill 113. I would ask the member to bring her comments back to the bill.

In Waterloo region, we have the crime prevention council, which is really a basis for how I perceive the community: the community policing, the focus on youth in our area by members of all parts of the community, representing education, youth organizations and senior organizations.

We have a very strong relationship with policing in our area, and I know that they are very supportive of having the new legislation here. It builds on the LEARN guidelines that were developed by policing, civil liberties, mental health organizations, community safety organizations, non-profits and business partners, and is also being followed by approximately 70% of police forces across the province. This will ensure a very consistent approach across Ontario, from the OPP to the smallest police force.

I wanted to reiterate again that those who have done things in the heat of the moment, especially our youth, may face unnecessary barriers to employment in the future due to inappropriate non-conviction and non-criminal information, such as mental health records being disclosed during routine police record checks or any of the other situations that we’ve been talking about. Many of these individuals had schooling and careers placed in jeopardy because of inappropriate use of police records checks. In some cases, they lost out on employment and other important opportunities.

That’s precisely why I support this legislation: to make sure that those folks in our community of Cambridge are protected from inappropriate uses.

We’ve heard from all our partners, certainly at the crime prevention council table, as well as in my office in the last little while, again dealing with some of the youth who are having to deal with some of the police record checks that have shown up with inappropriate behaviour, often due to their age.

There’s a need for consistent practices and policies across this province. So, if passed, this legislation would help remove those unnecessary barriers and increase employment, volunteer and education opportunities. It will prohibit the release of non-criminal information such as mental health records, and it will strictly limit the release of non-conviction records.

I think that this goes a long way to protecting the members in my community and, indeed, the youth across Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): I’m pleased to recognize the member for Burlington.

Ms. Eleanor McMahon: I’m pleased to rise in the House this morning to speak to this very important piece of legislation and join my colleagues from across the aisle, and the member for Cambridge and her eloquent remarks this morning—and, if the House will indulge me, say a note of congratulations to Karina Gould, the new MP-elect for Burlington, and thank Mike Wallace, the former member for Burlington, for his many years of service to our community as the federal member.

I think that’s incredibly important. This is an extraordinary opportunity that we have on all sides of the House. I must say I’m enjoying the conversation and the debate today because, precisely, it focuses on the tenets of fairness and the judicious application of information that falls into police hands.

I’m proud to be part of the police family. My late husband was a police officer. I know the serious way in which he took police record checks. Quite often at the detachment, he would be there and someone would come in for a criminal record check. This would often be someone who was volunteering in their community.

We all know how we value our volunteers, so it’s important that we take a look at the law and how it’s applied, and make sure it’s applied fairly and judiciously, and that that doesn’t create any kind of barrier to people in our communities who want to put their names forward. Certainly, if information is found that is inappropriate, that will be acted upon, but it’s very important that we take great care. This legislation will avoid precisely the kind of release of non-conviction and mental health information that my colleague from Cambridge mentioned. That can be debilitating and often damaging in an unnecessary way.

I’m proud that our government has introduced the Police Record Checks Reform Act. It would develop the province’s first-ever clear, consistent and comprehensive framework for how police record checks are conducted in Ontario. It was developed in a multi-stakeholder environment after significant consultation. It is a response to the public, who have said that they want that judicious application. It ensures public safety while respecting privacy.

It targets that delicate balance between the release of inappropriate information and the adjudication of our public judicial process, both of which are incredibly important. It is based on the principles of fairness, to ensure the appropriate use of police record checks.

We’ve heard from many Ontarians who have faced unnecessary barriers due to inappropriate non-conviction and non-criminal information, such as mental health records, being disclosed during routine police record checks. Many of these individuals had schooling and careers placed in jeopardy because of this and, in some cases, lost out on employment and other important opportunities.

I was reading, when I was getting ready for my remarks this morning, about a gentleman in Sudbury who inadvertently found himself in a difficult situation in a traffic case where he leaned over, to quiet his young child in the back, took his gaze away from the road, and gently placed his hand on his child’s knee. That was a case where the accusation landed him in trouble and prevented him from pursuing the kinds of career opportunities that he might have. It’s precisely cases like this that we want to avoid.

We’ve also heard from our partner stakeholders in police services, businesses and volunteer organizations that there’s a need for consistent practices and policies across our province.

Again, this legislation would help remove those unnecessary barriers and increase employment, volunteer and education opportunities. It does it by prohibiting the release of non-criminal information such as mental health records and strictly limiting the release of non-conviction records.

We’re also establishing a specific test to ensure that all necessary information is provided in vulnerable sector checks so that those who need it most, like our children and seniors, continue to be protected. That speaks to the delicate balance that’s achieved between protection and guarding the law.

Again, I invite all members of the House to speak to this bill and support it. It’s an important step forward in our province. Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Today we have a new legislative page from Oakville: Julia Empey. On the very first day, Julia’s father, Brian Empey, is here, and her grandmother Joyce Smith. They’re joining us today for question period. Please give them a warm Queen’s Park welcome.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’d like to welcome Alex Gill, executive director of ONEIA; Grant Walsom, XCG consulting and ONEIA vice-chair; and Marc Chabot, CH2M and chair of Environment Industry Day 2015.

Hon. Helena Jaczek: We’re going to be joined very shortly by members from OASIS, the Ontario Agencies Supporting Individuals With Special Needs. We will be joined by Michelle Marshall, executive director; David Barber, the current president; and Ann Kenney, the incoming president. They will be hosting a reception today from 5 to 7 p.m. in room 230.

Mrs. Gila Martow: I want to introduce the new page captain, Nicole Haim, from my riding. Her mother is here, Karine Benzacar; her brother Max Haim; and her grandmother Vivian Benzacar. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure as well to welcome Alex Gill, executive director of the Ontario Environment Industry Association; and Grant Walsom and Marc Chabot, the chair of Environment Industry Day, which we’re going to be recognizing here in the Legislature.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: On behalf of the member from Halton, I want to welcome page Julia Empey’s father, Brian Empey, and grandmother Joyce Empey. They are in the members’ gallery today, and we welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to welcome Isa Topbas. He has joined my office through the Ontario Legislative Intern Programme.

Miss Monique Taylor: On behalf of my seatmate, the member from Essex, I would like to congratulate our page captain today, Marco Di Laudo, and welcome his father, Dino Di Laudo, to the Legislature today. Welcome.

Mr. John Fraser: I would like to welcome a constituent and friend, Chris Farley Ratcliffe, who’s here this morning. He’s familiar with the building, having worked for the Minister of Health for a number of years. Good morning and welcome, Chris.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Earlier this morning, I had the pleasure of meeting with Mark Vanderheyden, RWDI; Craig Stainton from the Ontario Ground Water Association; and Ellen McGregor of Fielding Chemical Technologies. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to introduce our new OLIP intern in my office, Matthew Banninga. Pleased to have you.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As you know, this is national Waste Reduction Week. On the occasion of the Ontario Environment Industry Association reception day, we have Alex Gill, the executive director of ONEIA; Grant Walsom from XCG consulting and their vice-chair; and Marc Chabot from CH2M HILL. The reception, Mr. Speaker, for all members—I hope you’ll attend—is between 5 and 7 this evening in the legislative dining room.

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a group of residents coming from Scarborough–Agincourt, from the Centre for Immigrant and Community Services, better known as CICS. They’ll be coming in shortly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today with us in the Speaker’s gallery, I would ask that the members please join me in welcoming a visiting member of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries, who is on attachment this week to our assembly: the chief clerk to the secretary of the Senate at the Alabama Senate, Ms. Joyce Wright. Welcome, Joyce.

Just before we move into question period, I would refer to this morning. This morning, there was a little bit of back and forth in a friendly way. I’m going to provide you with a little bit of a first part of the question time, and I won’t steal it from you, to give your thanks to those individuals who represented us at the federal election. So give yourself a little bit of time to say your piece, and I won’t steal the time from your question period, but I will ask you to move on.

It’s now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would, too, at this time, on behalf our leader, Patrick Brown, and the PC caucus, like to offer our congratulations to Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau on his victory last night. We wish him the very best in governing Canada.

I would also like to congratulate Thomas Mulcair and Prime Minister Harper for their campaigns, and thank Stephen Harper for his 10-year service to Canada.

To the Minister of Energy: For years now, we in the opposition have warned about the dire consequences due to the government’s reckless handling of the energy system. Families and businesses cannot afford Liberal energy policies, yet the government continues to go down the same path. Last week, those fears were confirmed again when a substantive increase in hydro rates was released under the cover of Thanksgiving constituency week.

Ontarians are tired of the Liberal government not being open and transparent with them about their hydro bills.

Speaker, will the minister admit that the reason the government always releases these numbers when the House is not sitting is that they recognize how damaging these increases are to families and to the province’s economy, and it underlines their disastrous management of our electricity system?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that our 2013 long-term energy plan projected rate increases over a 20-year period and that the increases announced last week are below those projections.

In addition, the member knows we are continuing to mitigate rates with the new Ontario Electricity Support Program, which will reduce rates for modest-income families by $360 per year.

In addition, the debt retirement charge imposed by the Conservatives is being removed from the bill starting in about nine weeks, saving homeowners another $70 per year.

These are in addition to existing programs, which give seniors a property tax credit of up to $1,131 per year, and northern Ontarians have a tax credit of up to $221 per year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: It’s another shell game proposed by the Liberals, but the people in Ontario are not being fooled.

As announced last week, on November 1 rates are up again. At peak, they will be 17.5 cents a kilowatt hour. That is more than four times what they were when the Liberals came to power.

Last winter, our offices were inundated with messages from residential and commercial ratepayers who had no idea how they would pay their hydro bills.

Now, in less than two weeks, power is going up a staggering 8.7% for on-peak rates, rates that were already too high.

Speaker, how can the minister justify these extreme price increases to seniors trying to stay warm in their homes and on a fixed budget, and to Ontario families who have no idea how they’re going to pay their bills this winter?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, neighbouring jurisdictions, starting in the United States, typically experience higher residential rates than Ontario. Comparing our peak or highest price to US states, we see higher rates in New Jersey, at 17 cents per kilowatt hour; Massachusetts, Vermont, New Hampshire and Rhode Island at 19 cents. In Connecticut and New York, prices are roughly 22 cents per kilowatt hour, and states like California—18 cents per kilowatt hour—also experience prices higher than those in Ontario.

While Ontario has already made the necessary infrastructure upgrades to transition off dirty coal, many of these jurisdictions still rely on coal for a significant part of their supply mix. This means prices could likely increase as they switch to cleaner forms of generation, and many jurisdictions, like Michigan, Nova Scotia, Maryland and Pennsylvania—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes, fun with numbers, like that reference to a cup of coffee, but the people know better. Once these new rates come into effect, it will further entrench Ontario as one of the most expensive energy jurisdictions in all of North America. I can remember when the minister called these incentives nothing more than a cup of coffee; however, with this increase, the average ratepayer will pay over $120 more per year, and more if you’re in a detached dwelling.

Speaker, the minister knows that energy poverty is a fact in this province, and it is hurting Ontario families. It is deepening due to the arrogance of their mismanagement of the file. Ontarians cannot afford the projected hydro increases due to your reckless energy plans.

Speaker, can the minister stand up now, stop serving coffee and acknowledge the harm he is doing to Ontario families, or does he just not care?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member chooses to ignore the fact that we’re starting a new Ontario Electricity Support Program that will reduce rates for modest-income families by $360 per year. I’ve already indicated as well that the debt retirement charge is coming off the bills.

But most importantly, particularly for rural areas, we’re doing a very significant initiative to expand natural gas to rural communities, which will enable them to use less or get off electricity, which is causing rates to go up because they’re bound by that. They don’t have the benefit of natural gas.

We have a program coming on stream for a loan program. We also have a grant program. The rural wardens love this program. They know it’s going to help their communities.

Privatization of public assets

Mr. Todd Smith: Back to the Minister of Energy. Last week I saw a slide. It was meant for potential Hydro One investors. It said, “Formal ... agreement ensures the government is investor, not manager.” It’s another fine example of Liberals saying one thing and doing another. To the people they say, “Don’t worry. The government’s in control.” To the investors they say, “Don’t worry. The government isn’t in control.”

We’ve been saying it all along: The government is giving up majority control. Obviously, they’re losing control of the company. Mr. Speaker, will the minister admit in this House that they will have no control over Hydro One as prices skyrocket and more seniors and other folks have to choose between heating and eating?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, speaking of saying one thing and doing another, I’d like to remind the member that during the 2014 election, both he and his party campaigned on a platform of “opening both Hydro One and OPG to investment.... That initial sale could later be followed by a public offering of shares to both institutional and retail investors.

“Selling part of these two provincial assets will free up money to pay down debt” and customer “prices would continue to be” protected “by the Ontario Energy Board.”

The PC energy policy white paper is the latest and only policy on energy that the PC Party has released.

Interjection.

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

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The new leader of the PC Party, Mr. Speaker, has not disavowed that particular policy, which his previous leader had adopted. So they are supportive of expanding the public ownership of Hydro One.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like the minister to actually answer the question: Who will have control of Hydro One when this is all over? Because on June 5, a headline in the Oakville Beaver read: “Government Will Still Control Hydro One After Privatization, Energy Minister Bob Chiarelli tells Oakville audience.”

Then on October 9, in the Canadian Press, “The Liberals insist the government will maintain control of Hydro One.”

Despite that not being possible, as the government is giving up majority control, we fast-forward and the government is admitting to Bay Street that they’re simply just another investor. So which is it, Mr. Speaker? What is it going to be? Is the government going to have control or is the government just another investor looking to maximize profits through increased hydro rates for its customers?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that, by law, the largest single shareholder in Hydro One will be the government of Ontario. The preliminary prospectus, which he has a copy of, outlines a legally binding governance agreement that serves both the public interest and the interests of investors. The agreement details the relationship between the government and Hydro One, confirming the government’s rights as the principal shareholder but not allowing Hydro One to be free to operate without political interference in its operations. Led by the board and new management team, the company has committed to focus on improved performance.

The reality is, no other shareholder will be able to have more than 10%. There will be broad sale at the retail level to broaden ownership. With a combination of our rights in appointing the board plus all these other factors, we’re confident that the public interest will be protected.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: The government will have 40% control. Everyone else will have 60% control of Hydro One. This Liberal government is clearly no longer in it for the people of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Finish, please.

Mr. Todd Smith: Hydro One is a monopoly controlling 97% of transmission lines in Ontario. The people in Ontario don’t have a choice to get their power anywhere else. It’s the only electricity highway in the province, and the government is giving that away. That’s why this is a bad deal and that’s why we oppose it. The government isn’t giving people choice, but instead is giving them higher hydro bills with no way out. The loss of majority control means this government won’t be able to stop skyrocketing prices and won’t have a say in the expansion of transmission lines.

Why won’t the minister stand up for Ontarians, tell the truth and admit they’re giving up control of the company?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to start by saying that Hydro One distribution represents 24% of the distribution in the province of Ontario. Certainly in distribution, it’s not in a monopoly situation.

And again, if he will want to consult any corporate lawyer, he will know that where you have sales of shares broadly to the public, like the banks, no more than 10% can be owned by one shareholder. There is a certain reality there that enables the public interest to be protected. Also, the Ontario Securities Commission has very, very strict rules on transparency, including transparency on salaries, quarterly reporting and audited statements. There’s a lot more there than he’s prepared to admit in terms of where Hydro One sits with respect to control.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I also want to begin by congratulating Prime Minister-elect Justin Trudeau, thanking outgoing Prime Minister Stephen Harper for his years of service, and thanking Thomas Mulcair, the leader of the federal New Democrats, as well as New Democrat candidates and volunteers—in fact, candidates and volunteers from all parties—for their participation in the federal election from coast to coast to coast.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The first tranche of the Premier’s sell-off of Hydro One shares was supposed to raise for the government $2.25 billion. Now we’ve learned that it’s only expected to return about $1.7 billion. That’s more than half a billion dollars short, a 25% loss for the people of Ontario before a single share has been sold. This bad deal is getting worse by the day.

Will this Premier admit that it is a bad deal and stop her unnecessary sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to acknowledge that last night was a very exciting night in this country, and the Blue Jays won.

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Exactly. How could nobody mention the Blue Jays?

I want to thank every person who went out to vote. I want to thank all the volunteers from all the parties, and all of the leaders—and their families—who put their names on a ballot and sacrificed so much. It is such a wonderful process. We’re blessed to live in this country. Congratulations to all.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: On the issues before us, they are related to the issues that have been talked about in this federal election. We must make investments in infrastructure. We must invest in the roads and the bridges and the transit that we know are going to allow us to thrive as a province and as a country. The broadening of the ownership of Hydro One is part of that process.

The leader of the third party knows full well that this is just the first step, that the price has not landed. What she also knows is that we must invest now to create jobs now and to create prosperity in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the Premier’s sell-off of Hydro One continues down the path that it is currently on, she could come up $2 billion short on the sell-off that was always a bad deal for Ontarians.

The people of Ontario have watched over and over again as the Liberals have handed billions of dollars away to their friends. Now this Premier expects them to simply accept that she’s going to sell off our most important, our most treasured public asset for a fraction of what it is worth.

Will this Premier start behaving responsibly, acknowledge that this is a mistake and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we are going to make the investments in infrastructure in this province that are necessary for jobs now and for future prosperity. We ran on that, we are implementing that plan, and part of that plan was to leverage current assets in order to invest in the assets that we need for the 21st century.

The leader of the third party knows that the broadening of ownership of Hydro One has many steps. This is just the first step in that process. She also knows that the final price has not yet been set. We are on track to realize that $9 billion and we are going to make those investments in infrastructure that we know are so critical.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: At every turn and at every opportunity, this Liberal government has been creative with their numbers to the people of Ontario, from the gas plants to Ornge to eHealth to the sell-off of Hydro One. Now this Premier is poised to sell off Hydro One for likely over $2 billion less than what the government said it was worth, and we all know many, many people have weighed in to say that the government’s estimates are seriously lowballed.

This is a bad deal, Speaker, and it keeps getting worse. Will this Premier stop this wrong-headed sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: As we know, it’s still under review. The prospectus is going before the public. We haven’t finalized what that price will be. We recognize that in the prospectus, a billion dollars was actually put out through a dividend which goes to consolidated revenue for the people of Ontario and the ratepayers.

What’s really important to note is we are broadening ownership. We’re not selling 100% of this corporation, only 15% as a first tranche. We recognize that it’s going to be controlled by the OEB when it comes to protecting consumers and ratepayers for pricing. But more importantly, unlike what has happened in the past, we’re reinvesting dollar for dollar into infrastructure, into other assets for making Ontario competitive and more prosperous in the future.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The Premier has said many times that the government will somehow maintain de facto control over our hydro system. But the sales pitch that the Premier is flogging to investors is saying something quite different. The company “will operate with an independent board and autonomous decision-making.”

The Premier is saying one thing to investors and she’s saying something completely different to Ontarians. Will this Premier admit that the government will not have control over Hydro One, de facto or otherwise?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, no, Mr. Speaker, because that’s not true. The fact is that there is a balance that has to be reached, and that balance is that we need to broaden the ownership of Hydro One to make it a better-run company, to leverage that asset in order to invest in the infrastructure that we know we need now and in the future.

At the same time, we need to put the protections in place that were not put in place, for example, in the sell-off of the 407, protections that would guarantee that for major decisions, the people of Ontario would make those decisions, because there would need to be two thirds of the board that would agree. With 40% ownership of the board, that would require that the people of Ontario have a say. We retain control of the removal of the board, the removal of the CEO.

Those protections are in place. At the same time, we are leveraging this asset to make the investments we know we need to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontarians are worried about what losing control of their public hydro will mean for reliability and for already soaring electricity rates.

While the Premier is telling Ontarians that the government will retain control, her sell-off road show to investors proudly proclaims that the formal governance agreement “ensures [the] government is [an] investor, not a manager.”

Will this Premier admit that investor profit will be the prime motivator in Hydro One and that she has no plan to exert any public policy control over Ontario’s hydro utility, just like she’s promising to the investors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the leader of the third party is saying is just not accurate. The very protections that we have put in place are to guarantee that the 40% ownership that will be retained by the people of Ontario is able to exert some control. But it’s true, the company needs to be run better. There need to be improvements and those improvements will be made.

Most importantly, we’ve said clearly to the people of Ontario that we were going to make investments in roads, bridges and transit in order to be able to move goods more efficiently, to move people, to improve people’s quality of life. That is what we are doing. By leveraging this asset, we are going to be able to invest in the assets—all of those pieces of infrastructure that we know we need for now in order to create jobs but also in the future and for our economic prosperity.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The loss of control over Hydro One is particularly troubling to Ontarians since this Premier has stripped Hydro One of all independent oversight. Ontarians have endured a quadrupling of their energy rates under this Liberal government, and the Liberals just announced that the rates in fact are going to increase by more than $100 a year. It is obvious that shareholder return on investment is more important than controlling rates for families and businesses. It is obvious that this deal is a bad deal all the way around.

The Premier has a chance to do the right thing. Will she stop the unnecessary sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s very important that we understand how critical the investments are that we need to make. I truly believe that one of the reasons we have the new Prime Minister we have in this country is that he understands investment. He understands that if you believe in infrastructure and you’re going to invest in it, you have to have a way to pay for it. That is not what the leader of the third party believes.

We’ve made a very tough decision. We’ve made a very tough decision on Hydro One. We’ve put protections in place. We’ve made sure the big decisions require two thirds of the board and that the people of Ontario retain 40%. But we are going to move forward, and now we’re going to move forward in partnership with a federal government that shares the same value system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. The member from Windsor–Tecumseh, come to order, please.

New question?

Ontario economy

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Finance. When the Liberals took office in 2003, revenues in Ontario were just over $66 billion. Today, revenues are $124 billion but, sadly, expenses are $132 billion. It’s clear we don’t have a revenue problem in Ontario; we have a spending problem.

On W5 last week, the Treasury Board president emphatically announced, “We’re out of money.” She then stated, “We have to do everything we can to raise revenues.”

Speaker, my question for the minister is simple: Which taxes are you going to raise this time?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Ontario’s GDP has now increased 14.4% from the recession low and is now 8.9% higher than it was during that time, so we have grown our economy. We’re continuing to do what’s necessary to provide greater prosperity for the people of Ontario. We are being disciplined and determined in ensuring that we control our program spending. As a result, year over year we’ve exceeded our targets and we’ve done what’s necessary to bring down our deficit, as we said we would, and we’ll go to zero by 2017-18, ensuring that we invest in our economy while protecting those programs that are essential to the people of Ontario: health care, education and social programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: It’s alarming to hear the head of our treasury announce to the entire country, “We’re out of money,” and then, last week, the minister reported meager economic growth in Ontario; in fact, he showed we’re stagnating. He reported annualized growth of only half of what was forecast in his spring budget.

Because the Liberals simply cannot control their spending, they will come up short by hundreds of millions of dollars. This happened last year, too—they came back with cap in hand for a further $500 million—but this time, they’ve already blown through their contingency budget.

So again, Speaker, I ask the minister: Which taxes are you going to raise this year?

Hon. Charles Sousa: President of the Treasury Board.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Good morning. I am delighted to actually give the quote in full. Actually, the documentary did carry the quote in full, and this is a quote that I am fond of using. A physicist named Ernest Rutherford, a New Zealand physicist, had a project, and here’s what he said. He assembled his crowd together when they hit a financial problem. He said, “Gentlemen, we have run out of money. Now it is time to think.” Speaker, that is exactly what we’re doing at the Treasury Board. We are thinking through all of our government expenditures.

You are the party that is standing up, looking to raise compensation for—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finish, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: You were the party that rejected our plans to reduce the cost of generic drugs. We were able to bring down the cost of—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You were the thinking party that got us into this mess. Don’t think any more.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, second time.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We were able to bring down the cost of drugs by 50%, and you said, “No, don’t do that. Keep those drugs as high as you can.” You even had pharmacists running, one of whom got elected—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —on the platform of raising—

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

Hydro rates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier: The government is promising Bay Street high cash dividends for investors who buy Hydro One stock, but these dividends are paid for by electricity consumers, and their bills are going up.

The latest government price increase last week will mean that a typical household will pay more than $120 extra per year for electricity, starting this winter, than last winter. Peak hour rates will be 25% higher this winter than they were the last.

Why is the government promoting rising electricity rates to Bay Street as a main selling point of Hydro One instead of keeping these rates affordable for Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member doesn’t seem to be able to recall that there are three very, very significant controls over the electricity sector, including Hydro One, Toronto Hydro and all the others.

Number one, the Ontario Energy Board controls rates. They have the ultimate control of how to set rates, and the rates have to be justified by the costs from all of these different agencies.

The Ontario Securities Commission requires audited financial statements four times a year. They require disclosure of salaries to senior officials. They watch, like a hawk, all of the operations to make sure that they’re properly done and done responsibly.

The IESO is responsible for planning the system. We have expanded their authority to make sure that they can create the infrastructure that’s required in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, there’s tremendous control—

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Peak hour electricity rates will be 25% higher this winter than they were last winter—a 25% increase in just one year. These are the regulated rates approved by the Ontario Energy Board.

The minister says the OEB will keep rates affordable once Hydro One is privatized. He just talked about how they’ll be controlled. If the OEB can’t keep rates affordable now, how will it keep rates affordable once Hydro One is privatized, especially when the government is promoting rising Hydro One profits to Bay Street investors as a key selling point? How?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Encouraging consumers to shift to off-peak consumption helps reduce the need for costly new peaking generation, which would significantly drive rates up. The Auditor General, whose appointment the NDP and the PCs both supported, said that the on-peak-to-off-peak ratio needed to be broadened to further incent conservation. The former Environmental Commissioner, also supported by both the NDP and PCs, called for the very same thing, stating that a bigger differential between off-peak and on-peak would help Ontarians conserve electricity. Ontarians told the OEB that they want electricity pricing to provide greater incentives to conserve.

Giving customers incentives and opportunities to manage their bills by shifting time of electricity use is a key objective of the OEB’s price plan, following the direction from the Auditor General and the Environmental Commissioner.

Arts and culture

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Last week, I was pleased to join the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport at the first-ever cultural strategy consultation, in my riding of Barrie.

The MacLaren Art Centre is a heritage building in Barrie that has been transformed into a dynamic cultural hub. We were joined by Nova Bhattacharya, a choreographer and dancer; Peter Lynch, a filmmaker and documentarian; and over 100 members of the community from all walks of life, ethnicities, ages and backgrounds to discuss what culture means to us. It was an energetic and exciting night, with many fantastic conversations and ideas.

Minister, can you provide us with some detail about the cultural strategy and the process of the sessions?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I just want to start by saying how proud I was to join the MPP from Barrie in her town. It was an incredible event and there was a lot of excitement, and a great conversation took place.

Our government is committed to this effort because we believe that art and culture are important to the quality of life here in the province of Ontario. We also believe that it’s an indicator of well-being and enhances our sense of place. It helps shape and enrich our lives and communities, not to mention that it is a huge economic driver for the province at nearly 4% of our GDP. It represents $22 billion in our economy and employs over 280,000 people.

We also know that so much has changed in the last decade. There’s a change in the fiscal situation and the demographics—and the digital changes within the sector. We want to take creativity and innovation and leverage it so we can continue to grow our knowledge-based economy here in the province of Ontario. Most importantly, we want a strategy that reflects the needs of Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: Thank you, Minister. I’m proud of the successes our government continues to make in the area of arts and culture.

The arts can have a profound effect on our lives. As an educator, I know that for children and youth, participating in the arts can lead to better social skills, better grades at school and lower dropout rates—simply a better start in life. For seniors, participating in the arts can lead to better health and well-being. Arts and culture strengthen the economy, attracting people to live in, visit and spend money in our communities. Creativity plays an important role in innovation, which in turn plays a pivotal role in economic development.

Minister, can you inform the members of this House how they and their constituents can take

part in the culture strategy?

Hon. Michael Coteau: Again, I want to thank the MPP from Barrie.

We’re hosting 11 town halls throughout the province, from Sudbury and Thunder Bay in the north to Ottawa and Kingston in the east and London and Windsor in the southwest. The next cultural strategy will be held this Thursday, October 22, in the beautiful town of Thunder Bay.

Town halls are just one way that people can voice their opinions. I encourage everyone to join the live conversation online at ontario.ca/culturetalks.

Another forum for people to have their say and to talk about culture and what it means to them is to join the conversation on Twitter with the hashtag #ONculture.

It’s important, and we believe this is an opportunity for Ontarians right across the province to talk about what culture means to them. We know that by maximizing our resources and building culture and art here in the province of Ontario, we’re building Ontario up.

Steel industry

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Minister of Finance: We know this government is aware of the immediate threat to employees and retirees at US Steel Canada, specifically to their pensions and benefits.

This government has announced a $3-million transitional health benefit fund. However, across Haldimand–Norfolk, Hamilton and Niagara, we now have 20,000 vulnerable retirees who are struggling with the grim reality that they were asked to take pensions and pension increases in place of wage increases.

Minister, apart from supporting US Steel Canada’s restructuring process, and apart from the transition fund, my question is, what specifically will this government be offering to pensioners at US Steel Canada?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s an appropriate question, and I appreciate the concern the member opposite has, as do all of us, for the families who are affected by the proceedings of the US parent and the bankruptcy that has taken place.

We have stood by the retirees and the workers throughout this process, recognizing how important it is to them to ensure that they’re protected after this very unfortunate situation. It’s why we continue to negotiate on their behalf, it’s why we’ve put forward a transition for the next six months to protect those families, and it is why we’re demanding that the federal government release the agreement they made with the US parent that was done in secret, which has serious implications for these families. We would like to know what has taken place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: We also know the assets of US Steel Canada are now in play. The land, plant and equipment are now on the market for new bidders. In addition to the valuable workers, there are valuable assets: the coke oven, the hot strip mill, the galvanizing line, and very large acreages at both Hamilton and Lake Erie Works.

I can attest that at Lake Erie Works, they truly have put their shoulder to the wheel. They’re vigorously pursuing new orders for steel, and they’re rooting out waste and inefficiency.

Will the minister explain to this House just what the government’s plans are and the action steps that are being actively pursued in conjunction with your government’s strategy to support Ontario’s steel industry, and more specifically to support the restructuring of US Steel Canada?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the direction that the member is taking. What he’s suggesting, and I think all of us should appreciate, is that we want to make certain that US Steel Canada remains a going concern. That’s at risk right now because of the actions taken by an agreement made by the federal government that has yet to be released, and by the actions of the US parent that are stripping away the very assets and value from the Canadian operations, including Lake Erie Works.

We will continue to work to find ways to protect the industry. It is an essential industry in the automotive sector, and we know we have only a few left, including one in Sault Ste. Marie, all of which provide support to this critical sector and this industry.

We will work and continue to work alongside the member, as well, to find ways to foster means to make US Steel Canada a going concern or a legible—

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

Automobile insurance

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Ontarians pay more, by far, for auto insurance than anywhere else in the country.

This government promised that they would reduce auto insurance rates by 15% within two years. That was over two years ago.

A recent York University business school study of insurance rates found that over the same two years, Ontarians were overbilled for their auto insurance to the tune of $1.5 billion. That’s outrageous.

Mr. Speaker, will this government commit today to reduce auto insurance rates by 15%?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: This government has been committed to finding ways to reduce the cost of claims and ultimately reduce the premiums of those claims. It was the member opposite and his party who actually delayed the ability for us to provide for those programs and legislation to enable those reductions. That is taking place, and we’ll continue to do what’s necessary to support a very sustainable, lower-cost industry.

It’s not about reducing rates at one point in time, but being able to enable the industry to have lower costs on an ongoing basis.

We have reduced rates substantively. We have to do better, and as a result of recent legislation we put forward, it’s starting to happen, and we continue to fight for those consumers and for our ratepayers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Mr. Speaker, the fact is, this government isn’t anywhere near their stated commitment of a 15% reduction in auto insurance rates for consumers. The minister responsible has gone from promising to reduce the rates by 15% in two years to no longer committing to a time line. That’s because this government is placing too much emphasis on reducing costs for the insurance companies today, while its wait-and-see approach for Ontario leaves people struggling to keep their cars on the road.

Mr. Speaker, will the Premier commit today to reducing outrageous auto insurance rates for all Ontarians by 15% immediately? You have a majority government. You could do it right away.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Just last week, I announced the ability to reduce rates by an additional 5% to 10% through installing winter tires, for example; we also took steps to reduce dispute resolutions; we took steps to protect consumers with respect to the amount of interest payments that they have on monthly costs, all of which enables consumers to pay less and enables those insurance companies to charge less.

I also encourage the member opposite to tell his constituents and others that it is a competitive industry—well over 100 companies offering insurance—and you have to give them an opportunity to shop around because, when they do, they’ll be able to find even greater reductions because some insurance companies have reduced their rates by 10% and 15% already; some have not. I encourage them to shop around and ensure they get the best rates they can. In the meantime, we will continue to find ways to reduce those costs by the programs that we put in place, including the elimination of storage costs.

Government regulations

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: My question is for the Minister of Government and Consumer Services. In the 2014 election, Ontarians voted for a government that would create a business climate that encourages companies of all sizes to grow and create jobs, something that’s very important to my community of Cambridge and, indeed, Waterloo region.

I understand that this has been an important priority in various ministries. Strategic planning to increase competitiveness in Ontario helped make our province the number one North American jurisdiction for direct foreign investment in 2015. While it’s an important achievement, I know that our government continues to work on streamlining business laws, ensuring that they’re responsive to changing priorities and supportive of a prosperous economy.

Can the minister please speak to the work that his ministry has been doing to ensure Ontario is open for business?

Hon. David Orazietti: I just want to take a quick moment to congratulate Terry Sheehan, our new federal MP in Sault Ste. Marie.

I want to thank the member from Cambridge for asking a question on this important issue and for her advocacy. In our 2015 budget, we committed to strengthening opportunities for business in Ontario. Ontario has over a million active businesses with over 60,000 new businesses registering each and every year.

In order to help these businesses grow and create jobs, our government is undertaking a comprehensive review of corporate and commercial statutes. Through this review, the first of its kind in 10 years, we are exploring innovative business structures to solidify Ontario’s position as a jurisdiction of choice for new businesses, including social entrepreneurs who are driving innovation and competing to attract investment globally.

As part of this process, we’re going to be implementing changes that will modernize governance structures that will make it more attractive to do business in Ontario and changes that will streamline reporting requirements so businesses will want to come to Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: Thank you to the minister for his response and the commitment that his ministry has made to modernizing Ontario’s business law.

This is an important component of our government’s plan to build Ontario up. I know that the minister has been personally engaged with provincial and territorial counterparts on ways to reduce burdens on the many businesses that call our province home. Many businesses have asked for the opportunity to offer feedback to ensure business law keeps up with the evolving trends and technology. I understand that the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services, as part of our Open Government commitment, has made sure that expert and public feedback would influence its business law modernization.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please speak to the consultations and work with the experts that his ministry has conducted to help make Ontario a dynamic business climate?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, to the member from Cambridge, thank you for the supplementary question. I’m pleased to report that our government’s work on this initiative has effectively utilized expert recommendations.

This past spring, in fact, an expert stakeholder panel met for several months to consider priorities that would support a dynamic business climate in Ontario and solidify Ontario’s position as a jurisdiction of choice for businesses. The panel’s report to government was posted on the regulatory registry this September, and the feedback we receive will provide an important impact to our review.

I want to thank my parliamentary assistant, Chris Ballard, the MPP for Newmarket–Aurora, for his work on this initiative—

Applause.

Hon. David Orazietti: — absolutely—and for his work with our new advisory council. The council’s creation will follow up on the recommendations made by our stakeholder panel, ensuring that any changes are responsive to the business priorities and support a prosperous economy in Ontario.

Wind turbines

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. I have received reports of falling debris from industrial wind turbines in the municipality of Bluewater. Farmers harvesting their crops were warned to stay a minimum of 300 metres away from these turbines.

According to a CKNX 920 report, Bluewater council has asked staff to look into reports that parts of wind turbines are falling off the blades. Mayor Tyler Hessel reported that a few residents have told their councillors that they’ve been told by the wind energy company officials not to take crops off near the turbines until they notify the company, so they can slow down the turbines.

Speaker, will the minister order an immediate and thorough safety inspection by an impartial third party of industrial wind turbines in Ontario and commit to halting any turbines deemed unsafe?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Huron–Bruce for her question and her vigilance, because we all take public safety in any piece of public infrastructure very seriously. I want to thank you for that. I will also meet with her at her convenience to review this particular file and ensure that we are fully enforcing our safety standards and laws.

Wind turbines are just about the safest technology we have out there, certainly compared to coal plants, which for seniors, for kids, asthma, air quality issues—there are challenges with every technology, from transmission lines to nuclear. The enemy of good is perfect.

But we face a climate crisis, and the Minister of Energy and I and the Premier are working very hard to deliver safe, affordable, clean energy to Ontario. That continues to be our priority.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Back to the minister: This is a matter of safety today, and we’re talking about potential harmful direct impacts that we’ve worried about for years. We all know the Liberal green energy scheme has been a complete failure, contributing to yet another electricity rate increase as of November 1, and now industrial wind turbines are reported to be literally falling apart.

Why won’t the minister commit today to an immediate and thorough safety audit of industrial wind turbines in Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we look very carefully at every single piece of infrastructure, every industrial site. We have strong inspections. I have been personally in the member’s riding this summer, visiting with farmers and visiting with community leaders, listening to concerns. I think that’s actively our responsibility as members of this assembly, to get out of our own constituencies and listen to Ontarians.

This is an issue of concern, but to generalize it and suggest this is a problem with a particular technology is, I think, premature. We take these things seriously. I will work with the member opposite because I share her concern for public safety, and I will be open in sharing the results of any inspections with her.

Domestic violence

Ms. Peggy Sattler: My question is to the Premier. In April 2014, the government arbitrarily shortened the length of the Partner Assault Response Program, the only government program for men who abuse, in order to cram through an additional 2,200 offenders. Across the province, violence-against-women agencies and PAR providers sounded the alarm. Hiatus House in Windsor and WomanACT in Toronto are no longer delivering PAR because they believe the changes are putting women at risk. Everyone, except the government, understands that there is a crisis in the design and delivery of PAR programs.

Speaker, why is the Premier refusing to listen to experts and front-line agencies who are pleading for a halt to these changes and for meaningful consultation on the review of PAR?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member for her question, but, like I’ve said many times in this House, we have not reduced the amount in the budget—on the contrary. There was a review that was done because some areas were very, very busy and did not have enough money to cover the program. So there was a review done, and we reviewed the program and redirected the money where it should be.

Moreover, we looked at the number of sessions that were provided. Yes, there was a waiting list. By reducing—further to consultation with the experts—by two sessions, we were able to eliminate the waiting list. We always review, and we work with the experts and adjust accordingly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: Putting more offenders through on the same budget represents a cut.

Speaker, the Premier knows that you can’t make good policy without good data, yet WomanACT was instructed to stop collecting data on PAR, perhaps because their data was showing that the new 12-week model was creating a revolving door and compromising the program’s effectiveness.

Will the Premier commit to collecting data from all PAR programs in Ontario and to working with qualified researchers to analyze the data against the evidence of what works from similar programs in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, as I said, we work with the experts. We look at what is done, what is working, what is not working, and we change the program accordingly, like I said.

Last year, we changed the format of the PAR Program to reduce wait times. I said that in answering the first question. The new 12-session model allows the program to serve an additional 2,200 offenders per year, which is an increase in the program capacity of more than 22%. This means that offenders can enter the program more quickly and victims will have easier access to support services. So these changes do not impact the objective of the program. Offenders will continue to be held accountable to an appropriate and relevant program curriculum.

Rural infrastructure

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, thanks for allowing some latitude. I want to take the opportunity to congratulate Kim Rudd, the newly elected MP for Northumberland–Peterborough South, and Neil Ellis, the new MP for the Bay of Quinte riding.

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. Minister, we know that investments in infrastructure across our province are key to economic growth. Besides playing a big

part in our quality of life, investing in infrastructure is one of the most important things we can do to jump-start our economy in the short term and improve our productivity and competitiveness in the longer term. Whether we are building highways in Northumberland–Quinte West or public transit in downtown Toronto, we all depend on high-quality infrastructure to keep our communities moving forward. Infrastructure challenges must be addressed in every corner of the province. People need their highways widened and their bridges secured. Rural and small-town Ontario cannot be left behind by investments in our big cities.

Minister, could you please inform this House on what this government is doing to enhance rural infrastructure?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I would like to take this opportunity to welcome a new federal member of Parliament in the riding of Peterborough–Kawartha, Maryam Monsef, who was victorious last night.

I also want to thank my good friend and colleague the member from Northumberland–Quinte West for the question. Prior to his arrival here in 2003, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West was a very distinguished mayor of Brighton, Ontario. I remember, because I was in municipal politics those days, that the mayor of Brighton was a champion for additional infrastructure investment, not only in his community but certainly in eastern Ontario.

We do know, through our $100-million Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund, where we provide $50 million through an application-based process and $50 million through a formula allocation basis, that it’s something that our rural municipality leaders have been asking for, and, Mr. Speaker, we have delivered on that commitment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you to the minister for that update. Minister, I’m glad to hear, and I know my constituents in the riding of Northumberland–Quinte West will also be happy, that this government takes the needs of our small town, rural and northern communities seriously. This fund delivers on some long-standing municipal needs by offering permanent, predictable formula allocations that will help address local priorities. By consulting with municipal leaders in these investments, it is clear that our government believes in working collaboratively with other levels of government to ensure we do what’s best for the province.

There’s always more we can do. Our small, rural and northern communities need a full range of public infrastructure supports, from roads and bridges and water supply networks to green energy and broadband connectivity.

Mr. Speaker, could the minister inform the House of further action that has been taken to support infrastructure development outside of the GTHA?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for his supplementary question. Both the member from Northumberland–Quinte West and I were in municipal politics in the late 1990s, and that was a period of time when we had that famous Who Does What committee. In fact, we renamed that committee the “who got done in” committee. Of course, in eastern Ontario, 43% of all the roads and bridges were downloaded in our part of the province. Through this government, since 2003, through the Ontario Community Infrastructure Fund and the Small Communities Fund, gradually we’re digging out of that ditch.

The reason we’re digging out of that ditch is the leadership from the member for Northumberland–Quinte West. We will keep moving together to invest in infrastructure in Ontario, because that builds a dynamic private sector economy.

Access to justice

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Attorney General. Speaker, we have approximately 40 subordinate legal tribunals which were created to provide low-cost, expeditious access to justice for people. The minister, as the chief law officer of the crown, is responsible for the administration of justice in our province. Senior administrators in the Ministry of Government and Consumer Services have long recognized the failings of the safety, licensing appeals and standards tribunals, or SLASTO for short, in meeting these objectives, and even gone so far as to admitting that the system is broken and dissuades people from seeking remedies and justice.

Speaker, what guidance, advice and actions has the Attorney General undertaken to rectify and remedy the failings of the SLASTO tribunals in general, and specifically the Licence Appeal Tribunal?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Mr. Speaker, I’ll say this: I disagree with the member from the opposite party, because we have very professional individuals working on these tribunals and we have experts as the chairs of the tribunals. This individual who is in charge of the tribunal is a very experienced person.

We always review the tribunal. A few years ago, we started clustering different tribunals so as to reduce costs and to improve the experience and the expertise of the members and to accelerate the cases to be heard. When there are more people that are cognizant of these clustering tribunals, it works better. So I disagree with the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Not surprisingly, the Attorney General disagrees with me, but I have a document here which I’ll share. In it is a quote from Frank Denton, assistant deputy minister of government and consumer services, in regard to homeowners’ dissatisfaction and difficulties in taking action at the LAT: “A less litigious and adversarial process would ... address concerns of homeowners” who “are dissuaded from pursuing LAT appeals” because the process is not transparent, is complicated, time-consuming and unbalanced. Speaker, that quote is from October 2014 and the problems still persist today.

When will the Attorney General take the administration of justice seriously and finally modernize the broken and dysfunctional tribunal system in this province?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I take my job very seriously.

First of all, let’s say this: I don’t direct the members of tribunals on how to do their work. There is a chair of these tribunals and they are independent.

On the administrative side, there is always a way to improve the quality of the work and also the timeliness to make a decision. So it’s important for us to make sure that we will continue to improve the situation. But if there is a special situation, I will be willing to forward the concern to the chair of the tribunal.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I will make sure that I’ll get back to my colleague on the other side.

Notice of dissatisfaction

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Haldimand–Norfolk has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Finance concerning US Steel Canada. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Today in the east members’ gallery, we have from Stoney Creek, in the 38th Parliament, Jennifer Mossop. Thank you for joining us today.

A point of order? The deputy House leader.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Arriving during question period was Mr. Rick Firth, executive director, Hospice Palliative Care Ontario, in the members’ gallery.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1137 to 1500.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, I have about 30 people here today. I’ll just introduce perhaps the first 15 or so. They’re here with the Save Ojibway group: Nancy Pancheshan is here, along with John Barnett, Renée Trepanier, Stephanie Renaud, Chantel Trudelle, Tracy Rogers, Claire McAllister, Cathy Dodich, Phil Beaudoin, Cheryl Landry, Lorena Shepley, Katie Albert, Judy Allingham, Ronald Pritchard, Krista Zdyb, Carol Easton and Denis Simpson.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introduction of guests? The other 15, please: the member from Windsor West.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to welcome Sarah Wilkinson, Leonard Wilkinson Misquitta, Gabrielle Wilkinson Misquitta, Kathy Owen, Egemen Aktas, Michelle Mainwaring, Noah Mainwaring, Nancy Maggio, Noah Maggio, Teejai Travis, Daniel Nardone, Kelly Labranche, Laura Martindale, Cassandra Robinson, Mick Dowson, Marie Dowson, Peter Marvel and Mel Diotte. Thank you for joining us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome.

Members’ Statements

Community Health and Wellbeing Week

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m pleased to rise today on behalf of Patrick Brown and the PC caucus in recognition of Community Health and Wellbeing Week. During this week, Ontario’s 109 community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, community-governed family health teams and nurse practitioner-led clinics are holding special events across the province. The week’s events are coordinated by the provincial association: the Association of Ontario Health Centres. The theme this week is “Community Health and Wellbeing: Shift the Conversation,” creating a new kind of dialogue about health and health care.

As things stand now, far too many Ontarians experience preventable illnesses because our fragmented health care system remains poorly prepared to address the most important determinants of good health: access to good nutrition, housing, social supports, employment, income and education. This province needs to do a much better job of responding to these determinants of health.

During Community Health and Wellbeing Week, the focus is on this very important principle: To improve health and well-being, we need to promote community vitality and people’s sense of belonging to that community. Research tells us that when people live in caring and connected communities that make them feel like they belong, they are more likely to be healthy. So in community health centres, in addition to doctors and nurses who provide medical services, there are health promoters and community development workers who run initiatives designed to create more connected and caring communities for everyone to feel more valued and accepted.

There are two excellent examples of community health centres in my riding: the Central CHC in St. Thomas and the West Elgin Community Health Centre.

Community health centres were introduced by the PC Party 40 years ago when John Robarts was Premier and, in 1982, under the leadership of Bill Davis and Health Minister Larry Grossman, they transitioned from pilot projects into the mainstream health system.

Our party is very pleased to be joining community health centres and other members of the Association of Ontario Health Centres in celebrating Community Health and Wellbeing Week. Their efforts promoting community vitality and a sense of belonging are vital to ensure the best possible health and well-being for everybody living in Ontario.

Peggy Nash

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my honour today to rise and talk about a phenomenal woman. Her name is Peggy Nash. She was the MP for Parkdale–High Park for over 10 years. This was a woman who was Buzz Hargrove’s EA when she started out, a co-founder of Equal Voice across Canada and winner of many awards, including the YWCA’s woman of the year award, which we celebrated in downtown Toronto.

She’s actually the woman who mentored me, who got me into politics, who asked me if I would consider running for the New Democratic Party. A phenomenal worker, a phenomenal activist—tireless in her advocacy for all those who needed her most. The founder of the Parliamentary Friends of Tibet, for example.

Because Peggy is such a classy woman, she would want me to thank all of her campaign staff, her campaign manager, Jill Marzetti, and all of the volunteers, of which there were hundreds in our riding. Finally, she would want us to congratulate Arif Virani, who did win and is our new MP.

Peggy, we love you. Whatever you decide to do in your next career, we still love you. Thank you so much fo