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

October 27, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-27 (PDF)

L022 - Thu 27 Oct 2016 / Jeu 27 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 27 October 2016 Jeudi 27 octobre 2016

Orders of the Day

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les élections

Introduction of Visitors

Clerk of the Assembly / Greffière de l’Assemblée

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Correctional services

Nursing home deaths

Nursing home deaths

Winter highway maintenance

Correctional services

Language training

Highway safety

Fundraising

Infrastructure program funding

Hydro rates

Privatization of public assets

Research and innovation

Fish and wildlife management

Services for the developmentally disabled

Deferred Votes

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

World Stroke Day

Climate change

Blood Donation Campaign

Hospital funding

HairStory

Republic Day of Turkey

Republic Day of Turkey

Food banks

Riding of Etobicoke North

Appointment of Clerk of the Legislative Assembly

Introduction of Bills

Remembrance Week Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la semaine du Souvenir

Petitions

Hospital funding

Property taxation

Hydro rates

Mental health and addiction services

Consumer protection

Hydro rates

Animal protection

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Ontario Municipal Board

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Private Members’ Public Business

Protecting Rewards Points Act (Consumer Protection Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la préservation des points de récompense (modification de la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur)

Health care

Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act (Councillor Pregnancy and Parental Leave), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux municipalités (congés de maternité et congés parentaux des conseillers municipaux)

Protecting Rewards Points Act (Consumer Protection Amendment), 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la préservation des points de récompense (modification de la

Loi sur la protection du consommateur)

Health care

Municipal Statute Law Amendment Act (Councillor Pregnancy and Parental Leave), 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui a trait aux municipalités (congés de maternité et congés parentaux des conseillers municipaux)

Orders of the Day

Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la modernisation des secteurs des ressources en agrégats et des mines

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Good morning, and a special good morning to Ms. Deller. Please join me in prayer.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Patients First Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 donnant la priorité aux patients

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 26, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 41,

An Act to amend various Acts in the interests of patient-centred care / Projet de loi 41, Loi modifiant diverses lois dans l’intérêt des soins axés sur les patients.

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

Hon. Laura Albanese: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for recognizing me.

This morning we’re talking about the Patients First Act, and I want to start by saying that our government is committed to building a better Ontario by putting patients at the centre of a truly integrated health system.

The Patients First Act is seen as the first step towards creating a health system that represents the unique needs of all Ontarians. This legislation, as we have heard, if passed, would give Ontario’s 14 local health integration networks, or so-called LHINs, an expanded role, connecting all parts of the health care system, including primary care and home and community care, to improve planning and delivery of front-line services for patients.

The Patients First Act will establish formal relations between the LHINs and local boards of health to support integrated health services planning. Our government is committed to strengthening our health care system for everyone by doing this. We are committed to allowing for easier and more equitable access to care by expanding access to home and community care, and ensuring that every Ontarian has access to a primary care provider.

This is very important. Here in my community, there’s always a greater need of home and community care as our population ages. The fact that we would be concentrating specifically on this I think will help many, many people.

As I said, as a government we are committed to continuing to work with our indigenous partners on strengthening indigenous voices in system planning and services that are provided to their communities. We will continue to collaborate with First Nations, Métis, Inuit and urban aboriginal organizations in this process.

We are also committed to ensuring the involvement of francophone Ontarians in the planning, design and delivery of health programs and services. This legislation specifically recognizes the importance of French-language services, and we are committed to providing more equitable care for the francophone community that lives in Ontario.

This act plans to transform health care and specifically act in the areas that need more attention at the moment. We have made progress in many areas, including increasing access, connecting services, informing patients and protecting our health care system as a whole, but there can be more that can be done to put patients first.

Better care for patients means that we need to make some changes. Our plan for Patients First includes priority initiatives that we know are important to our constituents, including expanding access, as I mentioned, to home and community care and ensuring that every Ontarian has a primary care provider.

These proposed legislative changes reflect our vision for creating a truly integrated system that will facilitate local health care planning to ensure that patients receive more equitable access—that’s very important—and establish these formal links between the LHINs and the local boards of health. More importantly, it ensures that patients’ voices are at the heart of a system that is accountable to patients and connects them with the health care they need.

I know that there have been some privacy concerns that have been mentioned in regard to this bill. I want to emphasize that the LHINs would not be authorized to access the personal health information of patients from physicians’ offices. Patients deserve to know that their most sensitive information is not being accessed inappropriately and that their privacy is being protected.

This is why we have introduced the Health Information Protection Act, which puts patients first by improving privacy, accountability and transparency in our health care system.

Our government actively consulted with the Information and Privacy Commissioner on this legislation, and he has been supportive throughout the process. That is something that is important for people who are watching us to know.

It’s also important to note that any privacy protection processes and procedures would also be subject to the Information and Privacy Commissioner’s regular and ongoing oversight, review and approval.

We remain committed to building on Ontario’s position as a leader in health information and privacy protection and will continue to give our health care system the necessary tools to protect the private health information of patients in Ontario.

Madam Speaker, as you know, over the past decade, Ontario’s health care system has improved significantly. We have reduced wait times for surgery and increased the number of Ontarians who have a primary health care provider. We have expanded services at home and in their communities.

Since 2003, the number of physicians in Ontario has increased by over 26%—5,600 physicians—and 94% of Ontarians now have access to a family health care provider. More than 95% of patients waiting for an urgent cardiac procedure received care within the recommended times. Now there are over 26,300 more nurses working in nursing in Ontario since we took office in 2003. This includes over 11,000 more RNs, registered nurses.

Our family health teams are now serving over 200 communities. I have two family health teams in my riding of York South–Weston, and they are working really well for patients. I should say that I also am served by a family health team, and I find that the care is really attentive to the needs of the patients.

These are the types of improvements that we’ve been trying to make through the years, Madam Speaker. That doesn’t mean that our work should stop here. We need to put the patients as the focus of our health care system, and it has to be done in an appropriate manner. I think that through Bill 41, the Patients First Act, we would solve a lot of the issues that still need to be solved. As I said, this will establish formal relations between LHINs and local boards of health to support an integrated system, an integrated health service planning.

We have allowed debate to continue here in the House when we reached 6.5 hours of debate on this bill, so that more members would have an opportunity to present their views in regard to the bill. The bill has seen over nine hours of debate overall, and many of my legislative colleagues, including myself at this point, have had the opportunity to speak to this bill. There has been considerable debate, and we’ve heard a wide range of viewpoints, opinions and perspectives.

Unfortunately, much of the debate has been repeating points that have already been made by other members. I believe that it’s time that we put the bill to a vote for second reading and, hopefully, refer it to committee, where the important work takes place, as you know, where we can make changes in regard to what we’ve heard here in the chamber.

In committee, members of all parties will hear from stakeholders that have an interest in the bill. Members of the public would be able to provide their important input to the bill. We would have the opportunity, as members, to move amendments to strengthen the bill. And this House can move on to debate other matters.

There are other important pieces of legislation before the House that were introduced by the government. I will name a few: Bill 27, the Burden Reduction Act; Bill 39, the Aggregate Resources and Mining Modernization Act; and Bill 45, the Election Statute Law Amendment Act.

Madam Speaker, we would like to spend the time debating some of the other important pieces of legislation currently before the House, but we can’t do that until Bill 41 is referred to committee for further review.

As a result, I move that this question be now put.

Mr. Michael Harris: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): I recognize the member from Kitchener–Conestoga on a point of order.

Mr. Michael Harris: On a point of order: I was prepared to speak to Bill 41 this morning. I’ve not had a chance to speak to first reading yet, and—

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): That’s not a point of order; I’m very sorry.

Ms. Albanese has moved that the question be now put. Given that I heard that there were 27 speakers, five days and over nine hours of debate, I’m satisfied that there has been sufficient debate to allow this question to be put to the House.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): All those in favour of the motion that the question be now put, please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion?

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): All right. A recorded vote will be required. This vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

Election Statute Law Amendment Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne les élections

Mr. Naqvi moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 45,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to provincial elections / Projet de loi 45, Loi visant à modifier certaines lois en ce qui concerne les élections provinciales.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Mr. Attorney General.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for recognizing me to speak on Bill 45, a very important bill. I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Scarborough Southwest.

Good morning to all my colleagues as we start debate on a very important bill that ensures that we engage more people in our democratic process. This bill, if passed, would make it easier to vote and engage more people in the democratic process, especially our youth. I’ll be, as I mentioned, sharing my time with the member from Scarborough Southwest.

Voting gives us all a voice in the political process. It is through voting that the people give their representatives and their governments the legitimacy to lead, and hold those representatives and governments to account. It allows people to have a direct impact on what the government does and where it should be going.

Speaker, I will confess that I’m a big fan of voting. I love to vote. Since I became a Canadian citizen—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’ve never experienced heckling right from the floor of the House, Speaker, especially from my esteemed, good, close friend the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, who can basically heckle from his apartment and we can still hear him because he’s got that great voice.

As I was saying, Speaker, I’m a big fan of voting. I think everybody should vote. As the saying goes in our business: Vote early, vote often.

Interjections.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, by voting often I mean, make sure you don’t miss an election, ever, to vote. That’s what I mean by voting often. I just want to make that very clear.

I think this is an important debate—and especially I’m thinking of the pages who are sitting here, who not too many years from now will be voting and hopefully running as 19-year-olds, because that’s very much possible, as well.

I became a Canadian citizen in 1992, and that’s where my voting journey begins. I very, very vividly remember the first time I voted. I hope everybody does remember when they voted for the first time. I hope these pages will remember when they get the chance to vote for the first time. But in my instance, I’ll never forget when I voted for the first time, in 1992, when I became a Canadian citizen, for a couple of reasons.

Number one: the journey that my parents had made as immigrants to Canada, coming from a country where they did not have a right to vote, where my father had spent nine months as a political prisoner exactly for that purpose, because he led a pro-democracy march so that people can have the right to vote. Here in my adopted country, after living in Canada for only roughly four years by that time, and becoming a Canadian citizen, I, as an equal citizen, now had the right to vote. That alone was a really moving experience for me.

But my first vote, in 1992, was not in any general election or by-election; it was not in a federal, municipal or provincial election.

Speaker, you may remember that in 1992 we had a referendum in Canada on the Charlottetown accord, on proposed constitutional changes so that Quebec could be brought into our Constitution. That was my first vote. The significance of being a 19-year-old, I believe, at that time, having only lived in Canada roughly four years, having just become a Canadian citizen, and being able to vote for the very first time in my life, and to vote on the future of my country in terms of the constitutional certainty that proposal had put forward, was overwhelming.

It’s something that I, to this day, find incredible: that that vote gave me, as a citizen, as a Canadian, such incredible power in deciding what my future should look like.

Now, as we know, that proposal did not pass. Again, the will of the people prevailed as they saw best. But that opportunity left a lasting impression on me, and a commitment and determination that I will never miss a vote. So when I say vote early, I go to an advance poll; and vote often, that is, don’t miss any vote. I’ve lived by those rules and I have made sure that, be it an election for school board trustee or our municipal council or my MPP or my member of Parliament, I’ve never missed an opportunity to vote.

More and more I vote during advance polls because there are no lineups. It’s easy. I like to take my children to vote, so they can see how voting takes place. Although I do miss voting on the day of the election, because there is certain nostalgia about that, when your fellow citizens are all lined up together—

Ms. Daiene Vernile: You can still go. Go watch.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Well, it’s kind of difficult, being an MPP now—the watching part—you’re not allowed to campaign.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: Get the vote out.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Yes.

Voting is such an amazing experience. It has been very personal. Every time I go vote and I’m in that little booth putting down my X, I go back to 1992. It happens to me every single time. I go back, thinking about the very first time I did this. At that time, my hands were shaking when I was doing it, because it was such a moving experience.

Speaker, what’s troubling for me, though, is that as we think about our democracy and the strength of our democracy and we think about how integral voting is and how powerful people are when they exercise their right to vote, what’s troubling is that we continue to see lower voter turnout.

We continue seeing fewer Canadians and fewer Ontarians exercise their incredible democratic right, while there are people in other parts of the world, as we speak, protesting, marching, maybe even getting shot at or bombed at depending on which part of the world you may be thinking about, because they want those democratic institutions, because they do want that right to vote. For us to have that and have such a peaceful way of being able to exercise our power as citizens and not being able to use that power as citizens is really challenging.

The challenge that we are facing is real when it comes to voter turnout. For example, in the last general election in Ontario in 2014, less than 52% of people came out to vote—less than 52%. That should not be news to anyone. It’s something that should concern us all.

We’ve been seeing this trend going back for many years. Until 2014, voter turnout had declined in every provincial election since 1990. When it comes to young people, the numbers are even worse. In the last provincial election, only 34% of youth cast a ballot—only 34%, and this is a real problem.

Voting isn’t just important for people who want to have their voices heard in the government and the representatives they elect to speak on their behalf and bring forward different points of view and perspectives in Legislatures like ours. It’s imperative that their diverse interests are represented by people they elect. Voting gives us our mandate to legislate and to govern, a mandate to manage our province’s precious resources, to make decisions on behalf of the people who elected us.

That’s why, as the elected officials for our communities, I believe that it is our job to promote civic engagement. I know all members in this House and other elected representatives at different levels take that responsibility very seriously. In doing so, by engaging people in civic engagement, we enable and encourage Ontarians to participate in their democracy. That is exactly what this legislation, if passed, would attempt to do.

Speaker, as we seek to address the issue of low voter turnout, I think the first question to ask is, “Why don’t people vote?” There could be any number of reasons why an individual chooses not to vote. But in general, issues of knowledge and awareness can prevent people from voting. When you break down the steps, a lot of information goes into each vote that gets cast in our province. People need to know that there is an election. I think many of us will know the stories.

When we go knock on doors and we say, “Hi, there’s an election,” I think people are surprised: “Oh, there’s an election happening.” They have to know enough about their options to develop a preference. They have to know when to vote, where to vote and what to bring when they get there. If we are failing to communicate any of these points to somebody, they are that much less likely to show up at the poll on election day.

Looking at the results of the survey conducted by Elections Ontario after the 2014 election is a sobering reminder of how much work needs to be done in this particular area. There is surprisingly low awareness of some important information about voting, especially when it comes to our youth.

Less than one third of eligible voters between the ages of 18 and 24 knew what the ID requirements are to vote, and only a quarter of them were aware of their advance polling options. Only 36% of youth recalled receiving a notice of registration card, which is one of the main ways that people learn where and when to vote. Even worse, more than half of them were under the false impression that they needed one of these cards to vote. Elections Ontario’s survey also found that only 42% of young people recalled seeing an Elections Ontario television ad, and even fewer recalled seeing a print ad.

Of course, reaching youth is a challenge. It’s always a challenge, trying to make sure that we’re targeting the right medium that youth are engaged in. But that is not an excuse for inaction, and we can and must do better to ensure that we increase their knowledge and awareness and engage more people to come out and vote, especially our young people.

Right before I introduced this bill, I visited Harbord Collegiate Institute, a high school just down the street from Queen’s Park. I had the pleasure of talking to a grade 10 or 11 class, I believe it was, about this bill. We talked about voting and about our democracy in general—a very engaged group of young people, very thoughtful about things. There were a couple of kids in the class who were thinking of running for school council. You could see the seeds already sort of growing.

It was an inspiring discussion. They were informed, critical, intelligent future electors. They are definitely the next generation of our democracy, and they want to be engaged. Now, of course, Speaker, it’s our job to make sure that they have the information and the tools they need.

So, where to start? How do we engage these voters and reverse the trend of voter apathy and low turnout? Speaker, I’m pleased to say that this work is already under way and reflected in Bill 45.

Much of the progress we have already made in this regard is thanks to the tireless work of our Chief Electoral Officer, Greg Essensa, and his team at Elections Ontario. It is the Chief Electoral Officer’s job to independently administer Ontario’s elections in a non-partisan, transparent and accountable way. This includes pretty much every part of the election process: registering voters; finding locations for polling stations; communicating with the public; hiring and training election staff; ensuring the integrity of the election by making sure rules are followed; and counting results when it’s all over.

It’s a big job, and I’m sure everybody will agree that it’s an incredibly important job.

After every election, the Chief Electoral Officer talks to people across the province and assesses how his organization did and how things could have gone better. Finally, he publishes a report and includes any recommendations he has for the government about how Ontario’s election system could do a better job serving its people.

In drafting this bill that we’re discussing today, our government considered four separate reports from the Chief Electoral Officer: his two most recent annual reports, his report on the 2014 general election and his report on the Whitby–Oshawa by-election earlier this year. We looked at each recommendation, and from them we have put together legislation that I’m excited to tell you a little bit about today. It includes provisions, both large and small, that would make voting easier and promote democratic participation in Ontario.

With this bill, we hope to start confronting right away these challenges that I was speaking of earlier. All of the measures that are being proposed here would be in place for our next election in 2018, if the bill is passed through this legislation.

Speaker, I’d like now to address a few of the key provisions in the legislation that I’m most excited about. The first measure I want to talk to you about is a provisional voter registration for young people. Earlier, I mentioned my visit to Harbord Collegiate and my conversation with a group of young people who were passionate about our province’s future, curious about how decisions get made, and motivated to make sure that Ontario’s moving in the right direction.

As you can imagine, they were really interested in how marijuana will be legalized in Ontario. They definitely asked me questions about that, so it was interesting. I got to ask them what the age limit should be. I won’t tell you what they told me.

Interjection.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Too young, I thought. I told them it was too young, the age they were proposing.

We want to harness that sense of opportunity and enthusiasm in young people and get them invested in the democratic process early on. If passed, this bill would require the Chief Electoral Officer to create a provisional voter registry which 16- and 17-year-old future eligible voters could join before they reach the voting age. Once they turn 18 and are of legal age to vote, their information will be automatically transferred to the permanent register of electors.

I believe that this move would have several positive effects. First, I think it would increase the number of young eligible voters who are registered as voters. They’re currently the least likely of any age group to be registered. This gives us an opportunity early on to get them engaged, to get them signed on.

This is important because being registered ensures that Elections Ontario knows where to contact you and how to give you important information about upcoming elections. There’s an engagement piece that is integral to this. It also makes the voting process even simpler for you on election day. This change would also give Elections Ontario more opportunity to reach out to young people before they reach the voting age, and give those youth a concrete action they could take in response, which is to just sign up.

Elections Ontario has a very important mandate, as do other organizations, like Student Vote etc., to engage with young people, to talk about democracy, to talk about elections and the student vote—I think we all participate, come election time—where they’ll go into schools and do mock elections and do voting. All of those are very important exercises, and I think we need to do more of them.

But they do have an aura of “not real.” I mean, they’re make-believe. They’re tagged onto a real election. They’re encouraging young people to follow elections. I’ve participated in mock elections. Young people will come, and either they’re doing grade 5 civics or grade 10. They want your lawn signs, they want your pamphlets, because they are being you, and somebody else is doing it for another candidate in the riding. It’s exciting to talk to them about it.

But it’s—what’s the word I’m looking for? It’s an imitation, so to speak. It’s trying to sort of—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Simulate.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Simulate. Thank you. That’s the word. Thank you. My good friend from Renfrew comes in handy all the time. Simulate.

Interjection.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I think this is a very important issue. This is probably one of the most important issues that we’ll discuss, to the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Speaker, those are simulations. But in terms of a real election, where you can engage 16- and 17-year-olds to actually sign on to the voters list, a provisional voter list, that will then transfer to the permanent voter list, I think it’s concrete. It’s real. It’s a real, meaningful engagement point when it comes to engaging our young people. I think it offers an incredible opportunity to engage in conversation with our 16- and 17-year-olds when they’re contemplating deliberating on that decision to sign up on the provisional voter list.

When the Chief Electoral Officer recommended this measure, he expressed an interest in working more with high schools to promote education and awareness, among other initiatives. I welcome his efforts and look forward to seeing what he and his team come up with once this bill passes and that power, that authority, is given to him through legislation.

To be absolutely clear, Speaker, this change would not change the legal voting age in Ontario. That will remain at 18 years of age. We’re simply looking to empower Ontarians at an early age to participate in their democratic process.

This is probably the most exciting part for me, personally, about this bill. There are some other important pieces that I will speak to now, but I think this piece about engaging young people and getting them on the voter list from 16 onwards is really exciting.

I know the pages will be the first ones to sign on as soon as they turn 16. They’re not even nodding, because they’re not allowed to nod or acknowledge members as we’re speaking. I’m testing them right now. They’re passing.

Speaker, with this bill, we are also proposing to make it easier for people to access the polls by moving the scheduled election date from fall to spring. That’s another big aspect of this bill. The proposed date for scheduled elections is the first Thursday in June, which means that our next provincial election, if the bill passes, would take place on June 7, 2018.

This would mean longer daylight hours on election day than on our current fixed election date, which is the first Thursday in October, which would encourage voters to get to the polls. Longer daylight hours would also be helpful for candidates and canvassers, who often work into the evenings to knock on doors and interact with our constituents.

The new date is chosen at a time when children are still in school, the weather is generally warmer and most Ontarians haven’t yet left for their summer vacations. It also has the advantage of avoiding conflict with Ontario’s scheduled municipal election date, which comes at the end of October. As you can imagine, two elections at the same time could cause confusion and definitely a lot of lawn signs across our towns and cities and different municipalities.

This change is among those that were recommended by the Chief Electoral Officer in his most recent annual report. I think that a spring election makes sense for Ontario, and our hope is that by making it more convenient for people to get to their polling stations, we will help get more people out to vote as well.

Madam Speaker, the third measure I want to highlight for the members today is a proposal to allow Elections Ontario to better integrate technology into our existing election processes.

This is a badly needed step. It really amazes me that in 2016, we are still counting ballots by hand. The bill would allow for the use of electronic vote tabulators, machines that can quickly and accurately count paper ballots after an election.

Mr. James J. Bradley: As long as they can’t be hacked.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I am sure that there are technologies in place, to the member from St. Catharines, such that they won’t be hacked. They are self-contained units, I believe.

Speaker, along with e-poll books, or electronic voter strike-off lists, this enables what the Chief Electoral Officer refers to in his report as a “technology-enabled staffing model.” This modern approach would mean that Elections Ontario’s polling locations could now run more smoothly and efficiently on Election Day. We anticipate this will provide a faster and more convenient experience for voters.

This model was piloted earlier this year during the Whitby–Oshawa by-election. Its results are documented in the Chief Electoral Officer’s report following that by-election, in which he stated that the pilot was an “overwhelming success.” Speaker, let’s build on that success.

While we are on the topic of modernization, I do want to address one misconception that seems to have made its way out there. It has to do with the idea of online voting. While it’s an exciting idea, this is not something that the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended, given the current technology that is available. Between 2010 and 2012, the Chief Electoral Officer studied options for Internet voting of various sorts and found that none of the options currently available would sufficiently protect the integrity of our voting process. He also noted that there is not yet conclusive evidence linking online voting to increased voter turnout.

In my mind, the Chief Electoral Officer’s words of caution here really capture the approach of modernization that our government has taken with the measures in this bill. We are excited about modernizing the election system and we want to give voters more options. But this progress can’t come at the expense of the principles that ground our system as it currently exists.

We will always be looking to implement changes that prioritize the integrity and fairness of our elections and protect our voters’ privacy. With this measure and this bill, we believe we have done just that.

Speaker, modernization in this bill isn’t limited to new technologies. We are also looking to update the rules around time-tested campaign activities, which are very important to engage constituents during an election.

In the lead-up to an election, canvassing is a crucial part of getting voters engaged. However closely potential voters follow an election race, canvassing is often the only opportunity they’ll have to meet their candidates face to face. This opportunity to personally discuss and ask questions of a candidate can make all the difference in helping someone decide how to vote or even whether or not to vote.

If passed, this legislation would help ensure that people living in apartment buildings and condominiums are not being excluded from this opportunity. Although the law already states that canvassers have the right to access apartment buildings and condominiums, in practice it’s not always that easy. Our bill would clarify the existing rules and let the Chief Electoral Officer enforce this right by issuing fines to building owners and condominium corporations that deny canvassers access to these buildings.

To help address any residents’ concerns about privacy under these rules, it will also introduce set hours when the right to access these buildings would apply. This is a measure that grows more and more important as these kinds of residences become increasingly common in urban areas in particular across our province.

This is a wide-reaching bill, with other measures ranging from updated rules and processes for parties and candidates, to introducing new ways to protect voter privacy. As I mentioned earlier, the member from Scarborough Southwest will walk you through these in some more detail. In the meantime, Speaker, there is one more component of this bill that I’d like to highlight.

Last year, our government passed legislation which aligned the electoral boundaries in southern Ontario to match those at the federal level. This improved representation across the province, increasing the number of southern ridings from 96 to 111. These boundaries will be in place for the scheduled 2018 election. We also maintained an additional 11 ridings in the north, compared to the 10 northern federal ridings, to help ensure fair and adequate representation in that important part of our province.

This bill continues with that effort, again focusing on the unique needs of the north. We recognize that these sorts of changes must be made carefully, with special attention paid to factors such as its large geographic size, its low population density and the distinct needs of its indigenous communities. We want to make sure that the changes we make will directly reflect the priorities and needs of the people living in the affected areas.

That’s why this bill would enable the creation of a Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission. This commission would be tasked with only looking at the electoral boundaries in Ontario’s two northernmost districts, Kenora–Rainy River and Timmins–James Bay. To ensure fair representation and local perspectives, this committee would include members from that part of the province. It would consider the factors I’ve listed, and more, and develop recommendations for the creation of either one or two additional ridings in this geographic space. Our government would then introduce legislation to implement these recommendations in time for the 2018 provincial election.

So far, I have covered just a few of the measures that our government is putting forward in this bill. In just a few moments, you will be hearing about more of the details of the provisions.

One of the reasons I’m proud of this bill is the range and scope of issues it addresses. While we certainly have some significant measures in this bill to improve and transform Ontario’s election system, we also recognize the power that many small changes can have in improving something much larger.

I am also very proud to be acting on the advice of the Chief Electoral Officer. We look forward to his recommendations in the future as he continues to steadily guide our election system in a progressive direction.

Most of all, should this bill pass, I look forward to seeing the beginnings of its effects in our upcoming provincial election. By making voting easier and encouraging more people, particularly our youth, to get involved in our democratic process, we will make our province more representative of its citizens and build an even stronger Ontario.

Speaker, thank you very much for your time.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Further debate?

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Thank you to the Attorney General. Every time he speaks, I learn something new. When he mentioned the fact that in his country he couldn’t vote, it reminds me of other countries where you can’t vote either and the luxury we have here in this country. We sort of take it for granted that voting is something that the whole world does, but it’s not the case.

Anyway, I’m pleased to rise in the House today to continue to debate on a bill that seeks to improve our election system, engage our electorate and give us stronger, more representative democracy. I’m very proud to be involved in this bill and I hope that many of you already share my enthusiasm.

As you know, the members have just heard that Bill 45 seeks to engage more Ontarians in our democracy. It proposes new ways to reach out to people across the province, especially young people, and it takes steps to update our technology by introducing modern technologies and addressing modern concerns like voter privacy.

I’d like now to take this opportunity to delve a little deeper into the measures the Attorney General has just taken us through, as well as a few that he didn’t go through, and provide a little more context, rationale and clarification wherever I can.

The first amendment I want to discuss is our government’s proposal to make it possible for 16- and 17-year-olds to pre-register to vote. Like my colleague, I’m very excited about this item. Creating a provisional register would help to get future voters excited from a young age about their right to vote. In the long run, I believe this could increase voter turnout for years to come. By engaging young people earlier on, our hope is that they would form habits of democratic participation that would last for the rest of their lives. I’m very excited about this measure, and I’d like to explain how these measures would work and address some potential questions.

First of all, Madam Speaker, I want to address the question of how the new provisional register will work. Much like the permanent register of electors for Ontario, which is our existing register of eligible voters, the new provisional register will be run by Elections Ontario. The specifics of how this register will be set up and maintained will be largely left to the discretion of the Chief Electoral Officer, as the authority on elections in our province. We are confident that he would develop an effective and user-friendly way for young people to add their information to this register.

Fortunately, we can also learn from the efforts of our neighbours in Quebec and in Nova Scotia. Both of these provinces already have provisional registration for 16- and 17-year-olds. Our Chief Electoral Officer works closely with his counterparts in other jurisdictions across Canada and will draw from their experiences and best practices in his own work.

Of course, as any application where we store and maintain personal information, we have to ensure that we are taking every precaution when it comes to protecting privacy, even more so when we’re talking about young people’s information. We want to be sure that protecting the privacy of the individuals on this register is prioritized throughout its development and implementation.

That’s why there are also a number of provisions of this legislation that very clearly set out the parameters for the new register. That means young people will only be included on this register if they sign up. Once they’re signed up, they’ll be able to remove their names from the provisional register at any time. Both of these processes will require proof of identification. and that will have to be done by the young person themselves. This means, for example, that parents can’t register children on their own behalf.

This legislation is also very specific about how the information on the provisional register can be used by Elections Ontario. One use, of course, is to transfer a person’s information to the permanent register when that person turns 18. Aside from that, the information on the provisional register can only be used by the Chief Electoral Officer for educational outreach.

The provisional register will also be subject to Elections Ontario’s existing privacy policy, which governs its handling of all personal information and also outlines mandatory training for all staff. Between all these precautions and our Chief Electoral Officer’s good judgment, I feel confident our young people’s information will be treated with the utmost care.

Madam Speaker, although my colleague already covered it in some detail, I would also like to say a few words about the new spring election date, which will be the first Thursday in June. As the Attorney General mentioned, there are some important advantages to having an election at that time of year; namely, longer daylight hours, warmer weather and avoiding municipal election season. But there are some other benefits as well. Other than these considerations, the schedules of many people in rural parts of the province are also of concern. Since the new fixed date would fall just after the planting season, it is a convenient time for Ontarians in hunting and farming communities.

Holding the election earlier in the year also has administrative advantages. For example, it means that candidates and parties filing required documents with Elections Ontario after the election can do so in the same calendar year as the election. Under the current system, this often takes place the following year.

On the subject of the new election date, I would also like to clarify one point: Changing the date does mean that we will be having an election four months sooner than previously planned. I know that many of my colleagues across the aisle are pretty excited about having an election sooner.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Really excited. We’re jumping up and down.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: Yes, you read my mind.

However, this also means that it’s important to pass all these measures in a timely manner so that we can give Elections Ontario enough time to implement them before the new election date. That’s why our government is hoping to have our proposals, if passed, take effect by the beginning of next year.

The other thing about having a June election, besides daylight, is that, in my experience—I’ve run through so many elections since 1988 and they’ve all been done in October or November when it’s cold. My first election was done on November 14. I remember the cold weather, the darkness after 5 o’clock and people unwilling to open their doors. Our last election, in June, was the exact opposite and I was able to canvass right until 9 o’clock and, on some days, until 9:30.

Modernization: I also want to talk about this bill and modernization. Modernization allows for the use of certain voting technology in provincial elections which will enable the Chief Electoral Officer to implement his proposed technology-based staffing model. I would also like to briefly walk you through the model that was piloted for the Whitby–Oshawa by-election in February of this year. This should give you a sense of the impact it could have on Ontario elections when it’s scaled up and implemented across the province.

Under the current system, finding a voter on the list and giving them their ballot is done manually. This requires the effort of both a poll clerk and a deputy returning officer. At the end of the day, votes are also counted by hand. As a result, Elections Ontario requires a lot of staff to conduct an election.

In the last election, in 2014, for example, approximately 76,000 temporary staff were required. By introducing technology to replace both of these functions, the Chief Electoral Officer estimates that Elections Ontario can reduce its staffing requirements by 41%. That’s a huge decrease and a significant step toward improving the efficiency of our elections process. The new staff model and the process that was piloted under this model also provide a more streamlined and positive experience for voters.

A whopping 96% of voters who were polled after voting with the technology-enabled model thought that the process was easy with the new technology; 91% were supportive of the technology being used in future elections.

Madam Speaker, the remarkable thing about this is how much value we’re able to get out of two fairly straightforward technologies. One of these technologies, the e-poll book, replaces the many, many pages of names—and I’m talking about hard-copy pages here—that officials currently have to search through to find any given voter. Instead, they can just scan the voter’s notice of registration card. The system will find the voter’s name in a fraction of a second and print out their ballot. This saves everyone time and keeps everything running smoothly for elections officials.

The other tool that’s used here is a vote tabulator, which quickly and accurately counts the paper ballots. In the by-election pilot, the Chief Electoral Officer reported that these machines performed “flawlessly.” Votes at the pilot locations had been counted and results were posted on the Elections Ontario website within 30 minutes from the close of the polls. That’s a third of the time it took polling locations operating under the current model.

The simplicity of these technologies, and the fact that they integrate seamlessly into a process that voters are already familiar with, means that introducing this new technology doesn’t come at the expense of voter confidence. This is extremely important in elections. The system can only be as effective as the trust that people have in it.

The need to maintain public trust is also one of the reasons that the Chief Electoral Officer has not advised the government to go ahead with more expansive applications of technology in our elections system. That’s why I’m so excited that this legislation proposes to enable changes that would make our elections faster and more efficient, while maintaining the people’s trust, both as voters and taxpayers.

Should this bill pass, we understand that the new staffing model would be implemented in the vast majority of polling locations across the province in the 2018 general election.

Another component of this bill that I expect we’ll be hearing questions about involves the rules for candidates and canvassers around accessing apartment buildings, condos and other multiple-residence buildings. According to existing rules, candidates and their representatives already have the right to canvass these buildings. However, when they are faced with uncooperative landlords or condominium associations who won’t give them access to the buildings, there is currently very little they can do about it. As the Attorney General already said, this is a problem.

Canvassing can be a valuable tool in keeping voters informed and engaged. For voters who only engage with elections through news media, it can be easy to feel removed from the decision-making process, even disenfranchised.

At the same time, one of the biggest challenges facing candidates, parties and elections officials alike is keeping voters’ attention. In an era where politics is often met with cynicism and even indifference, we need to be encouraging a personal approach wherever possible.

That’s why this bill proposes to give the Chief Electoral Officer the ability to enforce the rights of access for candidates and their representatives by imposing administrative penalties. The local returning officer would have the power to fine a building owner or condominium corporation if a canvasser at least 18 years of age or older was refused access to their building within 24 hours of it being requested. On election day, the 24-hour period would no longer apply, and access would have to be granted immediately.

We understand that the residents of these buildings might have concerns about canvassers being allowed into their building. They might be worried about their privacy, for example. As with other situations in which canvassers are going door to door, people have no obligation to speak with them. They can just keep their door shut. We want to be respectful of these concerns. I understand that Elections Ontario plans to do outreach to educate people about their rights and obligations regarding canvassing in affected buildings.

The legislation that we’ve proposed includes new measures to safeguard voter information. The Chief Electoral Officer already shares certain registered voter information with candidates to help guide their outreach activities during the election period. If passed, this bill would make this available to parties as well, recognizing that campaigns are often organized centrally. However, it would also require the Chief Electoral Officer to withhold voter information from parties, candidates and MPPs who don’t provide an adequate privacy policy for handling this information.

While Elections Ontario already provides privacy guidelines for political actors, this measure would help ensure that everybody who has access to voter data meets appropriate privacy standards. As our province’s electoral authority and a non-partisan official, we feel that the Chief Electoral Officer is the appropriate party to be setting these standards.

While many of the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations were significant in scope, other recommendations seek to streamline administrative processes. One such administrative measure would consolidate the registration process for candidates, turning what is currently a three-step process into one that can be managed by a single form.

Madam Speaker, I’d also like to use the time I have left to give a bit more detail about the proposed Far North Electoral Boundaries Commission that my colleague has already mentioned.

As the Attorney General explained, we want to be diligent and respectful in our decisions about any changes to electoral boundaries that may impact the communities in the north. We want to be sure that these changes will serve to make things better, not worse. That’s why this commission is so important. The scope of its mandate will be fairly narrow, and that’s by design. We’re planning to add up to two new ridings in the northernmost parts of our province. We want to know how to do that in a way that is responsible, principled and will improve the state of representation in the region.

Although specific appointments would be made after legislation was enacted, this bill does outline the basic composition of the commission. It would be chaired by a current or former judge of an Ontario court, and would also include the Chief Electoral Officer and a member of an Ontario university.

Finally, it would also include two community representatives who identify themselves as indigenous persons. We felt it was very important to specifically include indigenous perspectives, both as a matter of practice and of principle. We hope that the indigenous communities in the area being reviewed by this commission will make their voices heard and help us to find electoral boundaries that work for them.

We’re doing a lot to reach out and to make our system much more transparent, open and efficient. It’s not in my speech, but I have to say one thing: Listening to our neighbours in the south, and the Republican candidate who talks about rigged elections, I look at our system and I think how much transparency there is in our system, and how difficult it would be to have a rigged election here in Ontario, I don’t think anyone in this House would even think of having a rigged election, either here or at the federal level or the municipal level or elsewhere. It just can’t happen.

I’m amused, when I watch television or read the newspapers and hear what’s happening in the United States and hear what the Republican candidate is saying about rigged elections and that certain cities, perhaps in Pennsylvania, already have people going in to vote two or three times, and that the system is not up to par. I don’t think he’s correct. Maybe he knows something we don’t know.

I’m very proud of our system. The Attorney General spoke about the Charlottetown accord. We had another vote on another accord, the Meech Lake Accord. I remember that they advertised it well, and we all had a chance to vote on this issue. I remember Pierre Trudeau, our former Prime Minister, wrote a letter in the Toronto Star and other newspapers, saying how bad these accords would be. We had a democracy at work, and we were able to vote and decide whether or not the Meech Lake Accord and the other accord, the Charlottetown accord, were good measures or not.

The other point that I wanted to mention is what the Attorney General spoke about, the low voter turnout. I think that having people register at a young age helps, but there are other ways to get people out to vote. There are countries in this world where, if you don’t vote, you get penalized. For example, in Australia, it’s mandatory to vote, and if you don’t vote, you get fined and you also have to do some kind of community service. That’s how they get people out so that they can’t say later on, “I never voted for that person there. I never voted for that candidate.” Everyone has to vote.

Apparently, from my information, there are 22 countries around the world where it’s mandatory voting. You have to vote. I don’t think that’s the way we should go in Canada.

I think these measures, by opening it up and making it more available for young people to vote, and streamlining the system, are really good for our country and for our democracy.

As was mentioned by the Attorney General, there are parts of the world where you can’t even vote. I remember going on a trip in 1995 with the mayor of Scarborough and we went with a delegation. I was 35 or 36 years old at the time, and believe me, I looked much younger than today. I recall we were in Beijing, China, and I went for a walk after a long day of meetings and so on by myself. I found this person following me.

I asked him, “What are you doing following me?” He said “No, I’m just here to keep an eye on you.” Then he asked me, “How did you get elected to office at such a young age?” I said to him, “I ran in an election.” He told me that he had never voted in his life. He was about 40 years old. He said, “I’ve never voted in my life. I have no interest in voting, plus the government won’t let me vote anyway, because the election is run by the Communist Party of China.”

I may have just gone off-topic a little bit, but I think these issues highlight the efforts that we’re making in Ontario to make sure that people can vote, that there’s proper representation in the Far North and that young people are able to register, all for the sake of democracy and getting people involved at a young age and saying that they can make a decision in what has to happen.

As I was saying, we hope that indigenous communities in the areas being reviewed by the commission will make their voices heard and help us find electoral boundaries that work for them. If this legislation passes, we expect that the committee would be appointed early next year. It would then have three months to carry out its examination and produce a report with concrete recommendations for the government to move forward. The plan is that any recommended changes to the Kenora–Rainy River and Timmins–James Bay electoral districts would be implemented in time for the 2018 election.

Madam Speaker, this is a bill that we hope will carry support across party lines and political ideologies. The measures we’re proposing here don’t favour one party over another and don’t favour the government over the opposition. We’re doing something that would help all three parties—not only the three parties here, but also the Green Party or any other party that comes up in the future.

The last time I ran, I remember there was a Family Coalition candidate and a Libertarian candidate, I believe, and the three major parties. We have an opportunity—people can choose. Oddly enough in my riding, about 5% of the vote was for the Green Party. People voted for the Green Party. The Green Party is known in Europe and in other parts of the world as well. They have an agenda, which I don’t totally agree with, but I think it’s an agenda that—they look at it—they want to see how the environment affects them as a citizen of Ontario and a citizen of Canada.

Again, we’re not doing this for ourselves or for the Green Party or for the other opposition parties; we’re doing it for the good of Ontarians in general. There’s no favouritism here at all. It’s a pretty straightforward bill. I think that it should be debated, but more work will be done at the committee level, when it’s sent down to committee, and we can hear from the public, hear from representatives, make any changes that we need to make and bring it up here for third reading and then a final vote.

Again, this is a bill that we hope will carry support across party lines and across political ideologies. The measures we’re proposing here don’t favour any one party over another. Most are the direct result of recommendations by our province’s Chief Electoral Officer, who is governed by a priority that everyone in this House shares: preserving the strength of our democracy by maintaining a modern and trusted election system.

Though that democracy is a constant work-in-progress, we believe that this bill represents a measured step forward. It envisions a more active and engaged electorate and a modern, effective election system. Most importantly, it addresses the issues we’re facing today in a way that we believe will start us on the right path. This is only the start, Madam Speaker, in my view.

I remember in 2014, during the last election, my mother was in the hospital—I think it was for the municipal elections, because it was the same year, in 2014. She was in the hospital. The city of Toronto has tablet voting, like a tablet with the names of the candidates, and the person who is in the hospital can vote from their hospital bed. I remember, one day I was there and the elections person of Toronto showed up and asked, “Where’s your mother?” I said, “I don’t know.

I just got here.” They said, “Well, someone told me she’s getting X-rays done.” I said, “I don’t know.” And they said, “We’re not going to leave until she comes back and gets a chance to vote,” which is pretty incredible, considering the fact that 20 years ago this wouldn’t be thought of.

At the city of Toronto level—and hopefully here at this level, too—we’ll be able to find people and give them the opportunity to vote, which is a sacred right. Most of the world doesn’t have this kind of an opportunity. I think that Canada’s democracy is one of the best in the world.

I think this bill addresses issues we’re facing today in a way that we believe will start us on the right path now, and pave the road for improvements and performance to come. Who knows how voting will be done 20 years from now?

I know that it’s hard to do voting online. Someone else could push the buttons instead of you, yourself. We’re not at the point now where you can do thumbprints or anything else of that kind and say, “Hi, it’s me, Lorenzo Berardinetti, and I want to vote in this election.” At some point, that’s going to happen, but I don’t know when.

As members of this Legislature, we need to always be aware of the fact that we need to improve our democracy in better ways and eventually make a system that works for everyone in Ontario and that makes it easy for them to vote. What I don’t like hearing—people will say to me, “I didn’t vote for the Prime Minister,” or “I didn’t vote for this Premier,” or “I didn’t vote for this mayor,” and I ask them why. And they say, “Well, I was busy,” or “I couldn’t make it that day. But I would never vote for that person anyway.” So this makes it easier for them to not have that excuse.

I think that we have to be proactive here and ask people to come out and vote, and make sure that they do vote, so that they get the government they want.

I thank you for your indulgence. I got off-topic a little bit here, but it’s an issue I feel very passionate about.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms. Soo Wong): Seeing as it’s almost 10:15, I will be recessing the House until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1012 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce guests of page captain Emily Royce: parents, Christa Royce and Brent Royce; grandmother Dianne Royce; grandparents Lois and Ron Robinson; and an exchange student from Brazil, Isabel de Oliveira. Welcome.

Ms. Ann Hoggarth: I would like to welcome corrections officers Andrew Parker, Matt Stickles and Carsten Schiller, who are joining us today from Central North Correctional Centre in Simcoe county.

Also joining us today from the Child Advocacy Centre of Simcoe/Muskoka, which serves my riding of Barrie, are executive director Jennifer Jackson and abuse prevention coordinator Samantha Ward.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m pleased to welcome to Queen’s Park today family members of page Paige MacCarthy: mother, Josi MacCarthy; father, Kevin MacCarthy; brother Aidan MacCarthy; brother Liam MacCarthy; and grandmother Angela Samerelli.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Today, I welcome guests of page captain John Papanikolaou: mother, Elena Poulos; father, Frank Papanikolaou; grandparents Dina and John Papanikolaou; and grandparents Vicky and George Poulos. They’re in the public gallery this morning. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to introduce Angie Valentini; she will be joining us a little bit later in question period. She is a guest here as a result of purchasing a visit to Queen’s Park at a charity auction at WoodGreen Community Services.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome Nicole Clarkson to the west lobby for question period this morning.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Today is corrections lobby day today at Queen’s Park. I am pleased to welcome a full house of so many correctional officers, probation and parole officers from both the adult and youth side; OPSEU Unified workers; correctional nurses from across the province. I can’t recognize everyone who is here today, but specifically I would also like to welcome members from OPSEU’s MERC and health and safety teams: Monte Vieselmeyer, Tammy Carson, Greg Arnold, Mike Lundy, Sean Dunn, Scott McIntyre and Jim Richards. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: I’d like to introduce a couple of people in the gallery today: first, my intern for this term, Ms. Emily Trudeau; and also another member of the famous Colle family, Mr. Stephen Colle, my constituency assistant.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a great pleasure to welcome members from the Turkish community on the occasion of the Turkish republic flag-raising day today, headed by His Excellency the consul general, Mr. Erdeniz Şen, Dr. Mehmet Bor, Mr. Celal Uçar, Mrs. Yildiz Ünsal, Mr. Ismail Vataner, Mr. Ruhi Tuna and Mr. Bora Celikel. Please join me in welcoming them. I invite everyone to attend the Turkish flag-raising day today.

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome to the House Janice Robinson, Brian Prousky and David Rivard, who are here at the Legislature for the Stand Up for Kids Awards in recognition of individuals or organizations that have the courage to stand up and take action to prevent or stop child abuse or neglect. They’re three CEOs from our children’s aid societies here in Toronto. Thank you very much and welcome to the Legislature.

Hon. Indira Naidoo-Harris: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome to Queen’s Park today Halton correctional officers from the Maplehurst facility. Here this morning are Ryan Graham, Chad Oldfield and Chris Abbott. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I just want to acknowledge Shannon Zimmerman in the gallery here. I just learned that she has accepted a wonderful opportunity in Ottawa. She has worked with many members on this side of the House. We’re deeply appreciative to her and we wish her all the very best.

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I’m here to welcome a guest of page Cooper Custance: a family friend, Karen Beverly. She’s not here; she’s coming either today—or this afternoon. Anyway, welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have an introduction. In the Speaker’s gallery today—would the members please join me in welcoming the family of Clerk Deborah Deller.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us her “voluntold” husband, Garry Deller; her sister Gillian Anderson, and her husband, Jim; her brother Rod Hurd, and his wife, Janet; and her nephews Andrew and Jonathan.

The Clerk’s son, Brad, her daughter, Sarah, and her son-in-law, Karl, could not be with us today, but we welcome them in spirit. Thank you for being here today.

Clerk of the Assembly / Greffière de l’Assemblée

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to recognize the government House leader on a point of order.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I believe you will find that we have unanimous consent to recognize our Clerk, Ms. Deb Deller, on her last full week of service here in the Legislature, by taking up to five minutes for each caucus to speak and for the Clerk to present a response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Ah! We now officially get to hear her speak.

We have a motion before us to have a tribute paid to our dear Clerk. Do we agree? Agreed.

The member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

Mr. Ted Arnott: Mr. Speaker, Deborah Deller says that getting a job at the Ontario Legislature is like entering a lobster trap: Once you get in, you can’t get out. That’s because our work here is so interesting, always challenging, and, when your efforts have made a difference, so fulfilling. That’s true for both members and staff.

Deb was caught in our particular lobster trap some 37 years ago. After graduating from the University of Western Ontario and taking a backpacking tour across Europe, she accepted an offer of a position as a tour guide here in our historic heritage Legislative Building. Her obvious intelligence, warm personality, sense of humour and dedication soon led to further opportunities, and she became an attendant in the chamber, where she helped to supervise our legislative pages, and before long a committee Clerk, advising on the standing orders and procedure in our all-party standing committees of the Legislature.

In 1990, when the member for Simcoe–Grey, the member for Timmins–James Bay and I were elected to serve here for the first time, Deb had become the senior committee Clerk, with leadership and supervisory responsibilities. Whenever chaos exploded in a committee meeting, which was so often in those days, Deb would be called in to calm it down and sort it out. In those early days of Bob Rae’s NDP government, with so many new members learning on the job—myself included—her role was very, very important. Deb performed it with polished professionalism, again distinguishing herself for the next challenge.

In 1992, she became a table Clerk, working here in the chamber and wearing the traditional black robes and those tricorne hats, advising the Speaker and members on procedure and doing all the preparation and follow-up that goes on back in the Clerk’s offices. She worked with and learned from distinguished table colleagues like Smirle Forsyth, Alex McFedries and Claude DesRosiers.

When it came time for Claude to consider retiring, about a decade ago, Deb, as Deputy Clerk, was the only perfectly qualified candidate to assume the Clerk’s position, and it was our good fortune that she applied for the role.

On March 21, 2007, the very first day of a glorious new spring—and, coincidentally or not, the start of the lobster season in Atlantic Canada, Deb became the very first female Clerk in the history of the Ontario Legislature. Over the past nine and a half years, every single day she has demonstrated that the Legislature made the right choice in appointing her.

In the House, she has always been non-partisan, neutral and fair, as our table staff always are and always must be. Her years of experience gave her a vast knowledge, not only of our standing orders and their implications and applications, but also of parliamentary precedents, conventions and customs which come to us from Westminster and across the Commonwealth.

The Clerk of the Ontario Legislature has the rank and status of a deputy minister in the provincial government. Not only does the Clerk have responsibilities in the chamber, the Clerk is effectively the chief administrative officer of a vast enterprise known as the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, with an annual budget of $233 million when you include the budgets of our nine parliamentary officers, including the Auditor General.

It’s a huge job, Deb, and you’ve done it extremely well. You’ve raised the bar when it comes to effectiveness and integrity, the key indicators upon which all of us in public life are judged.

Not only a leader here, Deb has been a leader amongst her colleagues across the country. Within the Association of Clerks-at-the-Table in Canada, she has served on many of the association’s committees including technology, education and professional development. In addition, she has held every position on the association’s executive, including president. She has only enhanced our Legislature’s reputation in our nation’s capital and in the capital cities of the provinces across Canada.

She’s been here for some of the most tumultuous events in the Legislature’s history. In April of 1997, the House sat for nine consecutive days, 24 hours a day, without interruption. For the benefit of the news media, I state categorically that the MPPs did not seek or receive overtime pay. Some members may recall that we were debating the City of Toronto Act, and one of the opposition parties thought it was a good idea to table 13,000 amendments while the bill was at the committee-of-the-whole stage. Because of the wording of the time allocation motion, once the process started—just like in the early days of World War I—it could not be stopped.

So we sat, and we sat, and we sat in session, without a break for nine days; and as Mr. Speaker Chris Stockwell called it, it was a “procedural impasse of logarithmic proportions.” As members do, we complained to each other and of course we blamed the members on the other side of the House. At times, tempers were very heated, and at one point I thought Speaker Stockwell might need a bodyguard to protect him from the PC caucus.

But the untold story of that unfortunate period is how incredibly hard the Clerks-at-the-Table had to work for those nine days. Deb, Todd Decker and Lisa Freedman were here around the clock, the whole time, reading the amendments one by one—and remember, there were only three of them. Working in shifts, grabbing a bite to eat and a nap whenever possible in their offices, they virtually lived here in the legislative precinct until it was over. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, never in the field of parliamentary conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.

In her demanding professional life, Deb has been supported by her wonderful family: Garry, who is here, who has himself had a distinguished career with the Toronto Police Service; her daughter, Sarah, who has recently married and now lives in Halifax; and her son, Brad, who is a pilot with the Canadian Armed Forces Search and Rescue.

On behalf of the official opposition, the Ontario PC caucus, Deb, we will miss you. We thank you. We salute your outstanding public service to the people of Ontario and we wish you continued good health and happiness in the years ahead.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Further tributes? The leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On behalf of my colleagues in the NDP caucus, I want to wish Deb Deller a very happy retirement. I’m sure that Deb has been ready for this day to come for some time. Dealing with all of us can’t be that easy, that’s for sure—of course not you, Mr. Speaker; I’m sure you’re a charm day in and day out.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You get an extra question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I guess I’m skating on thin ice with question period coming up, right?

Anyway, as all of us know and as you’ve heard from the previous speaker, Deb began her career at Queen’s Park as a tour guide, leading inquiring young minds eager to learn, through this beautiful building and passing on her excitement about our province’s legislative process.

She now oversees the work of nearly 400 staff and advises the Speaker on all kinds of procedural issues. Deb has offered her expertise to many international advisory projects—again, as has already been mentioned—travelling everywhere from Tanzania to Australia, New Zealand to Mexico. I know she takes pride in her ability to offer guidance on parliamentary rules and processes, including the role of the Speaker, the role of the opposition, privilege and financial oversight processes.

Deb’s work with the Canadian Study of Parliament Group has taken her to many universities across the province of Ontario where she shared her knowledge and experience, and where she continued to inspire young people to learn about their government and engage with our democracy—truly important work.

I’m very grateful, Deb, and the NDP caucus is very grateful, for your many years of service, for your sense of humour in dealing with the many procedural issues that we as MPPs like to argue about, and for your dedication to this special, special place. I know that New Democrats have tested you from time to time, including the late, the great Peter Kormos. With everything from hoist motions to assertions of contempt of Parliament, we certainly did our jobs to make your job a challenging one. We know, though, that you certainly fulfilled that role with absolute professionalism.

I actually had the honour to serve for a few months prior to becoming leader of the Ontario NDP as a deputy Deputy Speaker, and so I was able to see, in a very special way—a very upfront and close way—Deb Deller in action in her role as the Clerk as she advised the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers about the changing, living evolution of parliamentary democracies worldwide. I was not aware that our Legislative Assembly should be keeping up with some of these other democracies around the world, because it’s not just about ancient, past precedent, but it’s also about decisions that need to be made in the here and now.

We talked about thorny issues; for example, about how far a member should go in using or abusing their privilege in the House to perhaps use slanderous or libellous descriptions of private individuals or businesses that otherwise might spur lawsuits. Now, I’m not saying that was Peter Kormos, but it might have been. That was something that I was educated about in that forum. I really was unaware of the way that the Clerks, and particularly Deb Deller, were monitoring events around the world and informing our Speakers and our Deputy Speakers about how to best keep our Parliament up with the times, if you will.

As the leader, I’ve also had to wrestle with Deb a little bit around, for example, office space for my team after an election campaign. We didn’t always see eye to eye in these interactions, but, as I said previously, Deb was always the ultimate professional and always had a reason for why she made the decision she made and had no qualms about walking you through the reasons why she made the decision she made. I have to say, on every occasion, those reasons held water, because she’s a very, very diligent woman. Deb, you did an amazing, amazing job.

She was always willing, of course, as we know, because we always watch the legislative channel when we get home to our apartments or to our houses—we watch to see how we did. We know that Deb is always willing to record a segment for the Ontario legislative television channel so that the public can understand the intricacies of our government. Her passion for education has followed her from her days as a tour guide through to this very day.

You know, as was mentioned by the previous speaker, when we thank the MPPs’ families when we do our tributes to those members who have served here and have passed on, we often thank their families for the fact that we take so much time here away from family, and we recognize that families sacrifice for having their loved ones serve here in this Legislature as MPPs. But as the previous speaker mentioned, we know, Deb, that you put in the same kind of hours that we put in. We know that your efforts have also impacted your time with family.

So I was pleased to hear the other night in the dining room that, upon your retirement now, you’ll be seeking other interests. You’ll be sailing around the world, perhaps, and finding your inner artist, which I’m very, very excited about. I’ve noticed the beautiful artwork that you choose for your office. I’m sure you’re going to enjoy many, many happy years of retirement.

On behalf of all of us in the NDP—our MPPs, our staff—I want to say thank you so very much. We’re going to miss you greatly. You’ve done a wonderful job for the people of Ontario.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll be sharing my time today with the member from St. Catharines.

Laughter.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know everyone is happy to hear that.

It’s a great pleasure to rise today and to express our gratitude to Deborah Deller for her years of service as Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and to wish her the very best in retirement.

For almost a decade, Deb has been a crucial support for MPPs, staff and many others who have passed through the halls of the Legislature, as you have heard from my colleagues across the floor. She knows those halls very well, because of her time as a tour guide. She rose through the ranks quickly, through the Clerk’s office, working as a Clerk Assistant and Deputy Clerk before being appointed as Clerk in 2007, and becoming an expert in parliamentary rules and procedure.

Over her career, as you’ve heard, Speaker, Deb has advised and offered training to Parliaments from across the Commonwealth, from South Africa to Ghana to Kenya.

Des gouvernements, des écoles et des organismes du monde entier ont profité de l’expertise et des conseils de Deb.

Today she oversees the work of over 400 staff, who will miss her experience and expertise.

But what MPPs will miss most about Deb isn’t her administrative prowess or her procedural know-how. We’ll miss the grounded, earnest way that she has listened to and respected each member.

I want to say that I think the single most remarkable feat is that Deb keeps a straight face through it all. It is remarkable. Because I check. I do check: “Is she going to keep a straight face through this?” And she does. It’s remarkable.

She has accommodated our needs and helped us turn our goals and vision into laws and regulations.

I was going to say that my first interaction with Deb was as part of the class of 2003, when you briefed us, Deb, on the rules and procedures and standing orders. But actually, I realize, and the member from Wellington–Halton Hills has reminded me, that my first interaction was probably when I was sitting there, when I wasn’t being dragged out of the Legislature, cheering on the opposition during that time in 1997. You kept a straight face when I came in as part of the class of 2003, so thank you, Deb. You have helped us enormously through the years. Thank you very, very much.

Earlier this year, Deb appeared before the federal government’s procedure and House affairs committee. The committee was exploring ways to make the work-life balance of MPs more reasonable, ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of political life left room for family and personal time. Deb spoke at that time to the committee, as the leader of the third party has noted, and talked about the similar roles and responsibilities that we have here. In the meeting, Deb took a moment to acknowledge and to defend the tough, often overlooked work done by people in this chamber: the very long hours, the time away from family and friends.

So today I want to do the same for you, Deb, by acknowledging the long hours that you spent keeping this place on track, time that you were not able to spend with your family. I want to acknowledge and thank your family today on all of our behalf—time you couldn’t spend with your children, Brad and Sarah, who I know are so proud of you, and with your husband, Garry, who’s here today and, I’m sure, is excited about having more time to spend with you on your sailboat.

Deb, thank you for your service. I know that all members join me in wishing you calm waters, clear sailing and a happy retirement ahead. And you never have to watch question period again. Merci. Meegwetch.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for St. Catharines.

Mr. James J. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I get at least a few seconds here to add to the tribute to Deb Deller that is a heartfelt tribute by all members of the Ontario Legislature, and not just those who are here today, but those who have served in the Legislature over the years. I’ve had the privilege of serving with eight different Premiers for the province of Ontario and eight Lieutenant Governors and numerous Speakers, but only three Clerks, so the job has more permanency than, perhaps, some of the other jobs that we have.

I’ve had the opportunity, because I’ve been here the length of time I have, to watch Deb progress through those various steps. You could tell early on that she was going to do exactly that. When it came to 2007, there was a logical choice to be the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and that was Deb Deller. You could tell that because you had seen all the steps she had taken and the interactions that she had been involved in over the years.

The Speaker gave a nice tribute to Deb at a reception which was held yesterday, or the day before perhaps. It was, I thought, appropriate that he quoted from Inside Queen’s Park. I then went and looked at Inside Queen’s Park, because it noted the role of the Clerk. It says:

“You have to be quick on your feet in an often volatile environment while staying calm and keeping the Speaker cool, as well. Both Speaker and Clerk must deal with all three parties impartially every day, making for a distinct environment. The relationship between the Clerk and Speaker has to be based on trust. The Speaker’s job can make him or her pretty unpopular with members on both sides of the House. The Clerk has to be there to discuss the business of the House, listen to the Speaker’s perspective and provide consistent advice....

The Clerk has to provide the Speaker with the best possible advice, assistance and support, based on research and years of procedural knowledge. The Clerk must accept that the Speaker decides whether or not to take that advice.” I can assure you if the Speaker takes the advice, it is sage advice, and the Speaker would stay out of trouble by doing so.

So, Deb, we really do appreciate it. The poker face that was mentioned—the face that doesn’t change even when there are some extreme things being said in the House—is something for which she is characteristic. I can assure you that not all Clerks fit that particular category, as my recollection tells me, but I won’t go into any detail there.

The Premier and others have made reference to the fact that, yes, we here in the Legislature know the outstanding job that you have done, but when you have an international reputation which you have earned over the years, that really speaks well of you, and of the Legislative Assembly that we had the wisdom to choose you as Clerk and therefore share you with others around the world. You’ve done an excellent job in terms of educating others and assisting others in their jobs.

You’ve demonstrated clearly the attributes that we expect of a person in your position: integrity, impartiality, professionalism, detailed knowledge of the rules and everything about this House, and a sense of humour. All of us are going to miss you very much, as we do when we lose people who have been such a big part of our professional lives here as members of the Legislative Assembly. I do know that your family will look forward with anticipation to spending much more time with you. You will be gone from us in the physical sense, but your spirit and honour will live on for many, many years to come. Thank you very much.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I pray your indulgence for a moment to offer some observations. I’m going to start with a joke to keep me in line. The terms of endearment that we express at one’s retirement are an indication of that: the terms of endearment. Counting today’s tribute, there will be five retirement parties for Deb Deller. It is, indeed, a testimony to a powerful, intelligent, straight-shooting woman—a mentor, a shining example of what women are capable of doing. I want to say thank you to her for teaching me. I love to learn. She’s been a great teacher, a great mentor. There isn’t anyone in this province who hasn’t been touched by her work, and I mean that sincerely.

When you take a look at individuals who have dedicated their lives in any shape or form over that number of years, those individuals must be listened to. Many cultures highlight that in their elders. She’s not that old.

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I cannot believe what’s going to happen when she becomes an elder because the distribution of her wisdom has been so powerful, and I personally have been made a better person because of it.

I say to Deb Deller, you’re not leaving this place. Your influence on this place, your passion for this place and your capacity to teach us will never be lost in this place. It could be considered to be inside baseball, but we have to understand that this inside baseball game influences the entire province, the entire country and the entire world because of what she’s been able to do.

I want to say to you on a personal note, Deb, I can tell you that of the people I’ve spoken to from many countries, they’ve asked about Deb Deller. That’s a testimony to her strength, her power, her knowledge, her kind heart and her humour. I am looking forward to

chapter 12 in her book when she does a tell-all novel. She’s promised me

chapter 12. I also want to say to you that we now know, as she leaves, she’s taking with her one of the world’s largest Pez dispenser collections one could ever find.

There’s another side to Deb that you don’t know. She actually has an extremely, extremely high knowledge of everything else that you want to talk about. I shared this the other day. It’s called “Stump the Clerk.” In Stump the Clerk, in all her years as Clerk, she’s never been beaten. She’s challenged absolutely everyone on staff. Yesterday, I challenged the members to try to ask her a question about this place and she will have an answer. That’s a testimony to somebody who lives this place, who breathes this place, who has passion to make sure that our Legislature is held in the highest esteem.

I personally want to say to you, Deb, to the entire family, and especially Garry, thank you for the gift of this wonderful woman. I appreciate that very much. Thank you, Deb Deller.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I knew if I asked her to do that, she would not break the rules, so we kind of half broke the rules.

At this time, because of the motion, I am going to ask our Clerk, Deb Deller, to respond—to try.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): You might regret this because I have 37-odd years of stuff stored up inside this head.

Thank you all for your kind words. I am seized, I think, all this week with a mixture of nostalgia and excitement. I have loved every—almost every—minute of my time in this place. When I walked through these doors of this building for the first time all those years ago, I fell, then, hopelessly and irrevocably in love with this place, and I love it still, although like an aging spouse, I am more able to see its flaws.

I’ll miss the place. I’ll miss its intrigue. I’ll miss its unpredictability. I’ll miss the lingering scent of history in these halls. I’ll even miss question period, but I’m not tuning in to see it.

Mostly, I have to say that I will miss the people that I’ve worked with over all these years, and among those people that I will miss are you, the politicians. I am one of those oddball people, I guess, who really enjoy politicians. I find them to be a dedicated, committed group of people who are bright, who have a great sense of humour and who are here because they want to make this place that we live in a good place to be.

So I want to say thank you, not for your words today but for what you do—what you do every day. You disrupt your lives to go into this public service. You spend long days and hours away from your families. You spend long days and hours working, very frequently on the weekends, and you don’t really get a lot of thanks. You live under a microscope. I wish people knew the reality of the job you do, because if they did, I feel fairly certain that, like me, they would determine that no amount of money could ever convince me to do the job that you do. So thank you for that work. You need to stand up for yourselves.

You need to understand that you are all here for the same reasons and respect that about each other.

I will miss—I’m sorry to say this—more than you, the staff of this place. This is a group of people who are expert in what they do. They’re extraordinarily professional and their only goal in coming here is to make sure that the House and its committees can do the work that they have to do. These people are so good at their jobs, they make life as a Clerk as stress-free as it possibly can be, and this place, with or without me, will carry on serving you expertly and professionally.

I have to say a word to my family. This job, like yours, does kind of consume you. It consumes your attention and it consumes your energy. And so I think that part of what fed my decision to finally retire is that at some point you have to take stock of the balance of your work and your life and your commitment to your profession and your commitment to your family, and it is long, long, long overdue for me to make my family a priority in a way that they have not been up to now.

They are, in some ways, long suffering. I have missed events and commitments to my family because of this place, and they have understood and tolerated it and actually even been fairly interested in the work I do here. So from my heart to theirs, I thank you very much.

I’m almost done. I’ll be brief. I do want to say that I am excited about the next

chapter in my life. Garry and I, many of you know, are sailors. I’m excited to go sailing. He’s excited to go sailing with me and without my BlackBerry. We have a long someday-list of travels that I think we want to get to, and maybe we’ll even tend a garden and try and make something grow for a change in that place. We haven’t had time to do that before.

I just want to say this, going back to you people: The owl in the centre of those two archways is an owl that looks down on the government. It’s an owl that is there to remind those members that sit on the government side to govern wisely. The eagle in the centre of the arches on the opposite gallery faces the opposition, and it’s there to remind those of you that sit on the opposition side to be vigilant. Those are the roles you play, but they are interactive roles. The motto of this place is, “Hear the other side.” It is important in the governing of this province that you hear both sides of every argument, and I implore you to do that going forward. Thank you for the work you do.

Applause.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A final point of order from the government House leader.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I seek unanimous consent to present a single petition at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The House leader is looking for a single petition to be presented, with unanimous consent. Do we agree? Agreed.

She’s not ready for this.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, that’s why I had to have unanimous consent. She would have told me: “Don’t accept it; it’s a prop.”

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas after 37 years of outstanding service to the province of Ontario, the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Deborah Deller, has announced her retirement; and

“Whereas to the great fortune of the assembly, her career amazingly began all those years ago because she happened to match the size of the previous ordered tour guide uniform; and

“Whereas over the years, she has worked tirelessly in the service of Parliament, and on one occasion, sitting continuously for nine consecutive days; and

“Whereas throughout her career, she has trained and answered endless questions from members of provincial Parliament, Speakers of the Legislature”—except for the present person—“and staff of parliamentary protocol; and

“Whereas she has clocked in hundreds of hours of meetings with the Board of Internal Economy, Speakers’ school and others too many to mention; and

“Whereas throughout her many years of service, she has served the members of provincial Parliament with fairness, dedication and wisdom, providing countless hours of counsel, be it procedural, professional and personal; and

“Whereas her unwavering support of the members of this Legislature is matched only by her support of the Toronto Blue Jays, as she once called the House to order by yelling, “Play ball,” during a post-season series; and

“Whereas on the occasion of her retirement, we bear witness to a significant event, the retirement of the first female Clerk of this House, whose long and distinguished career has been one of great integrity and professionalism;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

“That the members of provincial Parliament do hereby extend to Deborah Deller their sincere and grateful appreciation for her dedicated service to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, their congratulations on her well-earned retirement and their best wishes to her, her husband Garry and her family for continued success, happiness and good health in years to come.”

Signed, every member of the House.

Applause.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): It’s not certified.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s not certified or stamped, so would the Clerk please put the prop down?

Laughter.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, Deb Deller. I thank all members for their kind and heartfelt thanks and to her family for being here.

Therefore, it is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Hydro rates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Premier. The Premier may not want to admit it, but we have a hydro crisis in the province of Ontario, and it is very real. You just have to look at the story in the London Free Press this week. The

article talks about Gail and Rob Fullerton from the heritage village of Paisley in Bruce county. They decided in 2014 to open a local food store. The Fullertons’ goal, with expensive renovations, was to have ultra energy efficiency in every aspect of their building. They invested to have energy efficiency. But because of Liberal energy policies, even with their energy efficiency, their hydro bills are skyrocketing.

Mr. Speaker, when will this government open their eyes and realize that businesses cannot remain open, cannot cope, and cannot afford their hydro bills unless we see some difference, some real commitment to relief for Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Minister of Economic Development and Growth is going to want to speak to the supports that we have put in place for businesses, including the changes that we’re making around electricity prices.

The Leader of the Opposition will know that the announcements we made in the throne speech were directed, yes, at individuals in their homes, but also at businesses. Taking 8% off electricity prices and working to include more businesses in the conservation initiative, those were directed at businesses that were smaller than the businesses that could take advantage of that up-to-34% reduction previously.

To the crisis in electricity, I would just remind the Leader of the Opposition that in 2003, there was a crisis in electricity in this province, and we’ve worked to fix that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The crisis is now. Families across Ontario are struggling.

The London Free Press

article continued to tell the story of the Fullertons. They spent half a million dollars to make it the most energy-efficient building possible. But despite all their efficiencies, less than four years after opening, the business is facing hydro costs that will soon be back to where they were before the renovations.

Gail Fullerton, the manager, said, “The single biggest obstacle to our success and to guarantee a grocery store remains in this town,” the single biggest obstacle—hydro. I repeat: They can’t stay open because of hydro bills.

My question to the Premier is, what do you have to say to the Fullerton family, that just wants to work hard to keep a business open in a small town in Ontario but, because of hydro bills, is worried they have to shut the doors?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development and Growth.

Hon. Brad Duguid: We’ve recognized that there are challenges for business with regard to energy costs. That’s why we’ve proudly put in place an 8% discount for all small businesses, all businesses across this province and all residents across this province. So if you have a $4,000-a-month energy bill, that’s going to save a small business $4,800 a year.

Yet the Leader of the Opposition continues to denigrate our efforts to bring down those costs for business. It’s almost as though he’s trying to have two positions at the same time—like he’s not got a pattern of doing that, Mr. Speaker, a very long and arduous pattern of doing that.

We’re going to keep promoting small businesses. We’re going to keep our economy growing. We’re going to continue to make Ontario the easiest place in the world in which to do business. The result will be more jobs and more small businesses going forward.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Premier: The Liberal front bench wants to argue that somehow there’s going to be hydro relief. There’s not. They bring in a PST rebate but they get rid of the clean energy benefit, which was a larger rebate.

Families are going to see their bills go up. Next year, bills will continue to go up for seniors, for families and for businesses. There is no relief on the horizon. It’s unaffordable. We need some real change, not Band-Aid solutions.

My question directly to the Premier: Rather than trying to point fingers and blame other people for the problems you’ve created for Ontario, what are you going to say to that family, that family that invested their life savings in energy-efficient upgrades and renovations to make their business work, and now once again, four years later, they can’t afford their bills? It’s unacceptable.

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Brad Duguid: What we’ll say to that family and what we’ll say to small businesses across this province is that we’re going to continue to invest with small businesses, contrary to the position taken by the Leader of the Opposition.

We’re going to continue to fund them by helping them grow through our regional economic development funds. We took the capital tax off those businesses, something that the party opposite was opposed to us doing. We lowered the effective corporate tax rate in previous budgets, budgets that that party did not support, and that gives them a corporate tax rate that’s 13% less than those small businesses that are operating across the border.

Mr. Speaker, we brought in place the HST, something that party didn’t support us on either, something that’s saving our small businesses hundreds of millions of dollars in administration costs. I’ll continue to speak on this issue if I have time.

Let’s talk about regulatory burden. We’re making Ontario the easiest place in North America in which to do business. We hear our small businesses—

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

Correctional services

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier. Since I can’t get an answer on hydro rates and they live in this fantasy world that everything is fine with the hydro crisis, I’ll try a different tack. Let’s talk about corrections.

Almost a year ago I toured the Thunder Bay jail, along with several members of the Ontario PC caucus. I could not believe that such deplorable conditions could exist in Ontario. The mayor of Thunder Bay referred to the jail as a “rat hole.”

In fact after my visit, I challenged the Premier to visit the Thunder Bay jail. She has failed to do so because the Premier didn’t want to admit that there could be Third World conditions in Ontario corrections. Mr. Speaker, my question to the Premier is: Will she finally commit here today to visit the Thunder Bay jail and have a tour with OPSEU?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition implies, or states directly, that I am not concerned about the situation in the Thunder Bay jail—and, quite frankly, in other jails in Ontario. I have visited a jail in Ontario. I am concerned about it.

The status quo cannot continue, Mr. Speaker. There needs to be transformation. We have been working to make changes. As recently as a few days ago, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services talked about the changes that we know need to be made in terms of segregation. I know there needs to be change.

We’ve hired over 1,100 new correctional officers; we’re hiring 2,000 over the next three years. We’ve put in place important security and infrastructure upgrades. But I know that there is more that needs to be done in terms of the bricks and mortar of these facilities, in terms of support for staff and for—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Mr. Speaker, again to the Premier. I will note my question and my challenge for the Premier to commit to visit the Thunder Bay jail have not been answered. You can’t go to that jail and not realize that something needs to be done.

We learned about the tragic story of Adam Capay, held in solitary confinement without a trial for years. Mike Lundy, president of OPSEU Local 737 said, “Staff and management have only done what we can do with the resources we have.” He added, “All seven segregation cells at the century-old Thunder Bay District Jail are constantly full.” Ideally, they would use segregation in order to maintain order, but their resources are stretched too thin. They have no options.

There are inadequate mental health resources in correctional facilities across Ontario and because of the lack of resources, because of the lack of commitment for the Premier to look at this, we’re seeing stories like Adam Capay. The government failed Adam Capay. My question to the Premier is: Will the government actually commit to supporting to give the resources to corrections so another Adam Capay won’t occur?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. David Orazietti: It’s great to see the opposition’s new-found compassion for our correctional system. I want to say to all of our correctional workers, the folks who are here today—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank all of the correctional workers, the nurses, the health care folks and all of the folks who work in our correctional services ministry who are here today. I thank them for the work that they do on behalf of so many Ontarians.

We do take these concerns very seriously, Speaker, and we are acting. With respect to the Thunder Bay jail, we’ve added 26 new correctional officers since 2013. We are moving to improve the infrastructure: window replacements, a full body scanner, changes to unit doors, sally port doors being put on nine living units, and closed-circuit television. There are a number of infrastructure improvements, Speaker, that we continue to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary. The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Rhetoric is simply that: rhetoric.

Back to the Premier: The Thunder Bay jail is—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will be done.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The Minister of Municipal Affairs will come to order. The member from Haldimand–Norfolk will come to order. If it happens again, including anyone else, I’ll move immediately to that person and warn them.

Finish, please.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you, Speaker.

Back to the Premier: The Thunder Bay jail is deplorable. There is no arguing that. But similar problems exist across this province. OPSEU’s corrections division chair, Monte Vieselmeyer, has been telling this government for years that they’ve been calling for more money and resources for mental health care, because these people should have appropriate treatment. He said, “We’ve told them, and we’ve been ignored. But now ... they’re trying to hide years of neglect.”

Will the Premier visit the Thunder Bay jail and see what years of Liberal neglect look like? And while she’s there, will she look and see where Adam Capay was held by this Liberal government for four years—

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

Hon. David Orazietti: The privatization plan of the prior government is not something we want to embark on. We’re committed to publicly run institutions and supporting public services in something like our correctional services.

I have to say that the investments that we continue to make are very, very important: 1,100 new officers; we’ve added mental health nurses, from 13 to 49 new nurses; we’ve added probation and parole officers and reduced the caseload work that they have; and we continue to make investments—$25 million this year, up over 7%, for programs for rehabilitation for individuals in our correctional services.

We’re committed to a full and comprehensive review to make the investments that need to be made in infrastructure and support staff across the correctional services. We’re committed to doing that.

Nursing home deaths

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. It’s been two days since we found out about the tragic alleged murders of eight seniors living in long-term-care homes in Woodstock and London. Has the Premier asked her minister to undertake any review of oversight, inspection and safety in our long-term-care system?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I have said for the last couple of days, this is an extremely distressing situation. The murder investigation is obviously a tragedy for the families and for the communities involved. I understand that there’s a real desire for answers. I think that is shared by all of us in this House.

Many of the answers will be provided through the ongoing police investigation and through subsequent court proceedings. It’s also possible that the independent office of the coroner may decide to conduct a coroner’s inquest into these deaths. We have to let those proceedings play out.

But as I said yesterday, I’m committed to looking at all options, including calling an independent review or inquiry into these deaths. I am absolutely open to that. But in the meantime, it’s important for the member opposite to remember that the police have made clear that there is no threat to safety and we need to let those proceedings unfold.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everyone in this House respects the need for the police to conduct their investigation. But there are 78,000 families in our province who have loved ones in the long-term-care system in Ontario. They’re looking to the Premier and her government for reassurance that their family members are safe in their homes following news of these shocking alleged murders.

I’m asking a very straightforward question, Speaker. Has the Premier ordered any action or review of current oversight, inspection and safety in Ontario’s long-term-care system yet?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: As the Premier has said, the police have specifically indicated to all Ontarians, particularly those who reside in our long-term-care homes, that there is no need to be concerned about their safety as a result of this occurrence. We have reiterated the same assurance to Ontarians. I think it’s important that all Ontarians understand—and within this Legislature as well—the importance of allowing a police investigation to occur and proceed.

Of course, we’re co-operating fully with the police investigation. Of course, the ministry also has plans, within the confines of what we’re able to do so we don’t prejudice or hinder the police investigation, to do our own investigations and look at precisely what has taken place in these two long-term-care homes. But it’s imperative, Mr. Speaker, that we ensure that the police investigation is allowed to continue, that we give the coroner the ability, if he should choose, to take measures to more fully investigate this.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question has to do with the oversight that’s needed to protect the most vulnerable seniors and residents of long-term care, not the police investigation. And I’m not alone in asking. Seniors’ advocates, health care professionals and families are asking the same questions and, really, are just looking for reassurance on an issue of vital importance: the safety and security of people living in long-term care.

If the Premier is open to an independent review or an inquiry into the oversight of long-term-care facilities, why not give people the peace of mind that they seek sooner rather than later? Why won’t the Premier order that review today?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It’s important that Ontarians understand the level of inspection that we do each year in all of our long-term-care homes. In fact, 100% of our long-term-care homes were inspected in 2014; 100% of our long-term-care homes were inspected in 2015. Continually, on an ongoing basis, every single long-term-care home in this province will be inspected annually.

Mr. Speaker, we have a whole set of measures which allow us to understand if there are critical events that occur, if there are patient concerns or public concerns. We have a hotline where we invite the public if they’ve got any concerns about a loved one or a situation in a long-term-care home.

We also, of course, have requirements on long-term-care homes themselves that they report any critical incident or any unexpected death or any occurrence which might be suggestive of abuse or neglect. There is a legal requirement for them to proceed in that fashion. We prioritize those critical incidents and investigate them thoroughly and immediately.

Nursing home deaths

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. I can only imagine what it must feel like as a family member of someone who passed away in long-term care to learn that your loved one was taken from you in such an untimely and heartless way. These alleged murders have shone a light on what many people have long believed to be serious concerns. Seniors’ advocates, professionals and families are not asking the government to interfere with a police investigation, nor am I, but we are rightfully calling for a broader review of the system.

When will the Premier order that review?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I would remind the leader of the third party that these are allegations that are being dealt with. They are allegations and, in the context of that reality, there is an investigation that’s ongoing. The Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has laid out the inspection process that we have in place, which is an annual process. Obviously, we are all very, very concerned and want to know what the answers will be, what the answers are in this very terrible situation.

But we are dealing with allegations. There is a police investigation that’s ongoing. There may be a coroner’s inquest. That is up to the office of the coroner. I have said if we perceive that there’s a need to do an inquiry or a different review, we are absolutely open to doing that but we must let the proceedings that are in place unfold as they need to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Of course the police investigation is of utmost importance. I don’t think anybody here disagrees. But its outcome will address only the terrible, alleged murders in these two homes. What about the other 78,000 residents of Ontario’s long-term-care homes and their families who worry about them each and every day, who worry about them more now in light of these tragic allegations?

When will the Premier be taking action to reassure all Ontarians that this province has the most effective oversight and monitoring of our long-term-care facilities as humanly possible?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to go over the process once again in the final supplementary, but I just want to say to this House and to the people of Ontario that in a situation like this, where there are very serious allegations and where there are processes that need to take place, my concern and the question that I have for my staff and my colleagues is: Is there a systemic issue that we need to look at?

I understand that the leader of the third party is asking that exact question. It is the question that we have to ask. We have protocols in place and we have allegations in a very terrible situation, and where those two meet and where the questions need to be asked—some of those questions will be asked as part of the proceedings that are under way now. We need to hear the answers to those questions and not get in the way of the proceedings that are under way right now.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care said that Ontario’s long-term-care homes have “among the best oversight mechanisms for critical incidents, as well as for general annual inspections, in the world.” I think he repeated some of that already this morning.

But not everyone agrees. The Auditor General reviewed Ontario’s long-term care inspection program last year and concluded that there were serious problems and the process could be improved. The tragedy that is unfolding in Woodstock and London right now should give us all pause to consider the things that we can do better to protect and care for seniors living in long-term care.

Yesterday, the Premier was open to a review. I’m asking today: Don’t delay. There is no need to wait. There is absolutely no need to wait. Please, order that review today. Will the Premier do that?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, the changes recommended by the Auditor General for our inspection process are precisely the changes that we have made and implemented. Every single home is still being inspected every year: 100% of homes are being inspected. That means that investigators go into every home. They meet with residents. They meet with families. They interview staff to identify any issues of concern.

In fact, consistent with the Auditor General’s recommendations, we’re focusing those investigations based on risk. She said, “The ministry needs to better prioritize comprehensive inspections, allocate resources more efficiently and assess the frequency of comprehensive inspections based on risk.” That is exactly the change that we’ve made.

Of course, if staff identify any additional or further concerns in the course of these annual, 100% comprehensive inspections, they will pursue those concerns directly at that time.

Winter highway maintenance

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. The first snowfall is an annual reminder of the government’s continued failures of winter road maintenance. After a scathing auditor’s report on this government’s substandard winter road mainten