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

November 20, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Nov-20 (PDF)

L087 - Wed 20 Nov 2013 / Mer 20 nov 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 20 November 2013 Mercredi 20 novembre 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC PERSONAL HEALTH

INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS

SUR LA SANTÉ FIGURANT DANS

UN DOSSIER DE SANTÉ ÉLECTRONIQUE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAN AM GAMES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

LONG-TERM CARE

SENIORS

PAN AM GAMES

PAN AM GAMES

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PAN AM GAMES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

FIREFIGHTING

SNOWMOBILING

FOREST INDUSTRY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAITLAND RIVER

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

FIREFIGHTING

FORD MOTOR CO.

GIRL GUIDES

HEALTH CARE

VILLAGE CLUB ADULT DAY CENTRE

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

COMMUNITY SAFETY

NATIONAL CHILD DAY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ADVERTISING ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PUBLICITÉ

DES ORGANISMES

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

RYAN’S LAW (ENSURING

ASTHMA FRIENDLY SCHOOLS), 2013 /

LOI RYAN DE 2013 POUR ASSURER

LA CRÉATION D’ÉCOLES

ATTENTIVES À L’ASTHME

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ADDICTION SERVICES

PETITIONS

CARLETON PLACE AND DISTRICT MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

SMALL BUSINESS

SHARKS

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

LEGAL AID

CHARITABLE GAMING

ONTARIO RANGER PROGRAM

DISTRACTED DRIVING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

AIR-RAIL LINK

OPPOSITION DAY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC PERSONAL HEALTH

INFORMATION PROTECTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES RENSEIGNEMENTS PERSONNELS

SUR LA SANTÉ FIGURANT DANS

UN DOSSIER DE SANTÉ ÉLECTRONIQUE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 10, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 78,

An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to electronic health records / Projet de loi 78, Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les dossiers de santé électroniques.

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

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to try to make sense for everybody in this House of Bill 78, the Electronic Personal Health Information Protection Act. I say this because I’ve had the pleasure of reading the bill, of course, and it is one that is really hard on the brain. You read a paragraph and then you say, “What did I read? What does that mean?” Then I read it in French in the hope that maybe it will make more sense. It’s the same thing: really hard to understand. But that does not mean it is not important, and this is what I want to talk to you about this morning.

What is this bill all about? Well, it is about our health record. We all have a health record. If you have a family physician or a nurse practitioner, they keep a health record. If you go to the hospital, they keep a record. If you go to the health unit, if you go to a community health centre, an aboriginal health access centre, a family health team—whenever you have an encounter with a health care professional—they will keep a record of that encounter, because this helps them to know you better and this helps them to shape the right care for you.

We have all seen this. We’ve gone to our family physician or nurse practitioner, and they open up this little file that has our name and OHIP number in there and where we live and the medication we take and if we’ve had any surgery and if we have any allergies. Then there are all the tests we’ve ever gone for, and they’re usually organized, like all the blood tests and all the diagnostic imaging. If you’ve had any consultation with a specialist, it will all be there.

For years and years this has been kept in a paper form and has helped health professionals all over Ontario, all over Canada, all over the world, do their work. Times are changing. Now, more and more of this is done in an electronic format. So more and more now, if you go, you will see that the person, your care provider, no matter what their designation—whether they be a physician, a nurse, a physiotherapist, an occupational therapist, a speech pathologist or an audiologist; you name it—there’s a good chance they’re now sitting in front of a computer screen. As they talk to you and as they provide the episode of care, they will keep notes in an electronic format.

There’s nothing wrong with this. This is now 2013, and we all know that if we could share that information more easily, it would be better. But then there is a balance that needs to be reached; that is, a balance between having access to that information so that when you go and see new providers you don’t have to repeat your OHIP number, your date of birth, your address, the medication you’re on, your allergies, who your family physician or nurse practitioner, is and all of this; it would already all be there.

If you’ve had a test done in the hospital, when you go back to your primary care providers, they have this test right in front of you. If you’ve been sent to a lab, they have this right in front of you. They know if they’ve talked to you about this or not. They have flags in there to tell you if you’re due for your flu shot or any other immunization that has run its course.

Electronic health records are a good thing, something that will make the practice of the health care practitioner a whole lot better. But—and it always comes with a “but”—we have to be able to assure every single Ontarian that their privacy will be protected throughout. I can tell you that what used to happen was that the paper charts, as we call them, were always guarded under lock and key. It didn’t matter where you went; nobody had access to those except for the people who needed to have access.

If you wanted a record in any hospital, rehab centre or clinic, you got the record of the person who’s coming to see you and nothing else. You’re not allowed to go and start having some light reading of people’s medical charts just for something to do—absolutely not. You’re not allowed to do this, and this is something that is ingrained in each and every health professional the minute you start to see your first patient or client. A health record has to be protected.

In a paper form, it is physically protected under lock and key, and when the doors are open or the filing cabinets are unlocked, there is always a person there who guards those files. Nobody has access who is not supposed to have access.

I can tell you that in the health care system they take this responsibility to guard people’s private information really, really seriously. Anybody who has ever had a job in the health care system will tell you that either during your interview process or when you first get your orientation in your new workplace, you will be told that if you are ever caught using a health chart—a personal health record—for any reason other than care, you will lose your job. Everybody knows this. You are not allowed to look, and it is taken very seriously.

I can tell you that I have been witness—the honourable member from Welland, who also comes from the health care system, has been witness to people who have, for reasons that seemed really good and caring—they wanted to see what was in their mother’s chart, so they could help her; they wanted to see what was in their spouse’s chart, so they could help explain, because they are health care professionals and they know how to read those things. It didn’t matter the reason why you had a peek in there; you lost your job. If you were unionized, the union would go to bat for you, and you would still lose your job.

You didn’t get a second chance; you didn’t get to explain. That’s a no-no in health care. You use the chart for the benefit of the patient and for nothing else.

I have been witness to people who have looked at a chart for a very good reason. I was there when the security guard from the hospital escorted her to her locker. She emptied her locker. She was escorted off the property for having looked at her mother’s chart because her mother didn’t understand her care. You don’t do this. If they are not your clients, you don’t do this, and everybody in health care knows that.

Why is it so important that this information be kept private? Because it has to do with the fundamentals of care. The relationship between a care provider and a patient is based on trust. The client sitting in front of you, if you’re the care provider, has to trust you that no matter what he or she says to you, you will use it to help him, and nothing else. They have to feel secure that what they say to you, that is often not very glamorous on their part, that is often very, very personal, will not go beyond that conversation between those two human beings, one seeking care and another one hoping to help.

This fundamental relationship of trust is at the centre of our health care system. If you look at compliance—if you have, for one reason or another, damaged that relationship of trust—I can guarantee you that compliance with the treatment will go out the window, because health and health care do not happen on the surgical table and in the doctor’s office or the nurse’s office. Health is your own responsibility. You are the one who knows yourself the best. You are the one who knows how to keep yourself healthy, and you seek help from health professionals to help you do this.

But at the end of the day, you are the one who has all of the answers. You are the one who has most of the knowledge. That knowledge exchange has to be done in a relationship of trust. To guard those charts and the privacy of those charts with your life is very important, because if you don’t, then this relationship of trust is gone, and the chances that the care will be effective are also gone out the window with it.

So here we are, in 2013, where electronic health records are becoming more and more in usage throughout the health care system, throughout Ontario, and all of the strong laws that we had in place to protect health records—they were called the Personal Health Information Protection Act—everything that existed to protect this paper chart does not apply that well to the electronic format, so the law had to be updated. It’s now called EPHIPA, Electronic Personal Health Information Protection Act. This is what we are talking about today.

How do we do this transition, that everybody wants, toward an electronic health record while at the same time keeping the same level of trust that the information that will be shared, that will be captured electronically, will be protected?

It’s pretty easy to see that if your chart is in a filing cabinet with a lock and key, and the filing cabinet is inside of this room that has a door and a key and no window, it’s pretty intuitive that your chart is pretty well protected. Somebody has to have a key to the door, then has to have a key to the filing cabinet and then has to have access to the codes to be able to find yours. I’d feel pretty good that things were good, well protected. They have been well protected when they were in the paper chart form, with a few exceptions, but those exceptions were always punished severely.

Now, in an electronic format—we all know how easy it is to share information over the Internet. It is the click of a mouse. We’ve all heard of hackers who were able to go into a MasterCard data bank and broke into a Sears data bank. They have broken into some of the Pentagon’s databases. What’s to assure us that they’re not going to break into my health record or your health record and then not only do damage to that relationship of trust but also do damage that is irreparable? Once some of this personal information goes into the public domain, it is impossible to unwind the clock. It is impossible to bring this information back. At the end of the day, we are all human beings.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It’s getting a little loud in here. I’m having trouble hearing the speaker. There are several conversations going on. You know the game: If you want to talk, go outside and talk, or keep it down.

M me France Gélinas: The service I was talking about, electronic health records—the paper charts have served us well, and now we were into the electronic and the same level of trust.

If there is a breach, and if our personal information ends up in the public domain, the damage that can be done is tremendous. We share some of our most intimate and personal information with our health care providers, and we live in the society that we live in, with all of its taboos and all of its prejudices and all of its discrimination. Information that has to do with our sexuality, that has to do with our reproductive function, is very personal. We keep that personal for very good reason, but it is captured in your health record, and that information, if it was to be broken into, could all of a sudden find itself on the front page of the paper.

A health record is there to help you. It needs to be protected. It needs to go into an electronic format but in a way that would assure us that this protection would continue to happen. In May of this year, the government introduced Bill 78 to try to do that, and here we are on October 20, and this is the second time we talked about it. I’ll make a little parenthesis here to say that I’m a little bit disappointed at the speed at which this thing is moving forward.

We all know, and the minister is pleased to tell us and repeat to us, how many millions of Ontarians now have their health records in an electronic format. But with electronic formats comes the risk of sharing information outside of the circle of care, outside of the interdisciplinary team that is there to help you. That’s something that we can’t afford. That’s something that should never happen. That’s something that would have a horrendously damaging effect on people’s lives, on communities, on the health care system as a whole.

Is it important that we pass this bill? Absolutely. Maybe I should have said right off the bat that the New Democrats will support moving this bill forward, and then I will use the rest of my time to talk a little bit to you as to: How do we make this bill even better?

Bill 78, which we’re talking about today, is the Electronic Personal Health Information Protection Act, and as I said, it was introduced in May of this year. It began second reading in October; that is, it was brought back for us to talk about it on October 10 of this year, and this is only the second time that it has been brought back for us to discuss the bill so that we could move it forward.

As I mentioned, it is a very technical and complicated bill, and I would say that for most Ontarians it’s not going to be the top-of-mind priority—and I don’t blame you. But then there are people like myself and my 106 colleagues, for whom it has to be a priority because the protection of personal health information is something that every Ontarian would be concerned about if there were a breach, and if that breach were to affect them.

I will remind you, Speaker, that last spring we heard that our Outdoors Cards had been outsourced to an American firm. I can tell you the number of people who were upset about this, because that was their personal information that was now held in a database someplace in the States—in Wisconsin, if I remember well—and people were really opposed to this. They had shared that information with their government in order to get an Outdoors Card.

The Outdoors Card, to me, is not really that private information; it tells if you have a conservation or full fishing licence—you’re allowed to catch two pickerels or six—and it tells if you have a small-game or a large-game hunting licence. It is still information that people had shared with their government and they didn’t want everybody to know. And now this database was being managed by a US firm based out of Wisconsin, and people were really worried. They phoned me and they phoned, I’m sure, most of you.

And that was not personal health information; it was whether you had a fishing licence or what kind of hunting licence you had.

But when those steps are done, you really see the core values of Ontarians. This is private information. They will share it with the government in order to get their Outdoors Cards, but they don’t want that information shared with anybody else. This is their own private lives, and nobody else should have access to it unless they decide to share that information themselves.

This bill is about the protection of people’s personal health information. It’s something that, to me and to a lot of people, is very important. Unfortunately, it’s very technical—and hard on the coconut, let me tell you—but I will try to make it a little bit easier for you.

The bill has wide support from our stakeholders, including a very important one, and that is our privacy commissioner. The privacy commissioner has spent a lot of time looking at this piece of legislation to make sure it does just that: to make sure it strikes the right balance between making your personal health information available online to people who need to see it, and at the same time guaranteeing your privacy. The bill takes a good step toward this, and I will make suggestions today to make it go a few steps further.

Some have started to look at the bill. I commend the Ontario Hospital Association for a very good analysis of the bill that I think has been shared with all of us; I will make reference to it later on in my speech. We will continue to work with everybody who is interested to try to make the bill stronger.

What is in Bill 78? Well, in Bill 78 are the core building blocks of how we protect our health information record once it is stored in an electronic format. It has many different building blocks to it. The bill will allow for the sharing of electronic health records between health providers in what is described as the patient’s circle of care. Most of the time you will think about your primary care provider, either your family physician or your nurse practitioner, and maybe they work with a nurse, and they may have a nutritionist or a social worker working with them.

How do those people get to read each other’s notes in a way that helps deliver better care to you while always safeguarding your own privacy for your own information?

In the bill, there’s a set of provisions to do just that. The bill outlines some privacy and security requirements for everybody involved in the creation, maintenance and sharing of the EHR, the electronic health record, and the bill introduces a new term called “prescribed organization.” Right now in Ontario, most of us think this organization is going to be what is known right now as eHealth, but I will talk a little bit more about that. The prescribed organization would have to comply with detailed privacy and security obligations, and that would include consent directives; that is, you will have the final say as to who gets access to what. They will be in charge of managing all of that.

EPHIPA, the bill we’re talking about, will prohibit a health care professional, also called a health information custodian, from collecting personal information except for the purpose of giving care to you. If you don’t need that information to provide care, then that information will not be collected; it will only be collected in order to help you.

It will also establish the rights of individuals as to how they can access their record, how they can make corrections to their records, and how they can make directives as to who has access to what and who doesn’t. It also has provision as to when those directives can be overridden. That is, you may have said you don’t want anybody to have access to the list of medications you are taking; for one reason or another, this is information that you prefer not to share. Well, in the case of an emergency, there could be some valid reason to override, and those are outlined in the bill.

The bill also sets out who will have access to that information, in which format, with how much identifier, and the process for reviewing all of this.

The bill also talks about the penalty. We hope there will never be a breach, but if there ever was to be one, then we’re talking about severe fines. We’re talking about $100,000 for an individual—so if an individual went and looked into a patient’s file that they were not supposed to, they could be fined up to $100,000—and half a million for an organization, so a family health team, a community health centre or a hospital could be fined up to $500,000 if they do this.

So this is what the bill sets out to do. How well does it do this? Well, the first challenge we have has to do with software. The Electronic Personal Health Information Protection Act, the bill we are talking about, includes detailed consent management requirements; that is, if you want a certain part of your health records to not be shared, you are allowed to do this. It happens right now all the time, and it will continue to happen. This is your personal information. You get to decide who gets to see it and who gets to not see it.

Most people are very comfortable, within their interdisciplinary team, within their circle of care, that the people providing them care have access. But if, for one reason or another, you don’t want that, you are allowed to make directives and say, “I don’t want this part of my chart or that part of my chart to be available” to anybody, or to a specific set of providers within your circle of care.

Many people, and that includes me, are worried that for this provision to work, we need software that allows us to do this, and this software right now does not exist. Right now, what you have is that for people who are still on paper charts, when a client or a patient tells you they will share with you some information, but only with you—they don’t want the rest of the team to know—you take your notes and you do your health records like you always did, and then you put it in a sealed envelope.

Then you sign across the sealed envelope and you write your name, so that people know those were your notes and those contain information that the patient has told you they don’t want to share with anybody.

Sometimes it’s the entire chart. If we know that there is a chart that is at risk of being looked at—I can just imagine, when Prince William and Kate went into the hospital to deliver their child, that there were probably a few people putting pressure on to find out details. What do you do when you’re in a circumstance like this, where we deal with human beings? You take the entire chart, you put it in a sealed envelope and you keep it under lock and key. There are physical ways of doing this, because we all know the importance of keeping that information confidential.

But how do you do this once that information is collected in an electronic format? I wish I could tell you that there is this really good software out there that exists, that allows us to put firewalls around—I know nothing about that stuff, but it sounds good—but that does not exist.

We have a bill that does the right thing, that puts in place the right building blocks to assure people that if you don’t want that information shared, it will not be; it will be protected. The bill is good, but it depends on technology that does not exist. I guess I have a bit of trouble with this, and I’m guessing a lot of people would have a bit of trouble with that too.

When the Auditor General came out with the billion-dollar scandal regarding eHealth, we all realized, and the government kept on telling us, that the complexity of the software and the interaction between existing and new systems were providing significant challenges, and that we don’t yet have a comprehensive electronic health record in Ontario because, technologically, it is really hard to do.

Although we have bits and pieces of an electronic health record—you go to your primary care providers, and there’s a good chance now that they sit in front of a computer screen and get your information all down there. When you go to the lab, the lab is actually able to send that information and it gets into the right patient chart. The next time you come up, they discuss the results with you. If it’s an abnormal result, a flash goes on, and you know to give an appointment to that person to come back to see you, that you need to talk to them. So with the labs, it works pretty good.

But then some of the lab tests are done at the health unit, and none of that comes back to your primary care provider. What happens is, the health unit mails you or faxes you the result of your test and a poor schmuck someplace in the primary care provider takes that fax and and scans it and puts it into your health records—but it is put in your health record as a picture, so you cannot do trends with it, you cannot tag flags with it; you just have a picture of it that you have to look through. So some parts of our health care system work pretty good.

The connectivity between the different parts is still an issue, and some parts of our health care system are still in the dark ages and have not embraced electronic health records at all. Is the software and the talking of different softwares together a challenge? Yes, it is. If there had been an easy solution, we would have found it a long time ago. Right now, they are adding building blocks the best they can, but it is still a challenge.

So here we have a bill telling us that, “We understand that some information has to be protected, and we understand that you have a right to withdraw information and keep it to a single health care provider, but I cannot tell you how this will be done.” Right now, hospitals are telling us that when this happens within the hospital, what they do is they put a flag on the chart. They keep a paper chart, and they keep it the old-fashioned way that they’ve always done it: They keep it in a sealed envelope, signed, in a drawer or a filing cabinet or a chart room under lock and key.

So when you go on the electronic chart, you know that the person has a private chart someplace, and that’s all you know. But we’re not able to provide this in an electronic format yet.

The hospitals have chosen that method to continue to assure this relationship of trust with their clients, because they understand the damage that would be done to their reputation and the health care system as a whole if that trust was to be broken, but it also tells us that if we still have to keep part of it in a paper format hidden under lock and key someplace, then the software is not quite up to snuff. In health care jargon, we call this a locked box. That is, when we have a consent directive, you put it in the box with a lock and you make sure that this information is not shared.

That, over the years, has helped maintain the trust with patients and clients who are often very, very fearful of the health care system.

Not everybody has had all good interactions with our health care system. For some people, it did not go well. For some people, it was quite traumatic. For some people, they actually were abused by our health care system—and you see this going through the courts. I have one in my riding right now where somebody in a position of trust with a health care designation abused a patient. You can understand that some of them are quite reluctant in their interactions with the health care system, and they want to protect their information because they’ve already been burned; they’ve already lost that trust.

It is important for us to rebuild it so that they can have access to the best health care system possible so that we can help them. So here we have this part of the bill that is well-intentioned but needs some work.

Then we have what I talked about, new jargon that is in this bill that is called “prescribed organization.” You will hear me use that term lots and lots, because it’s a term that is in the bill, but basically what it is is that the prescribed organizations think of it a bit as: Who will hold the database of all of that information? Who will manage that database so that the right information is available to the right people, and that people who should only have access to your name and address and phone number to give you an appointment, for instance, don’t have access to your whole record, and people who should have access to a part of your—etc. You get the idea.

I and, I’d say, most people in Ontario are assuming that eHealth Ontario is going to be the prescribed organization, but the bill does not say that specifically; it just creates this terminology of “prescribed organization.” But bills often do this, so no panic yet. But I will quote from a researcher who wrote an

article in the Osgoode Hall intellectual property law and technology program. Her name is Denise Brunsdon. She said the following, and I’m quoting from her report:

“It’s conceptually difficult to agree on what powers prescribed organizations will (and will not) have without a conceptual understanding of which will fall under this term. EHealth Ontario is one group that will clearly receive ‘prescribed organization’ status, but who else?”

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The Minister of Transportation.

M me France Gélinas: “In my opinion, the clear question that arises is to what extent private companies will be considered ‘prescribed organizations.’”

She goes on to say, “If there is no intent to allow private companies the designation, then why not draft the legislation more accurately and explicitly? The ambiguity of the term ‘prescribed organization’ makes me uncomfortable.” It makes me uncomfortable too.

Remember all the calls I was getting when the government subcontracted the health card to a Wisconsin, US, private firm? People were really uncomfortable with that. Why not put it right in the law from the start that prescribed organizations will have to be Ontario-based, not-for-profit agencies, preferably a government agency? Why not give people the reassurance they want from the start?

If you don’t do this, then people always assume the worst. People assume that management of this database—which, I’m sure, will cost millions of dollars, because everything is always expensive when it has to do with eHealth—will be put out to the lowest bidder and some company, wherever in the world, that underbids eHealth Ontario will suddenly be the prescribed organization that has access to all of the health records of every single Ontarian.

I feel very uncomfortable with that. I feel very, very uncomfortable with that. I feel uncomfortable having a central database with people in it, and I’ll talk about those later, but at least if we said right in the bill that it would have to be a government, not-for-profit agency based out of the government of Ontario, then—remember this relationship of trust that I talked about at the beginning, that people are willing to share with their government some information in order to get access to the services that the government paid for?

There is this relationship there, but they’re not willing to share that same information—remember that Outdoors Card? You’re only sharing your name, address and whether you fish or hunt, and people were really upset that that database is no longer in Ontario.

Imagine if it is the database of every single Ontarian’s health record that ends up at the same place in Wisconsin, if there seems to be such a good firm that handles our health cards better than anybody in Ontario. I think people would be very uncomfortable with this. I can tell you that I would be very uncomfortable with that.

I would like those assurances to be in the bill. If you have no intention of privatizing this, if you have no intention of exporting this outside of Ontario, then put it in the bill. Give people the reassurance from the start, so that you are part of building this relationship of trust that makes our health care system what it is, and I would feel a whole lot better.

Remember I talked about the consent directive, another building block? The goal of building a province-wide standard of consent directives, or the ability to opt out of all or any part of the electronic health record, is very important. It is something that has been part of the health care system for a long time. It is something that, if it’s not there, will be a major barrier to access for people. It has to be there, because we live in a stigmatized society, because we live in the society we live in, with all of the taboos. Some information can only be shared in a trusting relationship with very few people. Our health care system needs that to continue.

Right now, most of the time those directives are shared with the provider in front of you. So they come to their provider and they say, “I will explain to you what happened so you can help me, but I don’t want anybody else to know.” Unfortunately, the way the bill is written, those directives will have to be managed by the prescribed organization—remember, what I think will be eHealth. So eHealth—I don’t know—is a bureaucrat over the phone who I’ve never met before. This is not who I want to talk to to be reassured that my private health information is not going to be shared. This has to change.

It has to be the health care providers who become in charge of this, because this is where those decisions are made. Those decisions are not made on Sunday morning while you’re at mass or anything else. They are made in a provider’s office while the relationship of care is going on. The provider is pushing you to share information that will help him or her help you, and you consent to share that information—sometimes reluctantly—because you know that they’re there to help you, but you don’t want anybody else to know.

They are the ones who have to be able to assure you that this information won’t be shared, but the way the bill is written right now, they’re not the ones in charge. EHealth is the one in charge of that. This needs to be fixed, because this opportunity to withdraw consent, this opportunity to limit access, is not something you want to do over a 1-800 number with somebody at eHealth who you don’t know at all. You can expect changes in that.

I will quote from Denise Brunsdon again—actually, it comes from the Ontario Hospital Association, which “has also raised a valid point that the current wording of the legislation seems to imply that the opt-outs can only be made to the prescribed organizations”—that is, to eHealth. “They rightly point out that health information custodians”—which is the name that we give to people like hospitals, community health centres, aboriginal health access centres and family health teams; we call them custodians—“such as doctors or long-term-care facility staff, should also be allowed to take consent directives for patients wanting to opt out.

This certainly seems to make sense from a patient care perspective” because “there is ease and intuitiveness associated with making your privacy requests directly to” the practitioner whom you want to hold accountable for this. We will be making suggestions to the bill to make that a reality.

Although the bill is very technical, it should still be focused on patients’ needs, and it should still be focused on good patient care, and here is a way to bring back the patient’s wishes into this: make it at the point of contact.

All right, here’s the part that nobody likes to hear about but that still needs to be addressed—the bill does address it somehow—and that has to do with breaches. I hope that we never have to enact this part of the bill, but if we do, I want it to be as strong as possible. What if the system is violated and information is shared? I had given you examples earlier on where, when we hold medical records in paper format, it has happened that a breach has happened, but it was very limited. It was like one chart, one person, because you had to physically get possession of the chart and read it.

It is very different from transferring what could be tens of thousands of charts with the click of a mouse, isn’t it? What if there is a breach? The bill is sort of silent on what will happen then. What kind of crisis management must absolutely happen? Do you have to call the Ministry of Health? Do you have to call the police? How timely do you have to report this? Do you do your own investigation and make sure that you make yourself look good before you go out and tell people that this has happened? Who do you have to report it to? In what kind of a time frame do you have to do this?

How fast do you have to tell people that their own personal health information was compromised? The bill is silent on that.

We do talk about the fines, and they are serious—$100,000 for an individual is a lot of money. I don’t know too many people who would be able to pay that kind of money, so it’s a good disincentive for people not to do this—same thing with $500,000 for an agency. But then, whenever you have such a huge penalty—people are human beings—it acts in two ways. It certainly acts as a deterrent, so people know not to do this, that if you do this you’re going to be fined up to $100,000.

But it also acts as a deterrent in bringing forward the fact that a breach has happened, because if you bring forward the fact that the nurse or the physiotherapist beside you has done a breach, you now know that your good friend is on the hook for up to $100,000. How do we balance that? The bill is not clear.

The bill is completely absent on what happens once the breach has happened. Not only do I want the people whose job it was to protect that information to be held accountable for not having duly protected the health information, but I also want a second and third degree of guilt, as in, if I’m the one who happens to get that information, whether maliciously or by accident—we’ve heard about USB keys that were forgotten, dropped, stolen, disappeared etc. I may very well be the one who finds that key.

I want it to be an offence for anybody to use that information, to share that information, and certainly for anybody else who has, by no fault of their own or by malicious ways, found themselves with that information.

As I said in my opening statement, once a breach has happened, it can be devastating to the people whose health information finds itself on the front page of the paper. You will never be able to undo the damage that will have been done. It will be too late. By every means and extent of the law and the powers that are given to us as legislators, we have to make sure that we protect that—protect it at the source, protect it if there is a breach and protect it if there is ever an intention of sharing that information. I think that would bring a level of safety and comfort to people who are sometimes reluctant to have their information shared.

The bill also talks about an advisory committee. The advisory committee, I think, is something important, but it will only be important if the people who are sitting on that committee see their work as meaningful and important. I will be interested in seeing who will be there, and I would certainly like people such as our privacy commissioner to be part of this.

Another part that is not included in the bill, and this is a part that a lot of Ontarians talk about, is that a lot of Ontarians would like to have access to their own records. That is, they would—

Interruption.

M me France Gélinas: That’s my colleague here, who’s walking across the aisle.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Rosie, your phone is ringing.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It can’t be me.

M me France Gélinas: Sorry about this.

So, what a lot of people would like is to have access to their own health information. Why is it that I can go anywhere in the world and have access to my banking information—I can be basically anywhere in the world and put my banking card into a bank machine, in the middle of Africa or Cambodia, and it works. It knows how much money I have, or don’t have, and it knows what I’m able to bring out. People want this.

I just turned the honourable member’s BlackBerry off; lots of people carry those little BlackBerrys. We carry all sorts of information on this. I have access to my bank and my husband’s bank on it. I have access to my kids’ information. I have all of that on my BlackBerry, and yet I don’t have access to something as simple as the list of medications that I’m on, so that when I’m at the pharmacy I can check.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The government wants your bank account information.

M me France Gélinas: My colleague from Nepean says that it’s because the government wants your bank information, but—

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You don’t have any money in it.

M me France Gélinas: —but that doesn’t mean there’s money in it. Yes, I agree.

Back to the subject of health records, I would like the bill to start to open a safe way for people to do this: for people to manage their own care, for people to have access to that information, because at the end of the day, we are the ones who have the biggest impact on our health. If we empower ourselves with information, it’s all for the better. The more you are interested in your health, the more you pay attention to it, the more you know about your health, the healthier you will be.

Given that this information will now be accessible in an electronic format, why not make it accessible to the patients themselves? They’re talking about me. I want to know what they say about me, and I would like to have access. I say “me,” but I know that there are a lot of people who are in the same frame of mind as I am.

There is still lots that I wanted to say. It’s funny; I thought an hour would be a very long time, but there are only three minutes left. Just to recap, we will be supporting the bill. We think that it needs to go to committee, and in the period of time where it goes to committee, I have great hopes that we can make it even stronger.

An electronic health record is something that we all need and that we all want. Let’s put the laws in place that will reassure Ontarians that their health record, whether it be kept in an electronic format or on a chart, will be protected, and only available and accessible to the people who are part of their circle of care.

Ça me fait plaisir aujourd’hui de vous parler un petit peu des changements qui s’en viennent dans le système de santé envers les dossiers électroniques. En ce moment, de plus en plus de soins primaires et d’autres parties du système de la santé utilisent un dossier électronique. Avant, les dossiers de santé étaient toujours gardés dans des petites filières. Les filières papiers étaient gardées souvent dans une filière barrée ou dans une chambre fermée à clé pour s’assurer qu’on les protégeait. Cette protection-là doit être en place également lorsque les dossiers sont conservés de façon électronique.

Le projet de loi dont je discute aujourd’hui, c’est un projet de loi pour faire ça. C’est un projet de loi pour nous assurer que votre information sur votre santé, qu’elle soit gardée dans un dossier papier ou qu’elle soit gardée de façon électronique—ça ne fera aucune différence. On va être capable de vous assurer qu’elle sera en sécurité et que seulement les personnes qui peuvent avoir accès au dossier pour vous prodiguer des soins y auront accès.

Si on pense peut-être à une secrétaire médicale qui doit donner des rendez-vous, bien, elle pourra ouvrir votre dossier médical, mais seulement voir votre information—nom, numéro de téléphone, numéro d’OHIP, etc.—pour pouvoir vous donner un rendez-vous. Par contre, une infirmière qui doit faire une revue de santé ou un médecin qui doit faire une revue de santé aura accès au dossier complet. Donc le projet de loi est vraiment là pour protéger votre information personnelle pour s’assurer que vous pouvez continuer d’avoir confiance dans le système de la santé et que votre information ne sera utilisée qu’à bonne fin.

Il y a certaines lacunes dans le projet de loi, dont une sérieuse : c’est qu’on n’est pas certain que les produits informatiques que l’on a en ce moment nous permettent de faire tout ce qu’on a besoin de faire pour se protéger. On a également certains problèmes par rapport à pourquoi est-ce que nous, comme individus, on ne pourrait pas avoir accès à notre dossier?

Donc, un bon projet de loi qu’on appuie. On va essayer de le rendre meilleur.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Merci.

We have two standing up here. The Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. I’m very pleased to respond to the member from Nickel Belt. This has been a very thoughtful response to this bill. I commend the member for clearly taking the time to thoroughly understand the bill. She has brought forward some advice, and I look forward to getting this bill to committee so that we can actually deal with the issues that she has raised.

I think it’s important that we really put this bill in context. We have come so far when it comes to electronic health in the last decade. We’ve gone from almost no electronic medical records to 70% of us now having an electronic medical record, and that number is growing every day. To put this in context: Through telemedicine, 800 consultations every day are being performed on average across this province; 800 people are getting access to health care remotely so they don’t have to travel and they can get access to that professional care much more easily.

When it comes to hospital records being transferred from hospital to those EMRs in our nurse practitioner or family doctor offices, 8,000 times a day that information is being transferred.

We do need to update our legislation. This legislation is a very important step to protect patients when it comes to their privacy and to enable the system to work together as a system so information is shared among providers because that, increasingly, is the way we`re delivering health care in this province and that’s the way we should be delivering care, because we do need care from different providers. They all need to have the same information.

I do thank the member from Nickel Belt for a very thoughtful leadoff, and I look forward to working with her as we get this legislation through.

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

Mr. Jack MacLaren: We do support the intent of this bill. Having electronic records, of course, is what should be done. Having an organization to create them, we understand, is a necessary step to get there.

We’re kind of shocked and surprised that an organization that was started some years ago to create eHealth records did not create this organization back then at the beginning. Some $2 billion has been spent already on creating an eHealth record, and yet only now are we coming around to a point where we realize, or the government realizes, they should have an organization created to go about doing this.

Of course, the government has a bit of a track record of spending a lot of money and not getting much in the way of results. We see that with gas plants. We see that with Ornge scandals. We see that with Presto scandals. And eHealth has been going on for some years: We’ve spent $2 billion, and we have very little to show for it.

We are also very concerned that we have electronic records being taken by an organization that doesn’t yet exist and which will have the powers to appoint or hire third party contractors to assist in this process and that they would be removed from the minister’s immediate oversight and accountability. This very important information would now be disseminated to a new organization that then contracted out to a third party, and that’s worrisome. That is troublesome. These are personal records, and we want better oversight and accountability of these personal records.

We will support the intent of the bill. There are major reservations, especially on oversight and accountability and good record-keeping. In committee, there have to be major changes in accountability and oversight made to this bill, as this government has proven that lack of oversight and accountability has allowed all those other expenses to happen.

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

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to commend the member for Nickel Belt for her very thoughtful opening speech about this legislation. I think she clearly brings some first-hand knowledge, as someone who was involved in providing health care services to people in her constituency, which I think is really, really important to all of us as we look at this legislation and consider the impact on the people that we represent.

Coming from a research background, I certainly know the importance of ethical research, of trust, of consent and of protection of privacy. In some of the research projects that I’ve been involved in, when we have to work with research ethics boards to ensure ethical standards of practice and procedures around doing research, we understand that the protection of the participant’s privacy is paramount, that participants have to be able to consent to whether or not their information is going to be used and that we have to have very, very clear guidelines in place to ensure that participants are able to protect their privacy. Nowhere is this more important than in the field of health care.

The member for Nickel Belt talked about some of the areas where the release of personal health information, given the sensitivity of that information—how damaging it could be if we don’t have the appropriate safeguards in place. Certainly, we need to make sure that there is clarity around how we’re going to get those safeguards and that there are protections to ensure that those private sector companies that shouldn’t get access aren’t able to access that data.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m very happy to get up to speak about this proposed legislation that, if passed, would protect the privacy of patients’ electronic health information and improve the quality of patient care.

I think it’s important to note that we already have 70% of Ontarians with some form of an eHealth record. That’s fantastic. When I talk to my constituents in Pickering–Scarborough East, Speaker, there is tremendous consensus that we need to keep going in terms of improving the electronic health system to ensure that it’s affordable, efficient and, of course, secure. It’s very important because we know how much health care costs in Ontario, and having effective eHealth is critical to managing those costs so that the dollars can go directly into patient care.

This is very fresh in my mind, Speaker. My husband came home from the hospital last week after suffering from a life-threatening infection, and I was reminded yet again how well the system is already working. We had to coordinate his care at home between two CCACs. The electronic information was there; it was transparent; it was seamless.

Of course, those transitions are always a little bumpy, but the electronic health information was indeed very seamless as it transferred from the doctor to the CCAC providers and the Toronto hospital that he was in, and then transferring to the CCAC in Pickering, Durham region, where we live. I’m always reminded about how we are not as reliant on paper as we used to be, that the system is moving forward to a very effective system.

I’ve experienced this too, as a patient in the health care system, where I’ve had direct access to test results, surgical procedures, pathology reports, blood tests. It’s fantastic. I think patients should own that information and should be more aware, and this bill will bring forward more security and protection in this area.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Nickel Belt has two minutes.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to thank the Minister of Health, the Minister of Consumer Services, the MPP from Carleton–Mississippi Mills and my colleague from London West for their comments. I think there’s quite a bit of support in this House for bringing this piece of legislation forward. Are we exactly where we need to land? I would say we all agree that we can do a bit better, but if we all put our shoulders to the wheel, I think we can do something good.

The Minister of Consumer Services talked about a private experience where we see that health records are used, and we sort of assume right now that our privacy is protected, and I can assure you that the people who use them do their best. The bill will give a clear, easily understood framework for everybody as to what the steps are that make sure that this information is protected, because it doesn’t matter how good the providers are and how good the facilities are if we cannot trust that they are good.

This is the role that we play as legislators in this Legislative Assembly: to give people trust that we have the right framework in place, to assure them that the government has looked at this with the view of ensuring that your private information will be protected. That goes a long way to maintaining an excellent health care system in Ontario, one that everybody can trust and one that everybody can rely on in their times of need, without a second thought as to, “Is my personal story going to end up on the front page of the paper?”

Let’s move on with this bill. I think we need it now.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome Mr. Bill Laidlaw, who I’m meeting with today, along with other members, I’m sure, of the Canadian Assistive Devices Association.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I would like to welcome a group of constituents from the great riding of Oxford to the Legislature today to see the presentation of a petition. They include Kathy Finch, Glen Finch, Joan Craven, Trevor Craven and Nigel Finch. I particularly want to recognize Nigel for his work gathering the signatures for this petition, and I welcome them all to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I would like to introduce Mr. Gezahgn Wordofa, from my riding of Perth–Wellington. He’s a former UN Goodwill Ambassador, and is now a founder of the Huron-Perth Multicultural Association.

Mr. Steve Clark: It was a great surprise today to see an old friend from my high school days in Brockville. I’d like to introduce, in the upper gallery—

Interjection: You had hair then.

Mr. Steve Clark: I did have hair then. He knows I had an Afro once. I’d like to introduce Rick Shewan, who is here with the Canadian Assistive Devices Association.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just have a hard time picturing you with an Afro.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome the students and the teachers from Dr. Norman Bethune. The teachers are Shannon Lee and Alison Rimell. Their grade 10 students are from Dr. Norman Bethune, and I want to thank them for writing to me.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games, and I’ll maybe give him a moment to get to his seat. Minister, since 2011, we’ve been asking what the Pan Am Games will cost the province. For two years now, we’ve insisted the budget of $1.4 billion wasn’t the real budget. You’ve insisted it was.

Other Pan Am projects, like the athletes’ village at $709 million, the Pan Am trails at $3.5 million, the ARL at $456 million, transportation at up to $90 million and the Pan Am secretariat at another $10 million were not included in your $1.4-billion pretend budget. After two years of demanding the truth, holding your feet to the fire, your back against the wall, today we received an estimate that is almost more than double the cost of the $1.4 billion, at over $2.5 billion.

Minister, you still refuse to release the exact number for the games. Why do you think it’s acceptable to play games with the Ontario taxpayers’ money?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: This morning, we had a technical briefing. The opposition was invited, but he chose not to get there. He will keep his unfounded allegations and keep himself—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The tradition of this place is not to mention anyone’s attendance in this place, and I would ask the member not to do it again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will wait for calm.

Finish, please.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker.

We have been up front, open and transparent on the Pan/Parapan American Games. For example, one of the largest items in our additional investment is the athletes’ village, at $700 million. That makes up 70% of the $1 billion. The athletes’ village has always been the responsibility of the host jurisdiction and outside the $1.4-billion operating budget.

From the very beginning in the bid book to reports in both the Toronto Star and Toronto Sun in 2009—thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rod Jackson: Minister, I would have been proud and pleased to come to your technical briefing had I been invited.

Minister, this has been kind of tiring and really, frankly, kind of sad. From the start, you’ve done everything you can to stymie us on finding out the true costs of the Pan Am Games—at every stop. The list is long, Minister: from hidden budgets to FOI requests costing more than $3,000 to refusing to answer questions in question period—we just witnessed that—to blocking investigations into the games in committee to sacrificing worthy bills like Bill 105, you’re determined to hide the true cost of the Pan Am Games to the public. You’ve even resorted to having us sift through 45 boxes of 50,000 documents since you won’t just open up to the people of Ontario.

Today, because we have your back against the wall and because you know we have the information buried in those documents, we found out that your budget is over $2.56 billion—way more than the $1.4 billion you’ve been touting for the past three years.

Minister, are these the actions to be indicative of what Ontario can expect from the supposedly new open and transparent, responsible government? If so, it’s very sad.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, through you to the member opposite. He was invited: he failed to show up.

Interjections.

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

While that is not exactly talking about somebody’s attendance, it’s tiptoeing around that fact. I’d ask the member to be very cautious of making any references whatsoever. Thank you very much.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, I was invited two times to debate at a late show. The opposition failed to show up. I showed up.

Allow me to continue on about the athletes’ village. It is the cornerstone of the broader revitalization of the West Don Lands into a vibrant new mixed-use community that will boast over 250 units for low-income rental, over 100 units for affordable housing sales, the first-ever George Brown residence that will house 500 students, and a brand new YMCA. The revitalization has been planned since the 1980s—almost 30 years.

Interjections.

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

I’m going to offer some clarity here. I think it’s important because the debate needs to take place. Any reference to attendance in this House or a requirement is conventionally not mentioned. We all know why that convention is important to stick to. There’s a tightrope walk between briefings that are not part of the House and late shows or attendance in the House. I will listen very carefully to ensure I make the distinction between the two.

As for the comments that I’m hearing, I’m also hearing some heckling on both sides that is borderline unacceptable and unparliamentary, so I’m going to ask everyone to just bring it down, get to the crux of the issue—question and answer. We’ll leave it at that.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Minister, we don’t trust you. I don’t think the people of Ontario trust you either. Your government has been talking a lot about transparency and accountability. The Premier even went so far as to stand up and promise Ontarians that this government is committed to this—or at least, simply having a conversation about it. Yet to date, openness and transparency have been non-existent when it comes to the Pan Am Games, and the commitment you’ve shown to doing the exact opposite is astounding.

We’ve asked simple questions and in return we’ve received convoluted answers from a confused minister. Today, the estimates confirm that the games will likely cost more than double the $1.4-billion budget that you’ve been talking about.

Minister, you’ve lost control of the games and the trust of the province. Maybe you should just simply show up for work or resign today, and let someone else do it who can handle the job.

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, I don’t trust his words. The member and the party opposite have never had anything positive to say about the Pan Am Games. In fact, they continue to shine a negative light on our local Pan American communities, our competing athletes and para-athletes, over 20,000 volunteers, over 26 new capital and infrastructure projects, and the 250,000 tourists who will be visiting. Their party also continues to cut ties and embarrass our province with 41 nations, boycotting our reception last month and spreading unfounded allegations and numbers to the public.

We are planning for the best-ever games, the most open and transparent games ever.

Interjections.

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

New question.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is to the Premier. The Premier came to Wellington county on October 11 for her announcement on horse racing. She was asked about the Liberal-NDP decision to pull the plug on SARP, which they did with no warning to the industry they were about to devastate. On CBC French radio, the Premier admitted that the decision “was not a good decision.” The Premier was at the cabinet table when that decision was made, but she didn’t speak up. The leader of the NDP also had a chance to speak up, but she chose not to.

Speaker, here is my question: When will the Premier ask the NDP to join her in apologizing for what she has already admitted was not a good decision?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We cancelled the Slots at Racetracks Program because of problems around transparency and accountability of the program. There were three reports—the Sadinsky report, the Drummond report and our transition panel—that identified problems with the Slots at Racetracks Program.

What I have said is that, in the cancellation of the program, there was not due consideration of the impacts, and so that is why we put the transition panel in place. That is why we have developed a new program that’s a five-year commitment to invest $400 million to put the horse racing industry on a sustainable path.

I’ve been very clear that I want us to have a sustainable horse racing industry in Ontario. My predecessor, the Minister of Community and Social Services, when he was agriculture minister, put the transition panel in place. We are following those recommendations, Mr. Speaker.

I have been consistent in my message. We could not leave the SARP in place. It was not—

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals already showed just how little they care for horse racing when they cut them off at the knees in 2012. The industry knows that, but they also know that Andrea Horwath and the NDP let this happen. They could have said no, but they sacrificed the industry for a few budget trinkets. They could have said no, but they said yes to save their political hides.

My question to the Premier: Could she inform the House which party and which leader were the only ones to take a principled stand against the Premier’s not-good decision to kill the horse racing industry in 2012?

Interjections.

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

Before we move forward, I’ll remind all members that we refer to each other in this place either by their title or their riding. I don’t want to hear it again.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Disrespectful Tories.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Ha! Disrespectful?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes, some people are.

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to respond to the part of the question that seemed to imply that we don’t have a plan in place that’s going to work, and I’m going to quote from some of the people who actually know what’s going on, Mr. Speaker. I’m going to quote from the Centre Wellington mayor, Joanne Ross-Zuj. She said, “For Centre Wellington, this is really good news.” This is at the time of the announcement of the five-year plan. “For Centre Wellington, this is really good news….

“Our agricultural industry has actually been boosted by this announcement….

“[Wynne] has given five years and there is going to be an investment to make this industry productive and sustainable. It now puts people back to work….

“From this day forward it is getting back into this working relationship we’ve had with the OLG and the racing industry—and now the community—to get back on track to plan for the future….

“This is very good news.”

Paul Walker, president of the Grand River Agricultural Society: “It’s building a solid foundation for horse racing and moving forward….

“They’ve put a lot of thought and work into this. The biggest

part is the integration into the gaming industry. Without it, I don’t think any of it would work.”

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we go to the supplementary, I’m going to ask the Minister of Rural Affairs to come to order.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Only one party has consistently shown support for the industry. Only one party created SARP, which led to unprecedented success and thousands of jobs. Only one party stood against the 2012 Liberal-NDP budget. Only one party has produced a bold, achievable five-point plan to put the industry back on track. That’s Tim Hudak and the Ontario PCs.

But, Mr. Speaker, the industry needs more than a meaningless, gimmicky motion from the NDP, a motion to restore what they themselves allowed to collapse. We need real action from a team with real credibility on the horse racing file. That’s what we’re offering. When will you get on board with our plan, Premier?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, the party opposite put in place a program, and we have three reports that have made it clear that the SARP was unaccountable. It was not transparent, and it was bad public policy.

I have some more quotes from reactions to the announcement of the five-year partnership plan that we put in place. Dr. Ted Clarke, the Grand River Raceway general manager: “It’s remarkably better than what our outlook was a year ago today. We essentially went from a place of having no relationship with government and no support to a place where we now have a spot to make a plan. This provides a new set of building blocks to move forward. We have been given some tools with which to work, and hopefully we can put them to good work.”

Alex Lawryk from the Rideau Carleton Raceway: “I feel very optimistic that, though it’s not what we had before … it definitely will sustain racing at Rideau and provide our patrons and the horsemen the critical mass that’s required to maintain a program.”

Brian Tropea from the Ontario Harness Horse Association: “The hard work happens now, you know. If you truly believe this is going to sustain the”—

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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. This fall, the Legislature passed legislation to hire a Financial Accountability Officer, and the government said they planned to have that office up and running by the new year. Does the Premier still intend on meeting that goal, Speaker?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, it’s critically important that we do have that Financial Accountability Officer in place. We have established a committee by members of the opposition to select that accountability officer. I, as the finance minister, am awaiting anxiously the work of that committee to be done by yourselves, by the members of both parties, including you, Mr. Speaker. So it’s up to this House to bring forward the candidates, and I wait with bated breath.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, over a month ago, the Speaker asked each party to name an MPP to the all-party hiring committee. Why hasn’t the government submitted their name, Speaker?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the House leader, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, there is a process in place by which a panel is put together. I know we’ve discussed this at House leaders’ meetings, and parties are coming forward with their names. We’ll get the panel in place, and they will go through the usual process to choose a parliamentary officer.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the government said they planned to have this office up and running by the end of this year, but with a month to go until Christmas, they haven’t even struck the hiring committee.

New Democrats indicated weeks ago that we are ready to get to work. We’ve named our member for the committee, Speaker. When will the Premier stop stalling and appoint a member to the hiring committee?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member is playing games. She knows there’s a process in place by which we work with the Clerk and we work with you to get a panel that is put together. That panel, in turn, advertises for the position. There’s an interview process. It is the usual process that’s followed for the hiring of a parliamentary officer. I expect that it will move forward very quickly with the selection of that individual through the usual process.

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. The Financial Accountability Office was designed to stop spending scandals before they happen and to give people—the people of this province—real insight into Ontario’s plans when they plan new programs. It was supported by all parties. It’s supposed to be in place this year, but once again we hear a lot of Liberal talk and see no action.

Will the Premier submit her name to the hiring committee today and get this process, as was so adequately described by her House leader, up and running so we can get that office in place?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, the process was adequately described by the government House leader, and we are going to take part, Mr. Speaker. The name will be submitted, and we will move ahead. So I’m not exactly sure what problem the leader of the third party is identifying. I asked about this the other day. I know that a person has been identified, and that name will be submitted.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People are really tired of seeing a government that can’t seem to respect the value of public dollars, and they find it increasingly tough to trust a Liberal government that cannot deliver on a simple, basic commitment.

The Premier agreed to create the Financial Accountability Office, but now she’s playing politics and holding up the actual creation of that office, because she’s not naming the Liberal member for the office and, frankly, neither have the Conservatives named their member for the office. Why can’t the Premier simply take a small step and provide a name today so that we can actually get to work on this office?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the leader of the third party knows full well that this item is on the agenda for House leaders tomorrow, that it is going to be discussed. We are fully compliant. We are going to be submitting a name. We want this to go forward. So, again, I have no idea what the leader of the third party is going on about. We are taking part. We know that it’s important. We want the Financial Accountability Officer in place. We’ll be submitting a name. My hope is that the opposition will be submitting a name as well, and the process will go forward.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the clock is ticking. Your letter was dated October 7, and these two parties still have not named their member. This government seems to prefer hiding behind conversation instead of delivering results. We see it all the time. Instead of keeping a commitment to close corporate tax loopholes, they talked about closing them and then they kept them open. Instead of moving on a plan to cap CEO salaries, they talked about capping them and let the paycheques keep growing. Instead of making sure Ontarians have a Financial Accountability Office to help stop waste before it starts, the government continues to play games.

Why should the people of this province believe the Premier has plans to tackle waste and put people first if she can’t even keep a basic commitment, like having that Financial Accountability Office up and running by the end of this year, which was a commitment that they made?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my previous answer, I think the leader of the third party knows that this item is on the agenda for House leaders tomorrow. The PA to the finance minister is going to be our member. That is the member that we’re putting forward. We know who we’re putting forward, and that name will be given tomorrow. So that work has been done. It has been done, Mr. Speaker.

So I guess I would just like to say that this is a process question. It’s very important. We are in process, and we are working with the other parties.

Mr. Speaker, we would love to have the support of the third party in getting Bill 105, the small businesses act, passed. That’s a substantive piece of work that needs to happen. It needs to be done by the end of the year, so my hope is that the leader of the third party will work with her members and we’ll have the support of that party, because 60,000 businesses in the province will benefit from that.

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is to the Premier this morning. Premier, a lot has happened over the last week or so, and some of it has gone unnoticed, so let me bring you up to speed.

The latest Ontario job numbers came out, and they show that we’ve lost almost 40,000 jobs in October, 16,000 more in the manufacturing sector in October. We got the devastating news that Heinz is closing after 104 years in operation in Leamington, throwing almost 800 people out of work and possibly thousands more in spinoff jobs and in the supplier sector.

A wind power company that your government promised would be able to set up inefficient intermittent wind turbines has now been given the green light to sue the Ontario taxpayers for a decision that you made. The OPP has cranked up its criminal investigation into the $1.1-billion scandal in your office. And there’s a lot of other stuff too.

Premier, considering the mess that we’re in, when are you going to admit that you’re not up to this job?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I appreciate the very diffuse question from the member opposite, but I am focused on making the investments in people, the investments in infrastructure and the investments in a dynamic and innovative business climate that are going to allow this province to move to a future that’s aspirational.

I understand that the role of the opposition is to oppose, but I also believe that it is the role of the opposition parties, particularly in a minority Parliament, to work with government so that we can work together in the best interests of the people of the province.

For example, we have a piece of legislation on the books, Bill 105, that needs to be passed by the end of the year: 60,000 small businesses will benefit. We would really like to see that the Conservative Party, which apparently supports business, might work with us so we can create those jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Premier, what we did learn from you last week was that you like to run. You’re better at running away from the province’s problems than you are at running the province of Ontario. If you spent a little more time dealing with the job that needs to be done instead of lacing up your sneakers, maybe the province that you lead wouldn’t be on the road to ruin.

Our debt has doubled under your government, our deficit is at record levels, and the finance minister himself has said numerous times that balancing the books—well, that’s not even really a priority for him. News released yesterday shows that the Bank of Canada may double our interest rates. That could cost us billions more dollars.

You were irresponsible with Heinz. Now thousands of Ontarians in the Leamington area are going to be out of work. How many more Ontarians are going to have to lose their jobs before you change course? Or are you just content to see the province that was once the leader in Confederation hit rock bottom?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, I really believe, and we believe on this side of the House, that Ontario has a very bright future. In order for us to realize that future, it is extremely important that our excellent education system remain excellent and go to the next level. It is extremely important that our health care system—which is dealing with a demographic that is going to be challenging for the whole of the western world—is sustainable and that we transform it in ways that people get the services they need.

I believe that it is extremely important that we recognize the infrastructure challenges that are facing us as a country and as a province and that we invest in transit and that we invest in the roads and bridges in northern Ontario and in rural Ontario that are going to allow the communities to expand and thrive.

That is the focus that we have. That is the aspirational future we see for the province. I’m sorry that the opposition doesn’t share that with us. If they did, we could do wonderful things together.

Interjections.

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

New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

When our loved ones go into a long-term-care home, they deserve to know that they will be safe, comfortable and treated with respect and dignity. One of the ways to ensure that our loved ones receive the right care is an ironclad system of inspection and follow-up on incidents and deaths in long-term care.

Until recently, the coroner’s office investigated every 10th death in long-term-care homes, but now this level of oversight has been cut, while at the same time W5 exposed 61 resident-on-resident murders and tens of thousands of cases of violence. When is this government going to take violence in our long-term-care homes seriously and provide the proper oversight?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I can assure the member opposite, as I have on many occasions, that we take the safety of our patients, the residents in long-term-care homes, extremely seriously, and we take the safety of the workers in those homes extremely seriously.

We have passed legislation to allow for stronger enforcement and better inspections of Ontario’s long-term-care homes, and sadly, neither opposition party actually supported that legislation. The coroner has recognized that we do have stronger oversight now than we did before.

Homes have to develop and implement a policy to protect zero tolerance of abuse and neglect. They have a duty to protect residents from abuse and to ensure that residents are not neglected. It is mandatory to report abuse. We take this as a very serious responsibility.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Last week, I wrote to the Ombudsman to ask his office to investigate whether the ministry was following up on its own investigations and orders to long-term-care homes. Shortly before Mr. Francisco DaSilva was killed at Castleview Wychwood Towers, the ministry had inspected the home and issued 10 orders that would have improved the conditions in the home.

When the ministry issues orders, people need to have confidence that someone is checking to make sure that those orders are complied with and that the problems get fixed. Did the minister ever follow up on those orders to ensure that they were being enforced?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can speak to the improvements in the inspections and the follow-up since we took office. When we were elected in 2003, there were 59 inspectors working for the ministry. We now have over 140, and we are continuing to recruit new inspectors to add to that. We’ve hired 64 new inspectors since September of this year.

Last year, the ministry conducted almost 2,400 inspections. Homes are inspected, on average, 3.7 times per year. We’re working very hard to improve the quality of care, and we are not going to stop improving, because we’re committed to making sure that everyone who comes into long-term care has the confidence that they will get the best possible care.

SENIORS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors affairs. The minister recently joined the Premier and the Minister of Government Services in Waterloo for a very important announcement: the introduction of a new seniors grant program.

This very significant announcement has been extremely well received by constituents across the province, especially the seniors in my riding of York South–Weston. My office has already received numerous phone calls from local senior groups expressing their interest and gratitude for this government’s commitment to the seniors of this province.

Would the minister please inform the House on how this new grant program will improve the lives of seniors in Ontario?

Hon. Mario Sergio: I want to thank the remarkable member from York South–Weston for her tireless efforts in advocating for seniors in her riding.

Indeed, I’m very proud to inform the House that following the recent economic statement, our government has introduced yet another first in Ontario’s history: a grant program specifically dedicated to seniors. It is our government’s commitment to provide more seniors across our province with the support they need to lead active, engaged lives through a new Seniors Community Grant Program. With this grant, we continue to build upon the success of Ontario’s Action Plan for Seniors.

It is extremely important to me, as the minister responsible for seniors affairs, to government and, I believe, every member of the House to continue our strongest efforts to provide for our seniors, making this province the best province to age in.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Let me say that the seniors in my riding of York South–Weston appreciate a government that recognizes the important contributions that seniors have made and continue to make in shaping our great province. They are very excited to have a minister with the sole responsibility to advocate on their behalf and to have the opportunity to receive support from the first grant program in Ontario dedicated solely to supporting seniors.

I especially know that some local seniors’ groups in my riding, like the St. Fidelis Golden Age Club and the Pelmo Park seniors, will appreciate a grant program aimed at assisting seniors’ community groups. Can the minister tell us more about this grant program?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you, again, to the member. The grant aims to help seniors’ groups of all sizes. I’m proud to say that the grant will better allow our seniors to connect within their own communities. The grant provides funding to not-for-profit groups and organizations for projects that encourage great social inclusion, volunteerism, minimize isolation, and encourage participation and community engagement for seniors across our province.

The grant ranges from $500 to $10,000 to help support initiatives that will allow seniors to contribute to all aspects of a community life, and that is aimed at non-profit seniors’ groups.

Again, let me say that seniors built our province. It is most important that we provide them all the investments that they need to continue to live an active and connected life in their community.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the minister of the Pan Am Games. Minister, yesterday we had a late-show sitting following my dissatisfaction with your answer to the question I asked regarding the Pan Am Games’ transit plan’s budget. All I’ve been looking for was a simple answer, a ballpark figure at the very least of how much the taxpayer will fork over for the Pan Am Games’ transit plan. I do not think that that was an unreasonable request.

So you rose yesterday and talked about the cost of the athletes’ village and expansion of Ontario’s trails network, but again made no mention of any costs associated with the transit plan. Minister, the games are less than two years away. Can you tell me right now: What is the budget for the Pan Am Games’ transit plan?

Hon. Michael Chan: I believe the member opposite had Minister Murray and his deputy for answering these questions in the estimates committee yesterday or the day before.

It’s truly unfortunate that he cannot comprehend the fact that where we are now in the planning stages is completely normal. The transportation costs are continuously evolving. We have a game footprint that is over 10,000 kilometres square, with 14 host municipalities to coordinate and come to agreement with. The games are an unprecedented event in our province, and we have never experienced anything on this scale. It cannot be compared to a business plan. But if you cannot understand and will not acknowledge those facts, than I really feel sorry for you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Minister, what I can’t comprehend right now is the fact that the Minister of Transportation announced the budget in estimates committee. Yet at 6 o’clock, after the ministry announced the $70-million to $90-million budget, you still could not answer the question of how much was in the budget. I find the lack of communication between the two ministries on this multi-million-dollar project very disturbing.

Minister, throughout this Pan Am fiasco, you’ve overseen cost overruns, secret budgets and a well-paid executive team that nickels and dimes the taxpayers by expensing for coffee and doughnuts. So it doesn’t surprise me when you said yesterday that the opposition’s line of questioning on the matter was ignorant, disrespectful and damaging. Well, as a member of the only party here that stands up for the taxpayer, I find your aversion to transparency ignorant, disrespectful and damaging.

Minister, will you apologize to the constituents of my riding and all Ontarians for your complete mismanagement of this file?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I knew the party opposite had a reading problem; we now know they have a comprehension deficit. Mr. Speaker, they asked for the information. The member from Barrie got it. I went out of my way. My office personally phoned him, as did Minister Chan’s, to offer him a technical briefing. We have kept you in the loop.

Mr. Speaker, I was the host mayor of the last Pan Am Games. In Manitoba, people were excited.

You have been an embarrassment to the people of Ontario. You have shamed us in front of the world. You protest like children in front of international conferences. You are diminishing the work of volunteers. You are diminishing the work of athletes. You are shameful in the partisan ignorance you brought to it. You don’t even understand—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): All right. Now I’ll name—ooh, nice and quiet.

New question.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport and responsible for the Pan/ Parapan Games. Speaker, it seems that this government is making a habit about playing cute when it comes to the real cost of the games. Today, there are questions about a ballpark figure for the estimated total cost of the games, and we are yet again being stonewalled by the government. Even more concerning is that Ontario is the guarantor for any deficits, but the government still can’t tell us what the total price tag for the games will be.

Speaker, will this minister tell Ontarians when he will stop playing games when it comes to the cost of the Pan Am Games?

Hon. Michael Chan: As I said before this morning, we had a technical briefing that we offered to the press and also to the opposition critics here.

Speaker, we’re very clear in terms of the budget of the Pan Am Games. Ontario contributed $500 million to the 2015 operating committee, and the federal government as well contributed $500 million. The rest, about $400 million, was contributed by local governments and also donors and also the revenue from tickets.

On top of that, Speaker, we’re also building the village, which is $700 million. This is outside the $1.4 billion. This is a project that is 20 years in the running. The athletes’ village will revitalize the West Don Lands. It will create a vibrant community: 500 George Brown—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Michael Chan: —will be there and also a YMCA operating there. Also, it will provide affordable housing for the less fortunate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Well, Speaker, it appears we have confusion as a new sport.

There seems to be a theme with this government’s inability to come clean when it comes to costs. Today, we heard the government is likely recouping $65 million of the $700 million invested in the athletes’ village, but again, we don’t have confirmation. Ontarians want to be assured that the games are going to come in on budget, as they keep saying, and the best way to do this being to lay out the costs in plain figures.

When will this minister and this government commit to providing all the numbers and stop playing these games?

Hon. Michael Chan: I just mentioned the athletes’ village. I think that is clear to the member opposite.

Speaker, let me talk about the success of the games and also, hosting the games, the benefits of having the games here. Hosting the games will trigger investment in new and existing sport and recreation infrastructure; create a legacy fund to support the operation of facilities post-games; create 26,000 new jobs, 15,000 jobs directly related to the games investments, and another 11,000-plus projected as a result of the games-related investments and tourism. It will attract 250,000 visitors and bring 10,000 athletes and team officials to Ontario. It will build and train a team of approximately 20,000 volunteers.

I am excited to be a part of that, so to answer your question, I will be enjoying the games.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Attorney General. Attorney General, it is my understanding that last week you attended a federal-provincial-territorial meeting where ministers of justice and public safety from across the country meet to discuss nationwide priorities. Access to justice is a big concern for the people of my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, so I’m pleased to know that the Ontario discussion also included these initiatives to build a strong, more accessible justice system.

Could the Attorney General please tell this House about the important provincial justice issues he raised on behalf of all Ontarians?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like to thank the member for his question. Yes, last week, Minister Meilleur and myself—

Interjection: Her. Her question.

Hon. John Gerretsen: That’s what I said. I’d like to thank her for the question.

Last week, Minister Meilleur and myself attended the federal-provincial-territorial ministers of justice meeting in Whitehorse, and there were a number of issues that were discussed with other ministers from other provinces and territories as well. One of the key initiatives that we highlighted was the improving of our justice system with setting up new aboriginal representation on our jury roll system, which is very important, particularly to the aboriginal community.

One of the other issues that we discussed was the funding of legal aid. You may recall that in our budget we are supplying an extra $30 million for legal aid around the province, particularly for clinics and for family health. It’s interesting to note that the system used to be, at one time, a 50-50 proposition between the federal government and the provincial government. Right now, Ontario spends about 80% of the legal aid money, so we urge the federal government to come up with at least—

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

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I thank the Attorney General for that answer. It is good to hear that this government is helping those in the justice system who need it most. My community of Scarborough–Guildwood has one of the largest off-reserve aboriginal populations in the province, and I know they would be pleased to hear your initiative to increase aboriginal representation in the jury system.

But this brings me to my next point: The off-reserve aboriginal communities in my riding continue to express significant concern about the inadequate and unsustainable resources for First Nations police services and communities. While the First Nations Policing Program agreements were signed this year, First Nations communities and policing leaders expect significant enhancements in subsequent agreements. Despite the operational pressures, the increase in office workload and community populations, the full-time equivalent complement in any of Ontario’s First Nations policing agreements has not increased since 2006.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Attorney General, what was the message that this government delivered at the federal-provincial-territorial meeting regarding First Nations policing?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’ll refer this to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Guildwood for this question. I made it very clear at the meeting that First Nations policing needs to be addressed. Ontario is very supportive of First Nations policing, but the federal government’s approach has to change.

The federal government will not increase the budget until March 31, 2014, and there are more problems. They have a retention problem. They have a housing problem. They have a communications network problem; it’s almost non-existent in First Nations communities. So I have called on the federal government to address this. They have eliminated the police officer recruitment fund, and the province invested $4 million to make sure that these police officers will remain in the First Nations community.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the minister responsible for the Pan Am Games. Minister, I’m not sure if you’ve played sports, but I want to try to explain something to you. Before you play the game, you need to know and have some rules. Otherwise, you have people running around not knowing what to do, which pretty well describes mayhem, which is how you have handled the Pan Am Games so far. It’s really shameful, but it’s really no surprise to learn that the budget is now over $2 billion. That’s what happens, Minister, when you have no rules and no plan.

Minister, you wouldn’t run a peewee hockey practice without any rules. Why do you think it’s acceptable to do so for a $2-billion international sporting event like the Pan Am Games?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, another ridiculous, rubbish allegation.

Let me be clear one more time about those numbers. Funding of the athletes’ village has always been clear, as part of Ontario’s host jurisdiction responsibilities and budget. It was stated in the 2009 bid book—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: —2015 games budget of $1.4 billion. It was announced again April 26, 2009, by former Minister George Smitherman when the site was unveiled at the West Don Lands.

As recently as our 2013 budget, it was reaffirmed that the athletes’ village is separate from our $500-million contribution to the organizing committee’s budget. The investments in the Pan Am athletes’ village have been in plain sight for over—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: —years.

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the minister—I guess I learned something today: He’s a pretty good dodge ball player.

Minister, you’ve spent two years evading our basic questions, like what it’s going to cost to provide security for these games. Now we know why: The budget is completely out of control. It’s more than double the $1.4 billion you’ve been telling us, and we’re still counting.

This is no longer about you and mismanagement. It’s clear that you’re in over your head. You’re not up to the job. So I’m going to ask you, Minister: Can you tell Ontarians the cost of security for these games? If you can’t, will you resign and give the job to somebody else who can start giving us those answers?

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

Minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, security is paramount. We will not take any risks with the safety of our citizens.

It is truly unfortunate that the member opposite cannot comprehend the fact that where we are in the planning stages now is completely normal. The security costs are continuously evolving as the game plan is evolving.

We have 10,000 athletes and coaches who will be visiting our province. We have 250,000 visitors who will be visiting our province. We have 14 host municipalities and multiple venues to coordinate and come to agreement with. The games are an unprecedented event in our province. These are the largest games—in 80 years—ever hosted by Ontario.

The games are well planned, and we are on the right track.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Yesterday the minister stood in this House and announced changes to workplace safety training: an online training module and a mandatory poster. But I did not hear anything about training standards for fall prevention. Ministry of Labour staff have already stated that training standards will not be ready until 2014 or 2015. We know that a standard for fall prevention training was ready in June 2011.

I asked the minister three weeks ago why that standard is not already in place. Can the minister tell me when he will commit to making safety a priority in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member opposite for the question. Directly to her, safety is the number one priority of this government. As a result, Speaker, as you know and all members know, we appointed Tony Dean and an expert panel back in 2009 after the tragic accident that took place that took four workers’ lives in the city of Toronto. As a result of the expert panel, we have recommendations to bring about the biggest transformation in health and safety in the province of Ontario in 30 years. We are implementing, one by one, every single recommendation that was actually approved by this Legislature unanimously, for the last couple of years.

I was very proud yesterday to announce in this House that we are going to be introducing mandatory awareness training for all workers and supervisors, and I thank all members for their support of that initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Years go by, and this government consults. Years go by, and workers die. Since June, nine workers—nine workers—have died from falling accidents in this province, including Christopher Birdsell in Hamilton, Kevin Raposo in Toronto and Nick Lalonde in Waterloo.

The minister has the recommendations from the 2011 Dean report, which were wholeheartedly embraced by our government. Fall prevention training was a priority to be implemented in 12 months. The province’s workers deserve more than posters.

As we have seen in Newfoundland, mandatory training standards will save lives. When will fall prevention training become mandatory in Ontario? When?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I really encourage the member opposite to perhaps read the Dean report. She will see that the recommendations are made but require a lot of extensive work in terms of exactly what those safety standards will be.

We have been working extremely hard through our chief prevention officer—which is the first of its kind in all of Canada—in consulting with labour, in consulting with businesses and municipalities to make sure that we have got the right kind of standards in place. There are already standards in place; we’re looking at further enhancing them. There are draft standards out for consultation as we speak, and very soon we’ll be announcing the implementation of those standards.

Let me be absolutely clear: One life lost in a workplace is one too many. We will continue to work extremely hard to make sure that every single worker in this province is safe. Let’s not play politics with the lives of our workers.

Interjections.

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

CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE

PULMONARY DISEASE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Most of us take the simple act of breathing for granted, but every year more and more people across this province are being diagnosed with a horrible disease called chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, COPD. It includes chronic bronchitis; it includes emphysema. What it does is it slowly damages a sufferers’ airways and makes it harder and harder for them to breathe. Unfortunately, to date, there’s no cure for this disease.

Speaker, being that today is World COPD Day, I ask the minister through you: What are we doing specifically to prevent more Ontarians from contracting this deadly disease?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Oakville for this question. Anyone who suffers from COPD or has a loved one who suffers from COPD knows how horrible a disease this is. It takes a toll on a person’s lungs, but it also takes a toll on their life. It can prevent people from participating in activities that the rest of us take for granted. It gets worse as you grow older, and it can lead to premature death.

COPD is treatable, but it is not curable. But it is preventable. We know the best way to prevent COPD is by stopping smoking. That’s why our government has taken very strong action to toughen our tobacco laws and encourage Ontarians who do smoke to quit smoking, and, better yet, not to take it up in the first place.

Earlier this week, I was pleased to introduce new legislation that, if passed, will go further to protect Ontarians from getting COPD.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’m pleased to see that we are taking that strong action that’s necessary that’s going to protect Ontarians from getting further COPD. I know Ontario’s a leader in Canada when it comes to controlling tobacco. Among other things, with the support of most members of this House, anyway, we banned smoking indoors, in public places and in closed spaces. We’ve also banned it in motor vehicles when children are present.

The minister mentioned the new legislation she introduced earlier this week. Through you, Speaker, would the minister please tell this House a little bit more, expand about this next step in the government’s Smoke-Free Ontario Strategy?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am pleased to say that our smoking rate is coming down, Speaker. We currently have the second-lowest smoking rates in Canada, but that is not good enough. We aspire to have the lowest smoking rates in Canada, and that means we have to make significant progress when it comes to smoking.

So, as I said earlier, the best way to reduce those rates is to prevent people from starting in the beginning. That’s why our legislation would ban the sale of flavoured tobacco products that make smoking more appealing to young people. It would double the fines for people who sell tobacco to kids; it would make them the toughest fines in the country.

It would also protect Ontarians from second-hand smoke by prohibiting smoking in playgrounds and sports fields and in restaurant and bar patios.

This is action that we are taking to save lives, and I urge all members of this House to support that legislation.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, you recently announced the closure of the MNR fire base in Pembroke, and I have to wonder how well that decision was thought out. While the loss of jobs and the impact on local families will be devastating in and of itself, you have significantly compromised our ability to fight forest fires with this decision.

As you know, response time is critical. Small fires spotted quickly can be dealt with quite easily. But once they get a foothold, it can be disastrous.

Minister, I’ve met with senior members of the fire crews in Pembroke. Yes, they’re worried about their jobs, but safety remains their paramount concern.

I would ask that you would postpone this decision for one year until a thorough analysis of its effects can be done—and, Minister, not your analysis: a thorough analysis so we can understand the effects of this decision. Will you do that, Minister?

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question. The member is well aware that the Ministry of Natural Resources is going through a modernization and transformation with respect to our fire operations. We’ll continue to operate from 33 fire bases in the province of Ontario.

Our top priority with respect to this program is to protect people, property and our natural resources. The member is aware I did speak to the mayor, Ed Jacyno, in Pembroke, as well as the mayor in Kirkland Lake, Bill Enouy, as well as the MPPs who are affected by this in their particular ridings, and let them know, with respect to the transformation, that this was happening.

In the case of Pembroke, the one full-time employee will be offered a relocation to Haliburton, and two full-time staff—the other two full-time staff—will continue to be in place. The seasonal staff of approximately 20, of which there are six in Pembroke, will be offered other opportunities throughout the province, and we fully expect to have a similar complement, basically the same number of fire staff, moving forward in the next fire season.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Minister, I heard you talk about how this will not affect safety; I vehemently disagree. I’ve heard you say this will save money; I don’t believe it for a moment. Your reallocations are actually going to cost more.

You do not take into consideration all of the non-fire-related activities that fire crews provide for the citizens of that area and for the MNR, such as rebuilding of docks, brushing, and assistance when spring floods occur.

To add fuel to the fire—no pun intended—I know Ed Jacyno well. Perhaps you should have talked to Tammy Stewart, the mayor of Head, Clara and Maria, where they have no firefighting capabilities whatsoever. They border along our crown jewel of Algonquin Park, and they don’t have a fire department. They rely on the MNR to provide their fire services. You’re taking that away, and it’s just telling them now that they’re going to be supported out of Haliburton.

Please, Minister, this is a bad decision. It’s going to come back to haunt you. Will you reconsider and postpone this for one year until a proper analysis can be done?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. David Orazietti: I say to the member, our government has recently made an investment of $47 million in additional support for three fire bases in Ontario—in Haliburton, in Sudbury and in Armstrong—as well as, for the first time, flight simulation equipment that Ontario pilots will have in this province, where they previously had to leave Ontario.

Our concern, obviously, is to be nimble and able to respond where these fires arise. We’ll continue to have 33 bases in the province of Ontario. We will be able to respond in a timely way. We’ll have virtually the same complement of fire protection services staff out there on the landscape, and we’re continuing to make investments.

I remind the member, as well, that we were on a trajectory in this ministry to lose another $40 million in our budget. I want to commend the Premier for putting $40 million back into the budget of MNR to support additional investments in this province.

SNOWMOBILING

Mr. Michael Mantha: My question this morning is to the Premier. Ontario Hydro has announced that it will cut off snowmobilers from using trails in hydro corridors unless they pay half of the property taxes on that land. Needless to say, snowmobile clubs do not have the funds to cover property taxes for hydro corridors, and there is now talk that the province wants the cash-strapped municipalities to cover the cost, in an effort to download.

When will this government stop passing the buck and come up with a real solution so that snowmobilers can use trails uninterrupted this winter season?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This is not a matter of a cash grab; it’s a matter of insurance and safety issues between the Ministry of Infrastructure and the Ministry of Energy. The decision is under review right now because of some of the concerns. This is an old piece of legislation.

I will gladly follow up with the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again to the Premier: During constituency week, I met with the Espanola and District Snowmobile Club and heard from many other snowmobile clubs in Algoma–Manitoulin that are not-for-profit organizations that help bring tourism to the province and to their communities.

This government has shut down trails and parks across Ontario, shut down tourist information stations and restricted access to crown land. Now it wants to restrict winter recreational activities for Ontarians. This just isn’t right.

Will the Premier intervene and allow trails to stay open for snowmobilers in Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, as I said, this matter is under review. I will take it up with the member opposite once the review is complete.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. The benefits that the forestry sector brings to Ontario’s economy are of critical importance to many communities in Ontario.

Speaker, I’m sure that you’re aware, as many are in the House, that the forestry industry has faced some challenges in recent years, due in part to the crash of the US housing market and the global economic downturn. Our government is working hard to strengthen Ontario’s forestry industry and bring jobs in this sector back to northern Ontario.

The Ministry of Natural Resources made an announcement last week in Wawa about a new wood pellet production facility that will bring value-added jobs to the township, as well as diversify the economy. Could the minister please explain how this new facility will benefit northern Ontario?

Hon. David Orazietti: I appreciate the question from the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. This is an important question.

The forestry industry is seeing a resurgence that our government is wholeheartedly behind, and we’re doing everything we can to help boost jobs in the forestry sector.

Last week, I was in Wawa. A company called Rentech was there as well, and they’re investing in a plant in Wawa that has been idle since about 2009. This is going to create 40 jobs, 100 construction jobs to reconfigure the plant and 200 forestry jobs in surrounding communities. It is an incredibly important investment for a community that has struggled in recent years, and this is another sign that the forestry industry is rebounding.

The CEO of Rentech had this to say: “We are grateful to have the backing of Ontario and the Ministry of Natural Resources to support our investments. We’re excited about building safe, world-class businesses, which will provide regional jobs and economic opportunities for Ontario’s local communities and First Nations.”

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to reread a quote into the record, because I missed a piece in the middle, and it was garbled. I just want to make sure it was clear.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A simple correction of the quote?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it is a correction, because there was a chunk that I believe I missed. I haven’t seen the Hansard, so I don’t know, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Then offer them what you believe is the chunk, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Okay. I believe it was this sentence: “I feel very optimistic that, though it’s not what we had before the program was cancelled, it definitely will sustain racing at Rideau and provide our patrons and the horsemen the critical mass that’s required to maintain a program.” I believe that’s the piece that I missed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I allowed that to happen because correcting the record is a point of order, and it can only be correcting the record instead of re-quoting.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 3 p.m.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1500.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Ms. Cindy Forster: On a point of order, Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to wear these lovely purple ribbons for National Child Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Welland, on a point of order, is seeking unanimous consent to wear the purple ribbons. Do we agree? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to welcome special guests who are front-line staff and proud members of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. They’re from Hamilton Children’s Aid, the city of Toronto’s Association of Community Centres, Durham Children’s Aid, the Lanark-Leeds-Grenville family and child centre, Haldimand-Norfolk children’s aid, Family and Children’s Services Niagara, Toronto Catholic children’s aid, Toronto children’s aid and Toronto child care centres. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to welcome my staff to the chamber, if they were here, to bring me my private member’s bill. Oh, there they are.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I think that’s called jocularity.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

MAITLAND RIVER

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Today I’m proud to stand and acknowledge the opening of Maitland River Elementary School in Wingham, in my riding of Huron–Bruce. It has been recognized that the opening of new schools is very significant, as it may only happen in a community once in a generation. While Maitland River has been open since the beginning of the school year, I was proud to attend the official grand opening on November 7. This event was well attended by students, teachers, family and friends and community members.

This is more than just the opening of a new school. As five communities—East Wawanosh, Blyth, Brussels, Turnberry and Wingham—unite at Maitland River, this begins a new

chapter on educating youth in north Huron.

This school is modern. It has the most up-to-date technology, and every classroom has Smart Boards and wireless connectivity throughout the school. The building is just amazing. It has been designed in a modern and environmentally sustainable fashion, and it encourages positive learning.

This school will encourage youth to reach their full potential. I tip my hat to everyone who was involved in the opening, including principal Alice McDowell, the teachers, Avon Maitland District School Board staff, those responsible for the construction, students, parents and everyone in between.

I’d also like to thank my tour guides, Josh Pham and Sam Young, for their in-depth tour.

To the students, I would like to share with you: Let your purple-and-white spirit shine during your years at Maitland River, and just like your mascot, you’ll indeed triumph.

FIREFIGHTING

Mr. John Vanthof: In May 2012, a state of emergency was declared in Kirkland Lake. Tinder-dry conditions had resulted in a massive forest fire that threatened the town and forced a partial evacuation. The future of the town rested on the direction of the wind and the valiant efforts of the emergency response team. After nine days, the weather changed, the fire retreated and the state of emergency was lifted. “Thank you, firefighters” signs lined the windows of homes and businesses throughout the town.

Imagine their concern when, just 18 months later, the Minister of Natural Resources announced that the Kirkland MNR fire station would be closed and that the 14 seasonal firefighters stationed there would be no more. Under the Liberals’ MNR transformation plan, an area the size of France will no longer have any localized firefighting capabilities.

Emergency central stations are very important, as witnessed in the fire in KL, but the local team prevented several other small fires from adding to that inferno. Local teams prevent small brush fires from becoming costly major forest fires. Local teams have the ability to monitor and control situations that could lead to major forest fires.

The majority of the area covered by the Kirkland Lake fire station has no municipal fire coverage, and there is concern that the volunteer municipal forces that do exist may be overwh