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

November 4, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Nov-04 (PDF)

L117 - Wed 4 Nov 2015 / Mer 4 nov 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 November 2015 Mercredi 4 novembre 2015

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

Introduction of Visitors

Oral Questions

Economic outlook

Economic outlook

Economic outlook

Privatization of public assets

Taxation

Economic outlook

Economic outlook

Pesticides

Autism treatment

Immigration francophone

Probation services

Air-rail link

Agri-food industry

Bridge replacement

Infrastructure program funding

Visitors

Member’s birthday

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Sunripe

Public housing

Minute Maid Breakfast Day in Canada

Employment supports

Anniversary of Sikh massacre

First responders

Privatization of public assets

La Cité

Climate change

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Estimates

Standing Committee on Regulations and Private Bills

Motions

Estimates

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week

Financial Literacy Month

Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week

Financial Literacy Month

Carbon Monoxide Awareness Week

Financial Literacy Month

Petitions

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Lung health

Health care funding

Missing persons

Water fluoridation

Privatization of public assets

Privatization of public assets

Services for the developmentally disabled

Ontario Disability Support Program

Protection de l’environnement

Diabetes

Orders of the Day

Electoral Boundaries Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les limites des circonscriptions électorales

Employment and Labour Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois en ce qui concerne l’emploi et les relations de travail

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 modifiant des lois relatives à la santé mentale

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

Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à modifier la

Loi sur la santé mentale et la Loi de 1996 sur le consentement aux soins de santé.

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

Miss Monique Taylor: Good morning, Speaker. Thank you very much. I’m pleased to be able to rise today to speak on the debate of Bill 122, which will amend the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act. It has been almost a year—December 23, 2014—since the Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled that some existing provisions of the Mental Health Act violate

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which states, “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

The Mental Health Act, as it currently stands, does not do the job of protecting these

section 7 rights of approximately 330 long-term, involuntarily committed mental health patients in Ontario. That is, those people who were put in psychiatric institutions for six months or longer and who did not commit themselves to be there.

According to statistics from 2009-10, approximately 34% of patients involuntarily committed in Ontario were in hospital for less than a week, 80% were in hospital for less than a month and 98% were in hospital for less than six months. That leaves 2% of patients who were involuntarily committed for longer than six months. These are the 330 people that the amendment, this Bill 122, pertains to.

The decision by the Court of Appeal was unanimously ruled by five justices. They recognized that a gap in the existing Mental Health Act means that people can be detained indefinitely even though the Consent and Capacity Board does not have full powers to rule on the treatment, or the lack of it, that a patient is receiving. These long-term patients, therefore, are being deprived of their right to liberty without procedures in place that protect fundamental justice.

The effect of the ruling is to limit the length of involuntary committals to approximately six months. The court recognized the need to balance public safety concerns with the need to properly protect the rights of patients, so they suspended the ruling for 12 months to afford the Legislature, where we are today, the opportunity to consider how best to deal with the issues of long-term involuntary committals and the power of the Consent and Capacity Board. That is why we have Bill 122 before us today.

But we have a major problem here, because the 12 months is almost upon us and we have yet to be concerned about our ability to give such an important matter the consideration it deserves in the time we have available. The government opposite has known for 10 and a half months that this needed to be done, and yet here we are doing it now, almost to the day. It took them nine months from the court ruling before they introduced this bill. Whatever would have prolonged the thought of making sure we were getting this bill forward quicker is beyond me; I don’t understand the logistics behind the government. But I will go on. Now we’re racing against the clock to get it done.

Mental health is very complex. It has a history of failing to respect the rights of patients. Yes, times have changed a lot in the past 30 or 40 years. We don’t hear the same language we heard back then; we see greater levels of empathy and understanding. But we still have a long, long way to go to treat mental illness the same way we treat other illnesses. Many people have worked very hard over the years to reduce the stigma, but it’s still there.

So we need to make sure that we listen, not just to the legal experts, but also to the advocacy groups and the individuals and families with their experience in mental health. The timeline that the government has imposed on us with this bill makes it very hard to do.

On Monday evening, Speaker, I attended a fundraiser for the Good Shepherd in our hometown of Hamilton. It’s a wonderful organization that works to serve a wide variety of clients—women needing shelter from abuse, which is the fundraiser I was there for. It was a wonderful reception and fundraiser for Mary’s Place, Speaker, which is a women’s shelter in our hometown. They do emergency food, clothing programs and assisted living for seniors, just to name a few.

As the NDP critic for children and youth services, I have a particular interest in their youth service programs, where they’re committed to helping youth who are struggling with poverty, family conflict, homelessness, abuse, neglect and mental health issues. They do absolutely fantastic, terrific work. A year or so ago, I spent an entire week travelling through all of the children’s services they provide in Hamilton.

Just to give you a flavour of how difficult their job is, in a city the size of Hamilton they have funding for 1.6 mental health clinicians to serve all the youth in greater Hamilton. For any youth within any programming in Hamilton who needs mental health services, there are only 1.6 clinicians to do all of that work. It’s pretty much impossible. Without adequate funding, too many kids descend into a darker place. When the opportunity for early intervention is missed, they can become dangerous to themselves and dangerous to others.

I was told at this dinner on Monday night about the sad passing of two youths in the last two weeks, both from crystal meth. Both had been in programs within the Good Shepherd and both had mental health illness. Because of the lack of funding and because of the lack of early intervention, these children found themselves, first of all, addicted to crystal meth, which is everything under the kitchen sink, to death. So I think we need to do better.

According to the Ministry of Health, approximately 30% of Ontarians will experience a mental health or substance abuse challenge during their lifetime; one out of 40 people will face a serious mental health illness. The rights of all Ontarians must be protected, and unfortunately those with a serious mental illness will run the risk of their rights being violated. In 2009, the Ontario Human Rights Commission had this to say in relation to the Ministry of Health discussion paper on a 10-year mental health and addiction strategy:

“The rights of people living with mental illness to: health; dignity; bodily integrity and security of the person, and equal treatment in employment, services (including health care), and housing are all fundamental human rights. Acknowledging these is integral to the redevelopment of the mental health system and can inform a culture shift towards equality for people with mental illnesses and addictions.”

In It Doesn’t Work: Unpacking Mental Health Policy and Legislation, the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario said, “The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the supreme law in Canada and all other federal and provincial statutes related to the provision of care to people with mental illnesses in Ontario ... must conform to the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter.”

Then they went on to say, “Provincial mental health legislation, therefore, must comply with the charter through a balance of the autonomy and liberty of the individual with the safety and security of the public.” So not only was the government faced with a court ruling almost a year ago, but they had plenty of advance warning before that time that changes needed to be made to the Mental Health Act to ensure compliance with the Charter of Rights. But again, they still left it until the last minute.

So I welcome the Court of Appeal ruling, and now it’s our job to make sure that the charter rights of patients are respected and their voices are heard. We need to help protect the safety of patients and the public. We need to listen to the countless families, organizations, experts and individuals who have important insights to the broader change that needs to be made to our mental health legislation.

My colleague the member from Nickel Belt, in her one-hour lead on this debate, read a letter from Arthur Gallant, who had been asked to become a member of the Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council. At the age of just 25, Mr. Gallant had extensive experience with mental health. His mother suffered from a long-term mental illness and he himself was diagnosed with a mental illness at the age of 13. Ever since then, he has become a mental health advocate.

He is a remarkable young man, and it is clear from his eloquent words that he deserved his place on that council, along with the other health executives that occupied the other seats around the table. I should mention that there was one other person on the council with lived experience, so that makes two people with lived experience on the council of 20.

Sadly, as expected, Mr. Gallant’s experience, as recounted in his letter, suggests the exact opposite of what we need to see when it comes to patient involvement. He spoke of being shut out from the very start; nobody asked for his advice. When he did speak out, he was interrupted and shut down. He tried to get more involved, but he got nowhere. When he asked for explanations, none were given. His emails were ignored. That’s how this government does consultation: ignore the people that it affects the most. That, Speaker, is not the way that we should be moving forward. We need to listen. We need to listen to people whose lives are affected.

So what, in fact, does this bill do? Under the proposed amendments, the Consent and Capacity Board will gain new powers to make orders concerning the manner of detention for involuntary patients, particularly those who have been in hospital for more than six months. Currently, the CCB, which is the Consent and Capacity Board, only has the authority to rule that an involuntary detention is valid or invalid, or in order to transfer to a different psychiatric facility. They cannot make any order concerning the treatment that that patient receives and the manner in which they are detained.

They have no authority to impose conditions on the patient’s detention and treatment. It is this lack of authority that violates the rights of these patients to procedural fairness.

This was the central point of the court case that led to the ruling. The individual, P.S., in P.S. v. Ontario, has been held in indefinite detention, without any mechanisms to ensure he gets the treatment and services he needs in the appropriate type of facility.

They will be able to direct that the patient be provided with a different security level or different privileges, either inside or outside the facility. They will be able to direct access to the community and determine whether that should be supervised or unsupervised access.

The amendments will also allow the Consent and Capacity Board to direct that the patient be given vocational,

interpretation or rehabilitation services, and they will be able to order an independent assessment of the patient.

It looks like the Consent and Capacity Board will be very busy, but that’s not a bad thing. It’s a good thing that they will have this new authority that brings the Mental Health Act in line with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But it does bring with it the costs associated with exercising this new authority, and that does not appear to be reflected in the government’s plans. At the same time as the government plans to expand the authority of the Consent and Capacity Board, it is also reducing the funding. Go figure, Speaker. It seems to happen often. Pay more, get less. Interim actual reports for 2014-15 show expenditures for the CCB of $6.2 million, but for 2015-16, funding is reportedly being cut to $4.8 million.

We have been talking about mental health in this House since I’ve been here, and I know it’s been long back—we’ve had select committees on mental health. We’re doing it all. We’re doing a great job of talking about it. But we’re—they’re cutting funding. I’m not even going to say “we’re.” They’re cutting funding, again, to the most important aspects of our society. If we can’t get mental health right, what in this society are we going to get right? Because everything is just going to snowball around it.

Work more, and less money to do it with—that is a big concern, and I worry about what it means for mental health patients.

Speaker, the clock’s ticking. That’s good. I’m close; I’m almost done. Twenty minutes goes pretty quick here in this House sometimes.

As I understand it, if we fail to meet the December deadline, the offending sections of the act will become unconstitutional and invalid. We have until December 23 to get this bill through. It’s now November 4. The House rises on December 10, and next week the House is not sitting, as we have a constituency week. The time is ticking quicker than the government is allotting for, I think.

We’re going to have to again push legislation through this House, with no concerns of getting it right or wrong. It doesn’t really matter. Let’s just shove it through, and the people of Ontario will suffer from it. That’s what happens.

Interjection.

Miss Monique Taylor: But they also had years of advance warning—I know the member opposite likes to talk—years of warning to the House, years of warning, that these changes were needed, warnings from the Ontario Human Rights Commission and from the Schizophrenia Society of Ontario. They’ve had plenty of time to prepare for this, but they have badly mismanaged this file.

As a result, we find ourselves in this situation of again pushing legislation through this House as fast as we can get it. Bill after bill comes through this House. It’s jammed through. It’s time-allocated. People are shut down. There is no discussion. There is no community involvement. We don’t even want to hear from the community, because community members who actually make it onto the board—and who are excited that they’re going to be there and possibly make a change—are shut down. Nobody speaks to them. Nobody answers their emails. They speak over them when they ask questions. They don’t want the involvement. They’re tokens, a token population.

We see this time and time again with this government. They’re selling off their hydro system. Public consultation? Absolutely not. Any polls that you do, 80%-plus of Ontarians are totally against it, but what does this government do? Push, push, push and ram it through as fast as they can. Ram it through, just like everything else.

Again, this important piece of legislation, Bill 122, that has been asked for, that we knew a year back had to be done—at the last minute, here comes the Liberal government, running through, seeing how fast we can push another piece of legislation through, with no public consultation, without making sure we get it right, without the dollars to back up the plan.

Let’s talk about those numbers again, Speaker. How much is being cut? Just for the member opposite, because he looks a little concerned over there: In 2014-15, there was $6.2 million in the CCB. Now that we’ve given them so much more work, guess how much we have now? It’s $4.8 million. More work, less money.

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I hope I didn’t sound that negative when I was in opposition, though I suspect, if I went back in the records, that may have been the case. So I can’t chastise anybody, having sat in opposition and, perhaps, being more negative than I should’ve been at that period of time.

This particular issue is one which has bedevilled government after government after government. Each one of us, as a representative in our constituencies, has received calls from distraught parents and family members who have people within the family who are suffering from mental illness. I must say, something positive is that we’re now recognizing and talking about mental illness more and more in a very public way, because for years it got pushed to the back burner. Advocates were reluctant to talk about it. But all of us have had people come to us just distraught over what to do about a patient who is suffering from mental illness.

The court has ruled, and governments have to adjust to the courts. In this particular case, they gave the government of Ontario a year, up until the date mentioned in December, to pass legislation which would deal with the concerns the court had expressed. Therefore, we are in a position of having to do that. I won’t say this is relatively simple. It is not overly complex, but it does address specifically what the courts have told us. It may not be what many of us in the House would agree with—we don’t always agree with the decisions of the court—but in this case, we must comply with it.

The minister, I know, and the Ministry of Health have wrestled with this problem for some time, trying to find the appropriate balance between the rights of the patients and the concerns that society has, including members of family, over the appropriate treatment of mental health patients.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: I’d like to commend the member for Hamilton Mountain. She always speaks with passion representing her community, and she spoke for 20 minutes this morning on this issue that’s obviously having an impact in the Hamilton area, as it is in Prince Edward–Hastings. There just simply aren’t enough people on the ground to deal with the mental health cases that are piling up.

We talk about our police officers. Our police officers are dealing so often with mental health cases because there are not enough mental health workers out there.

We have a great advocate in our community, Sandie Sidsworth of the Canadian Mental Health Association for Hastings and Prince Edward. She’s the executive director. She’s done a magnificent job over the last couple of years of really bringing these issues to light. But what the government hasn’t been able to do is provide the funding increases so that we can provide those counsellors on the ground to help deal with these situations as they arise. Police officers shouldn’t be doing it; it should be trained counsellors dealing with these issues.

Unfortunately, so many of our police officers out there are tied up with these mental health cases when it should be a trained professional. So I commend the people who are on the ground who are doing the work, but this is a direct result of a government that either can’t, is in capable or won’t manage its own fiscal house.

The Auditor General warned us several times that when you don’t get your own fiscal house in order—speaking to this government—it starts to crowd out the services that you should be providing in your community; it limits the ability for governments to provide the types of services that need to be provided. We all know in this House that mental health is the biggest issue facing our health care system in Ontario because we’re not treating it properly.

And part of the reason that we’re not is because we don’t have our financial house in order; we can’t provide the funding and the resources that are necessary to keep our most vulnerable people healthy. That’s what it comes down to, in my opinion.

I congratulate, again, the member from Hamilton Mountain on her speech this morning.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m glad I’m here in the House today to add comments to this debate. I think we all agree that mental health needs to be destigmatized and talked about just like any health care issue that anyone experiences—it’s a health care issue.

When we’re talking about the bill today, there are concerns about the timing when this has occurred. I understand the member for St. Catharines—I agree; it’s a very complicated, delicate matter. But there is a disappointment in the fact that this government has kind of—it feels like it’s being pushed.

I checked with the Clerk, because I wanted to make sure of the process, that there was no little order in our standing orders that we must go to committee, or can it be overridden? Definitely. When we have a debate, you have your introduction of the bill. Then we have second reading and there is a debate, which we’re in right now. Then, usually, when second reading is over with—members can debate the bill as long as they wish, unless the government time-allocates it, and I speculate that this will probably be time-allocated—at that point, we usually vote for it to go to committee.

But there is no requirement in the standing orders that any bill has to go to committee for people to present deputations and comments and make amendments. If that doesn’t happen, if we don’t send it to committee, the government can call it for third reading right away. It doesn’t have to have debate on third reading either; it can just be agreed upon for royal assent.

So in the timing, this might be the plan the government has, because it is December 23 that the court decision has said that we have to make new legislation in order to accommodate the human rights factor in this issue.

That’s just my question and speculation on the debate on this bill.

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

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to say thank you very much to the member for Hamilton Mountain for her wonderful approach to this bill in the sense that—it’s interesting that sometimes we’re criticized for rushing things through or being late. I was part of the health care system for over 17 years before I had the great pleasure of representing the people of Ottawa–Orléans. As a former social worker, I would say that mental health, as acknowledged by some of our colleagues here, is one of the most complex and difficult issues that our youth, adults and also seniors are facing.

It’s interesting when I hear the members saying that we do not consult. In this particular instance, because of the complexity of everything we had to do, we needed to consult with our stakeholders. My colleague here made reference to the fact that this is not an issue where you just make a decision. So, yes, there was a court ruling, and we had to look as a government and reach out to the people who are most affected, the people who are actually experiencing this issue, and see how we can best follow through the court system, but also protect the family members and give the right to our society to feel protected.

We also hear about the fact that we haven’t invested in mental health. Well, I have to say, I am proud to say that, since 2003, our mental health and addiction funding has increased by over $506 million, for a total of $1 billion. Now our phase 2 is approaching.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Hamilton Mountain has two minutes.

Miss Monique Taylor: I have to say that I really enjoyed being able to delve into the work of this bill and what this means to people in Ontario and to the 330 people who are being held and could quite possibly just be let on the street as of December 23. The fact that the government has really just waited until the last minute—the member from St. Catharines talked about, whether we agree with the court ruling or not, it’s got to be done. I welcome the court ruling. I welcome the government being forced into doing the right thing under human rights.

Thanks to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. He’s absolutely right: Our police officers are overwhelmed with mental health. We have to make sure we have a real plan to not only protect our police officers, but protect the people that they’re serving or that they’re coming upon that day.

Thanks to the member from London–Fanshawe. She talked about timelines. It’s not a new story with this government. It has pushed things through—get it done—the lack of consultation. It will be interesting to see how the government makes this happen with the timelines that are left before us. Since we do have next week off for constituency week and Remembrance Day, there isn’t much time left.

Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for her comments in talking about the complex issues. She is right; money has been put into mental health, but when we are talking about this

section of mental health and the CCB, there has been a cut. There has been a cut to this, millions of dollars being cut. Do more, get less.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

The Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to stand and support the amendments to the Mental Health Act.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We have a problem.

Interjection: Houston.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Houston, we have a problem.

So the minister without portfolio is speaking to this?

Mr. John Yakabuski: She’s already been talking.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, I guess the Minister of Education beat you to it.

Interjections.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I will be sharing my time with—actually, I just got a note that says I should go first, okay?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That was for me.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Okay. Anyway, the note says I should go first, and it also says, which I already knew, that I’ll be sharing my time.

Oh my goodness, we have all sorts of people we are sharing time with: the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change and the member from Halton and, I believe it should say, the—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: We will sort this out.

I am sharing my time with the Chair of Cabinet, and he will figure out who else we should share time with.

But can we get serious here? Because this is a really serious topic, when we are talking about that group of patients who have mental illness that is so severe—typically some form of psychosis which is so severe—that their behaviour may lead either to harm to themselves or harm to others. This is the group of people that we are dealing with here. The issue which has been contentious for many, many years and many, many decades, in fact, probably: How do you balance the right of the patient to have some control over their own treatment and the rights of the community to be safe?

Quite frankly, what those of us who have been working in constituency offices for many years, and those of us who served on the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions, of which I am one—which is the legitimate concern of families that, in many cases, psychosis is so severe that getting treatment would actually assist the patient in getting to a place where they cease to be a threat to themselves. The conundrum is that the patient’s wishes, absent treatment, may actually turn out to be different from the patient’s wishes if only they could access treatment.

So there’s even a conundrum there about how you best determine the well-being of the patient. This is a very, very complicated area.

The court has found that the current provisions of the Mental Health Act do not sufficiently respect the right of the patient to intervene and request that they be able to cease being involuntarily detained. It’s given a certain time frame by which we must amend the act, or we will be in the situation where we could be required to release any involuntary patients that have been held for more than six months. Quite frankly, Speaker, that’s problematic, because we know that many of those patients who have been held for more than six months are a real threat to others in the community. Because of their psychosis, they may respond in extreme and violent ways. So we need to come to some solution.

Now, unlike what the member opposite has suggested, which is that there is some affront to the Legislature in bringing the bill at this point, what has actually been going on has been a very robust consultation with the various organizations that are involved in the discussion.

The Ministry of Health, in fact, has spent a lot of time talking about this Court of Appeal decision with the Consent and Capacity Board, the people whose rules we are actually changing; the Ontario Review Board, which would review those rulings; the Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, the person who is legally charged with being the advocate for people who are being held involuntarily—the psychiatric patient advocate has been very much involved in the discussion, advocating on behalf of the patients; and, in addition to that, the Mental Health and Addictions Leadership Advisory Council, which has been responsible for our whole transformation.

I just wanted to add a little bit, because there’s been some discussion around cuts. If we look at it from a children and youth mental health perspective, which is, of course, where the education system comes in, more than 55,000 additional children and youth are now receiving care. We have invested over $11 million to place 144 mental health nurses in schools.

More than 770 mental health workers are serving communities, schools and courts, and more than 1,000 additional psychiatric consultations are being held with children with mental health challenges each year through the Tele-Mental Health Service, because there are so many communities where there just simply aren’t child psychologists. So it is true that we are investing in the prevention end of this, but we still have to sort out this particular problem.

I turn it over to my colleague the Chair of Cabinet.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister without portfolio.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m awaiting the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change to join the member for Halton.

In my years in this Legislature, one of the most difficult problems to deal with has been that of dealing with mental health patients. It’s unusual for the patients themselves to contact us, but for the members of the family, they are beside themselves when they see great difficulty being experienced by the mental health patients themselves and the impact it has on the family. When they come to you and you ultimately say, “There is really nothing I can do for you because of the existing law,” they are very, very disappointed, and understandably so.

We’re not supposed to get into, I guess, with the confidentiality of cabinet, dealing with the deliberations of cabinet, but I can tell you that, going through cabinet committees and cabinet as a whole, there was a robust discussion of this with different points of view being presented.

This is not a bill I would bring forward if I were changing the Mental Health Act. This is, instead, a response to a court ruling, which meant that the government had to tailor its policy to that particular court ruling.

I find that I am very much influenced by those who have members of the family who are doing harm to themselves or harm to others. It is just so disappointing to them, and they are so distraught over the fact that they have members of the family that apparently can’t be helped by the system.

It is not simply funding. Our members have mentioned that the funding is going to be up to $1 billion now, and $220 million in addition to that. I don’t want to get into funding, because there is considerable funding, but I want to get into that issue itself of how difficult it is.

On the one hand, you have the advocates for patients themselves who say they have their rights, and on the other hand you have the family members, close friends, very often members of police services and others who say that you simply have to have laws which allow us to take more interventionist action to be able to assist these people. Many people come to our office and say, “Ultimately, I can tell you that my son”—or daughter—“will be dead within two or three years.” What you hate to see is when that prediction comes true.

As I say, if I were constructing this—and I can tell you, there were many different points of view that were presented while this was being discussed within cabinet committees, because of that frustration that people have had over the years in dealing with these problems.

This bill will address a court ruling. Somewhere along the line, in the years to come, perhaps there will be other legislation that will pass the court’s scrutiny and will deliver even better services and accommodate the needs of members of the family who have people in that family who have been hit with mental illness.

As I say, I’ve been in this Legislature for 38 years, and I have watched different governments wrestle with this. It is a very, very difficult and challenging problem to deal with.

I now yield the floor to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: As my friend the member for St. Catharines said, this is in response to a court ruling, but I think it opens up a larger issue and one I would like to talk to. I know some of my colleagues will go into more detail.

I spent about 12 years of my life working on the streets. I started work around 9 o’clock at night, and I would finish around 3 or 4 in the morning. My son whom I fostered and adopted was one of these street-involved kids. The way a lot of young people are dealt with in mental health situations is that they’re left, really, to nothing.

This was in another province. This was in Winnipeg, in a province that’s not as wealthy as Ontario and doesn’t have the mental health services or capacity that we have. We often talk in Ontario about how we have, somehow, inadequate services, and in some cases you can almost never really have enough services, given the complexity of the challenges we’re facing. But in other parts of Canada that don’t have the industrial, banking or mining base or wealth that Ontario has, those services sometimes are scarce and, quite frankly, often paid for by Ontarians and others in transfer payments.

I was always amazed: The kids I worked with had schizophrenia, were bipolar; they were, like my son, fetal alcohol syndrome, which means that you’re born, basically, as chemically dependent into this world, which is one of the cruellest things to see done to a child. I always admire him. He now has his own company, seven employees. He is married, which is something we never thought. It was a huge amount of intervention, but it was at the very core of this, because for my relationship with Michael, it was always his civil liberties.

He was HIV-positive and could be very aggressive because his mental illness would sometimes lead him to be violent—and parenting and getting the supports. I always said that if he was institutionalized he had all the mental health supports, but if he was with me in a family where dad would show up at high school, coach his hockey team and do all the things that he needed that I did for him—it was very hard to do that and do the mental health piece because you didn’t get mental health support.

So we started a group with seven friends of mine; we called it the “extreme parenting group.” We all had children whom we were fostering or adopted who had fetal alcohol syndrome, who were bipolar or who had schizophrenia. Some of them had developed autism and some of them had constructs around genetic issues that were hard to deal with.

It was amazing to me, the number of children who end up solving their pain by illegally using prescription drugs or getting heroin. My son would shoot up, as much as 30 times a day, Talwin and Ritalin, which is a speedball. We have a vast amount of legal and illegal drugs out there that kids use to self-medicate their pain.

The other thing that they do is that they tend to be involved in prostitution and they tend to be involved in robbing themselves. They tend not to hurt other people; they commit crimes against themselves which are disruptive to their sense of self-esteem.

I agree with some of the other members and the member from St. Catharines in that this is a difficult issue. In my case, I remember coming home in February; it was 40 below and Michael had broken every window in my home. That cost me about $17,000. He stole the television, stole my car, stole the VCR and stole the stamp collection. I always say to parents, “If you want to parent kids like that, your personal items cannot be more valuable to you than your children.” I have no regrets about that. I lost all of those things.

That’s a high level. So how do we take care of these kids? It can’t be just about mental health services. Every child should have the right to a parent who loves them. I learned not to be a very materialistic person because nothing in my life, living with Michael, allowed me to keep anything material. Many of my friends and many of the other kids whom I fostered for shorter periods of time had that serious thing. We often talk about, “It takes a village to raise a child,” that it takes us collectively. We live in a very materialistic society, where sometimes we’re not prepared to make the sacrifices we need to.

It’s hard. No one ever thought Michael would make it to 18. I wish he wasn’t representative.

We often hear in this society that we’re taught to be afraid of strangers. The people who abused Michael were previous parents of his who broke his leg, who gave him alcohol at age six, who drank before birth and left Michael with all kinds of disabilities that injured him. When he was sexually and physically assaulted, as were most of the kids, it was done by their parents or people they knew.

A lot of the politics is somehow, “People who abuse children are horrible strangers whom we need to protect people from.” It’s usually the people whom they’re most vulnerable to, because it’s an uncle, it’s a hockey coach or it’s a parent—that’s 80% or 90%. Almost all the kids whom I saw on the street were abused by someone who was in a position of care to protect them. That’s what often triggered a lot of the mental health issues or compounded mental health issues that were in place.

I’ve just exceeded my time a bit, and I want to leave some time for the member for Halton. I think this a good thing, and I hope we as members will come together to take stronger action in the future beyond this legal issue of civil liberties versus treatment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Halton.

Ms. Indira Naidoo-Harris: I’m pleased to rise today to speak on Bill 122, the Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act, 2015. I want to make sure that I address and acknowledge the remarks by the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change for being so honest with some of the comments he was making. It was very touching to hear some of that.

These amendments, if passed, would help ensure that patients who are detained in a psychiatric facility for longer than six months have their rights and freedoms protected while at the same time ensuring that health care providers can continue to provide excellent care to these patients.

Mr. Speaker, as you’ve heard already, this is a complex and serious issue. It’s about respecting a person’s rights and freedoms and balancing that with their family’s concerns for their own safety. And as government, we have to be sure that we are concerned about the safety of society at large.

The provincial Mental Health Act provides for the involuntary detention of patients in psychiatric facilities where patients present a risk of harm to themselves or others. Let me give you a little bit of context, Mr. Speaker, about what we’re talking about here. Mental health is a complex and important issue in Ontario’s health care system. We know that one in five Ontarians will experience a mental health illness in their lifetime, and almost every person in Canada—every person—will be affected by someone with mental illness. Think about it. Those numbers are staggering.

The Canadian Mental Health Association estimates that 10% to 20% of Canadian youth are affected by mental illness. That’s why our government has created a comprehensive mental health and addictions strategy, to make sure that we’re addressing care on all levels and making sure that we’re doing the right thing when it comes to these families and individuals facing challenges in their lives.

The Court of Appeal addressed the involuntary admission and detention of patients under the Mental Health Act, and the court said that part of the act was inconsistent with

section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court of Appeal gave us until December 22 of this year to make these amendments to the Mental Health Act and make sure that we comply with the court’s decision. That date is crucial. We need to get these things in place and we need to make sure that these individuals in society are protected. That’s why we’re moving as efficiently as we can to get the job done. It is about doing the right thing when it comes to the people of this province.

Specifically, the court struck down the provision of the act that allows a person to be detained in a psychiatric facility for longer than six months. For example, what this does is it ensures that, from the Court of Appeal, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, in partnership with the Ministry of the Attorney General, has reviewed the act and consulted with stakeholders on some of these proposed amendments. These proposed amendments, if passed, ensure that the Mental Health Act aligns with the Canadian Charter of Rights and at the same time enhances the rights of involuntary, long-term patients who have been committed to psychiatric facilities.

The amendments that are being debated today would enhance the ability of the Consent and Capacity Board to make certain guidelines for patients who have been in a psychiatric facility as an involuntary patient for longer than six months. What this does is it makes sure the board takes into account, for example:

—the safety of the public;

—the ability of the psychiatric facility to manage and provide care;

—the mental condition of the patient;

—the reintegration of that patient into society; and

—other needs of the patient.

Also, it takes into account limitations that we will be placing—and could be placing—on a patient’s freedoms.

These are tough decisions. Too many Ontarians are touched by mental health each year. The objectives of the Mental Health Act are ensuring community safety and helping patients, making sure that they get the help they need. Our government is committed to making the most appropriate care for those who need it most within the system.

I support these amendments. They are key to ensuring that we have a safe society for all involved. I think it’s the right thing to do, and I am pleased to be standing up today and speaking to this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions or comment?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It is an honour, actually, to stand in this House today and reference the act that has been brought forward, amending the Mental Health Act and the Health Care Consent Act, 1996.

Speaker, we talk about mental health. First of all, we, as a caucus, recognize the devastating effects that mental illness has and, of course, the stigma attached to it.

We’ve heard statistics: one in five. One in five Canadians—or I saw another

article that said one in five students—have mental health issues. How do you define it? How do you define mental health? I’m sure that for many of us, even here in the Legislature, over the course of our lifetimes, we’ve experienced a moment or two when we feel and believe—“How do I cope with this situation?”

I’m very pleased to say that in Chatham-Kent, they’re promoting mental health. One of the things that the Chatham-Kent Public Health Unit is doing is working with community partners to promote mental health by fostering the development of mental health wellness, supporting individual resilience, creating supportive environments and addressing the influence of the broader detriments of mental health.

We face unexpected problems every day, but it ties into one’s ability to deal effectively with those problems. That, to me, is an indicator of good mental health or perhaps none.

There’s so much more that I could say, but I think one of the things we need to realize is that we need to ensure that we have the proper resources in place so that these people can, in fact, get the help that they need.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by members from the government benches. I know that Bill 122 seeks to protect the rights of long-term involuntary mental health patients in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

As New Democrats, we firmly believe that the rights of all Ontarians need to be protected and that all mental health legislation has to reflect the fundamental rights set out in the charter.

We agree it’s time to amend the Mental Health Act to comply with the Court of Appeal ruling which found that portions of the act violate patients’ rights under the charter.

On December 23, 2014, the Court of Appeal gave this Legislature one year to amend the Mental Health Act to better protect the rights of patients. The clock has been ticking, and the deadline of December 23, 2015, is fast approaching.

We’re concerned that the Liberal government waited nine months after the court’s ruling to introduce this bill. As a result of the government’s long and unnecessary delay, the Legislature is now racing to meet the court-imposed deadline of December 23, at which point existing sections of the act will become invalid because they’re in conflict with the charter.

The Liberals’ long delay now leaves MPPs with just weeks to debate, hold hearings, amend and vote on this bill. The House rises on December 10, and this bill has to be completed by that date.

By taking nine months to simply introduce Bill 122 and another month to call this bill for second reading debate, the government effectively reduced the time that the Legislature has to consider these amendments from 12 months to now less than two months.

This impedes the ability of MPPs to do our job, and may mean that the issues at hand don’t get proper consideration.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a pleasure to speak on this amendment to the Mental Health Act here today.

I know that the member from St. Catharines has addressed this as an issue that’s in response to a court ruling, but I think we all agree here that this issue is much larger. Mental health is a very serious issue that I would say every single person who represents a riding in Ontario has had people come into their office to talk about.

I know that in my riding, I often speak to people about issues in relation to loved ones, or personal issues, around mental health. I know it’s something that has even affected my family.

I think it’s important for us to make these changes because the protection of a person’s rights is obviously something that’s very important to Ontarians. They represent Canadian values. I hope we can all come together to move this along, to address the issues that were outlined in the court ruling to make sure that we get this right. I believe we can work within this timeline to address these issues.

It was interesting. I had the opportunity this week to go visit the Magna Carta, the document that was produced in 1215. It talked a lot about rights. The entire exhibit at Fort York talked about the rights of people. There was a history of rights in Ontario and Toronto.

It’s important that we do get this right, because the rights of the individual are an important piece. I think we can all work together, all three parties, to ensure that we do what’s best for the people of Ontario.

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

Mr. Jim McDonell: I’m happy to rise today to comment on the mental health issues.

I don’t think anybody in this House doesn’t have numerous appointments with parents who have issues with loved ones who are being affected with mental health.

This bill, yes, missed this deadline—but it’s important to get it right. It will be interesting to see how we can get this through before the end of December. As I said, it has been here a month and we haven’t debated it.

Even our own family members have issues, and we see long wait times. It’s time this government treats mental health as a health issue, because it really is a problem that affects not only families but communities.

We’re looking forward to seeing this bill passed. We have to weigh the rights of the patient versus the rights of the family. I know that friends of mine come to see us, looking for courts to take action, because they can’t control the things that are happening within their own home. It’s a sad case. There’s no easy answer, and I don’t know what the answer is.

Hopefully, we’ll be able to work through this and be able to put a system in place that allows our people who are working in the health care industry to look after the patients to the best of their ability and the best that we can in this great country of ours.

We shouldn’t have many of the things that are going on actually going on. We should be able to provide help, provide respite and still look after the needs and the rights of the patient.

I look forward to further debate on this bill and seeing it through. It may be a little late, but at least it does the right thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The minister without portfolio has two minutes.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you for the very thoughtful interventions that were made by each of the members of the Legislature.

Understandably, the opposition, particularly, are going to be critical of the fact that the legislation wasn’t brought back earlier. I can tell you that there are a couple of reasons for that. One was the very extensive consultation that went on. Every time the government came forward with a new suggestion, that had to be canvassed with a variety of people as well to get their reaction. It did take a while to go through cabinet committees, longer than many items might. So that was the reason. There was not general agreement.

There were a lot of different views that were expressed and, ultimately, this is what came forward. It’s still understandable that the opposition would say—because they want to have the opportunity, as do all members, to be able to deal with this in the House.

Particularly those of us who serve here in Toronto—the Legislature is here in Toronto—we look at the streets of Toronto and see many people who are living on the streets who obviously have mental problems. Part of that was the closing of psychiatric hospitals, which everybody agreed was good. But the challenge was, are you prepared to put those services in the community? Those services wouldn’t be cheaper, but they would be more effective, and that is the best we can have.

All these things require more resources. Again, if I were sitting in the opposition benches, I would say, “Well, why doesn’t the government spend its money more wisely” and so on. That’s the mantra that the opposition has, and it’s understandable. But for a lot of the things that we’re asking people to do in our society, it’s going to require more revenue, and that’s something nobody ever wants to talk about. There are a lot of challenges out there, and those challenges have to be met by government, and some by private agencies.

But very thoughtful remarks from those who have intervened after the initial speeches.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It is indeed a privilege to stand here today to speak on Bill 122, the Mental Health Statute Law Amendment Act.

I think it’s important to speak about mental illness. We cannot shy away from it. Mental illness is just as important as physical health, in terms of working with it and improving mental health. Just like we work out to improve our physical being, we have to indeed make sure that every pillar of the foundation is secure in building up and perpetuating good mental health.

Despite the growing understanding in our province, through programs and campaigns such as Bell Let’s Talk, I think we need to keep pushing. When we hear the statistics from organizations like the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, saying that only 50% of Canadians would tell a friend or co-worker that they have a family member with a mental illness, that tells me that we need to continue to work to counteract the negative stigma associated with mental illness.

Again, I can’t stress it enough: Mental health is just as important as physical health.

When I hear from stakeholders about how members in their organization are afraid to admit to needing help with a mental health issue, for fear of losing their job or the stigma around mental health issues, that tells me we have to work harder. We all know people who have suffered and we can all attest to the support that’s needed from family, but it has to extend beyond family and friends and co-workers. We here in this House can do more as well.

Last week, in fact, I had a very informative meeting with some of the folks from the Police Association of Ontario. They told me some shocking stats about the number of officers who have committed suicide across the country this year alone. I believe the number they gave me was 57, and that number is past what is acceptable—57 suicides in one year are 57 too many, and that’s just in one sector alone. Our service men and women should not be ignored or forced to feel ashamed that they need help, when they put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe.

In 2009, the PAO had called for the government to develop presumptive legislation that would offer assistance to officers in dealing with possible and manifested cases of PTSD. To my knowledge, nothing has been achieved on this front, since I heard this exact call again last week in my office.

After this meeting, I went back and looked through then-Ontario Ombudsman André Marin’s October 2012 report In the Line of Duty, and it shocked me. Many of the problems he identified three years ago, sadly to say, I was just hearing about again last week. The fact that the lack of help available to law enforcement professionals persists today tells me that we have to do better. We have to take their concerns seriously, and we cannot get mired in talking the talk, so to speak. We have to walk the walk as well.

Perhaps if we treated mental illness like we do a broken arm or a physical ailment, people would no longer fear getting treatment. People might no longer allow their symptoms to progress to a point where they cannot control them, or fail to recognize any longer when they are suffering.

That brings us to why we’re here today. This bill is before the House in response to an Ontario Court of Appeal decision issued in December of last year to strike down a part of the Mental Health Act that violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think we can all agree here that no person, no matter what the circumstances, ever deserves to have their rights subverted.

To that end, I’m pleased to speak today towards Bill 122 and lend my voice in service to those who may not be able to speak for themselves.

Under the current format, a patient being held involuntarily for psychiatric care can apply for a hearing when issued their certificate of continuation, which happens after roughly six and a half months, and it must be renewed every three months thereafter. What the bill does address in this instance is the ability of a patient to apply or automatically have their involuntary status reviewed every 12 months, and that’s a good step.

We in the PC Party believe that the bill is a good first step forward in addressing many of the current shortcomings in the Mental Health Act. We believe strongly that a patient should have access to advice on what rights they have to request orders regarding their detention.

I want to talk about access to advice. Locally, we have an initiative in Walkerton that is second to none. It’s a wonderful legacy that the Cameron family has established to recognize and celebrate their son, who took his life through suicide. This initiative is called Wes for Youth. That legacy is an online help service for everyone throughout southwestern Ontario, especially geared toward teenagers and young adults who need advice on next steps. Wes for Youth is an example of a community caring for their young people. I think we here in this House are demonstrating that we too care, and that Bill 122, as I said, is a good first step forward.

Specifically, we believe that a patient involuntarily detained for mental health treatment, under the recommendation of medical professionals, should be able to transfer facilities; be given a leave of absence for a designated period of time; receive different security privileges in or outside the facility; be afforded the opportunity to have access, whether supervised or unsupervised, to the community; and have access to vocational, interpretive or rehabilitative services, should they wish. But—and I want to stress this point—this must be done only in the event that a licensed, trained psychiatrist gives their professional medical opinion that it is reasonable and logical to do so.

I firmly believe—and this is something that I have said time and again—that we must follow science. We must always look to the professionals and the experts on what is the best course of action. Sadly, I’ve seen all too often in my time here at Queen’s Park that this current government ignores the facts that they are presented with, or they shun the organizations that have presented data that fails to support the government’s opinion.

To that end, Speaker, we must trust the Consent and Capacity Board, the CCB, to make the decisions and exercise the authority that they have been entrusted with. A body charged with determining the mental stability of a person and the level of freedom they can enjoy while residing in a mental health care facility will not fail to factor in conditions such as the safety of the public, the ability of the psychiatric facility to manage and provide care for the patients and others, the overall mental condition of the patient and any needs they may have, or the possibility of reintegrating the patient into society.

In fact, they may take into consideration conditions that we may not have previously considered at all. We have to trust the experts.

We want to ensure that the people who need help are getting it, not because we want to remove them from society but because we want to engage them in it and make them productive, included members of our communities.

We here on this side as the PC Party, the opposition, agree with some of these changes as long as they are working for the benefit of the people whom this act is designed to serve and allow them access to society on some level, if medically recommended.

This government had a year to address the justice’s decision, and instead, they didn’t introduce any sort of legislation until September 23. Mr. Speaker, the judge ordered a deadline of December 23, and, given the parliamentary calendar, we have just nine weeks to debate this legislation—four weeks if you only consider what little time we have left. That’s hardly enough time to conduct consultations with the relevant stakeholders or consider all of the implications that these amendments might have. This government truly has to get back on track with their consultations.

I have said numerous times that this government has a bad habit of excluding relevant stakeholders from sitting at the consultation table. They have done it time and time again. My colleague in the PC caucus, our health critic, Jeff Yurek, has been in touch with numerous psychiatrists who have expressed their frustration at not being asked for their input on the subject. They have every right to be upset. They bring serious issues to the table that this government should not and cannot ignore.

The changes fail to address the current limitations of the CCB as an expert tribunal on mental health by not allowing treatment to begin once the CCB has rendered a decision. The CCB is a panel of medical professionals, lawyers and public members who are experienced “in interpreting and applying legislation with specific knowledge of the Mental Health Act, Health Care Consent Act, 1996, Substitute Decisions Act, Personal Health Information Protection Act, Mandatory Blood Testing Act and Statutory Powers Procedure Act.”

By failing to consider the concerns of these psychiatrists and specialists who are involved with mental health patients on the ground, this government has told them that the professional opinion they’ve been hired to render and the opinion of the CCB are worthless and that they know better; the government knows better. This is unacceptable. Again, we have to bring the right people to the table, we have to let the experts lead by their experience and we have to work with them, not exclude them.

In fact, the very recommendation that I just spoke about was brought forth when the Select Committee on Mental Health and Addictions held deputations in April 2010. I believe there were a number of recommendations brought forth between 2009 and 2010 when the committee met, but we are just getting to this now with four weeks to go, when we’re responsible for ensuring that 339 patients continue to receive the care that their medical professionals deem necessary.

We talked about having a year since the judge ordered this amendment, but the truth is that this government had five—almost six—years to work out the details and engage advocacy groups on the matter. Yet they chose instead to do it in the eleventh hour, when they could claim that they had no time to talk to anyone about it, and that’s just not acceptable. While they’ve been dragging their feet, Ontarians continue to struggle to get the help they need. Each year, roughly one in five Canadians experiences a mental health issue, working out to roughly 175,000 full-time workers absent from work due to mental illness. This translates into a—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I have to interrupt the member. It’s 10:15. We’ll continue later; we’ll start with you again.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Report, Financial Accountability Officer

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a report from the Financial Accountability Officer of Ontario entitled An Assessment of Ontario’s Medium-term Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

Introduction of Visitors

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m pleased to rise to recognize Jacob McCreery, who is in the gallery with us today. Jacob got a very early start this morning driving in with me from the great riding of Oxford. He’s here for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Incidentally, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, my own children didn’t want to come with me anymore, so I brought one of my constituents. I want to welcome Jacob to Queen’s Park.

I also wanted to recognize the family of page Abby Moreside, whose parents Kathy and Dave Moreside are here in the gallery again today and are joined by Abby’s aunt Theresa Moreside. Thank you again for coming to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. You can also bring your nephew.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you.

It’s with great pride and honour that I introduce a good friend, Chief Reg Niganobe from the Mississauga First Nation in my riding of Algoma–Manitoulin.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Welcome, Chief.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I would like to welcome Sarah Porter and Emma Stoyles to question period today. They are here in the program Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Steve Clark: Nous avons des délégués de la communauté franco-ontarienne avec nous aujourd’hui, et ils sont assis dans la galerie des membres. Je souhaite la bienvenue à Peter Hominuk, directeur général de l’Assemblé de la francophonie de l’Ontario; Alain Dupuis, directeur général du Regroupement étudiant franco-ontarien; Geneviève Borris; Rym Ben Berrah; Lucas Egan; Éric Desrochers; Jérémie Spadafora; Geneviève Latour; et Sylvain Bérubé. Ils sont tous ici pour promouvoir une université francophone. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I am delighted to welcome Daryl Frimer, who is a constituent from the wonderful riding of Parkdale–High Park.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to introduce Chris May, the director of government relations for the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, who has brought his son Daniel May to the Legislature today. They are sitting in the members’ gallery on the east side.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce today Valerie Inglis from Petrolia, Ontario, in my riding of Sarnia–Lambton. She is sitting in the east members’ gallery and is taking

part in Diabetes Day at Queen’s Park. November is National Diabetes Awareness Month.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Today is Take Our Kids to Work Day, and I’m pleased that in the members’ gallery, shadowing me today, is Georgia Iordanov from Earl Haig Secondary School in North York. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Today I want to introduce Karine Benzacar, the mother of page Nicole Haim from Thornhill. Welcome to the Legislature.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would like to welcome my daughter Claire here. It’s Take Our Kids to Work Day. Today should be inspiring for her, I hope.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I would like to introduce Michael Psychogios, the son of a good friend of mine who is here today as well for Take Our Kids to Work Day. Welcome, Michael.

Mr. John Yakabuski: A unique take on Take Our Kids to Work Day: I’d like to welcome Ashley Paisiovich here today. She is accompanied by her father, George, on a unique Take Our Kids to Work Day. George worked here years ago, and he’s going to give Ashley a great perspective on what goes on here at Queen’s Park and how people interact with members.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’d like to introduce today’s page captain, Kyle Preuss, who is small in stature but is certainly big on service to this Legislature. He will be joined by his father, Brian Preuss, here this afternoon.

Ms. Daiene Vernile: I would like to recognize Audrey Musselman and Sue McEwen, who are two retired teachers from the great riding of Kitchener Centre. They won a “lunch with your legislator” raffle. Thank you very much.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce my executive assistant from the constituency office in North Bay, Andrea Stoppa.

Mr. Steve Clark: Today is Take Our Kids to Work Day, and I’d like to welcome Kaman Tomé. He’s a grade 9 student from Humberside Collegiate. His aunt Dianne has brought him to work in my office today. Welcome to Queen’s Park, Kaman.

M me France Gélinas: Ça me fait extrêmement plaisir de vous présenter le président du RÉFO, M. Alain Dupuis; le président de l’AFO, M. Denis Vaillancourt; des représentants de la FESFO, Jérémie Spadafora et Rym Ben Berrah; ainsi que plusieurs francophones qui sont ici pour parler université francophone. Bienvenue.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I would like members to welcome Tyler Vis. He is participating in the Take Our Kids to Work Day. He is a former page with the Legislative Assembly and has joined us today. Please welcome him.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): As a generic welcome, just so that members know, there are plenty of students here today, watching their parents who work here at the Legislature. We welcome them as well.

It is now time for oral questions.

Oral Questions

Economic outlook

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Finance. The Financial Accountability Officer released another damning report this week, this time about your government’s promise to balance the budget by 2017-18. His conclusion was this: If revenue and spending continue as they have been for the past four years, your government will run a deficit of $3.5 billion.

Mr. Speaker, they’ve backed themselves into a corner. They have no way out, other than to raise taxes or cut services. Will the Minister of Finance tell us exactly what taxes he’s going to raise and what services he is going to cut?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to first acknowledge and thank the Financial Accountability Officer for his report. We have a strong working relationship, recognizing that we want full transparency and integrity in the work that we’re doing. That is being recognized and acknowledged by the FAO. He further says the following: “The province would appear to be on track to beat its 2015-16 deficit target.” That is what he says. He says that in the last three years following the recession, Ontario has been able to achieve “steady improvements in its fiscal position.”

We are exceeding our targets. We have for the past six years running. We’ll continue to do what’s necessary in light of the challenges that face us, as we have every year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Finance: Really? You’re thanking the Financial Accountability Officer for saying that your numbers don’t add up?

What is more remarkable is what this government calls the plan for Ontario. Health funding has grown by 3% on average in the past, but the government will now have to cut that in half. How? The Financial Accountability Officer says through “measures to reduce physician fees.”

Education funding is projected to be cut in half as well. How? The FAO says “through measures to consolidate school space.”

Other programs are supposed to decline by 6.1%. How? The Financial Accountability Officer says through the elimination of Ontario’s Clean Energy Benefit.

Mr. Speaker, they want to cut funding to doctors, close needed schools and raise hydro rates, all because of their incompetence. Is this acceptable?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite, if I recall, comes from the Harper holdovers. This is a man who did not respect the parliamentary officers’ reports and their work. We do.

He further goes on to talk about all the work that’s necessary to recalibrate our spending, things that we have achieved and are continuing to do. We’re being targeted and we’re being strategic. What they offered in the past was across-the-board cuts, harmed our recovery—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If it’s any more than this, I’ll move as quickly as I can to an area I don’t like to but that I will use.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I understand he doesn’t like to talk about the past, because the past doesn’t suit his needs. But the fact of the matter is, when he was in the federal government, they had tremendous surpluses that were left over. They squandered it. They went through multiple deficits, doubled their debt, and we still today are looking for that—

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Finance: dodge, deny, deflect, blame everyone else. Defend your own ideas. If you believe in your plan, defend it. Don’t blame and attack others.

The FAO says that the government won’t meet their revenue projections this year, and they’ll come up short on revenue every year until 2017-18. Even if you continue to gut health and education, you won’t achieve balance. Even if you continue to raise hydro rates to record heights, you won’t achieve balance.

Mr. Speaker, when you think about it—$1.1 billion wasted on the gas plants, $2 billion on smart meters, $1.1 billion on eHealth and another billion on Ornge. If you combine all the scandals, that’s over $4 billion. That’s your deficit right there. Is this acceptable? Admit to the House that we’re in this situation—

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

Interjections.

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

I just want to remind the member: third person to the Chair. And I will remind all members that the debate is better controlled and has more substance when you use third person—tested and true—to the Chair, both answer and question.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The mess that was left was a $5.6-billion hidden deficit when we took over. The member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Again, I’ll remind you that you don’t know when I’m going to decide to talk to somebody. I also want to say that it’s not helpful when all sides yell back and forth. It’s not productive,

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the gesture doesn’t work.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The FAO goes on to say that he expects that we will meet our deficit targets, that we are exceeding our balance year over year, that we have achieved tremendous results in the face of challenging times—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I think it’s time for the FBI.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, come to order.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —and that requires determination and a balanced approach in achieving those results. That’s exactly what we have been doing, contrary to what they’ve done in the past.

Economic outlook

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the finance minister. This morning, the Financial Accountability Officer confirmed what the Ontario PC caucus has been saying for nearly two years: You have a multi-billion-dollar hole in your budget. The FAO expects a $3.5-billion deficit in 2017-18, the year you told Ontarians that you’d balance. In fact, he said that it could be $7.4 billion, if the numbers are even more wrong than current. He also affirmed that “economic growth in 2015 is expected to be significantly slower than projected” and will result in up to $1 billion less in revenue than expected this year.

So, Speaker, is the minister raising taxes, or can we expect more cuts to health care?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: There’s a hole in your budget, dear Sousa.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nepean–Carleton.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The member opposite wants to know if the Financial Accountability Office—so allow me to do so.

It says on page 2, “The government’s history of managing program spending below budget projections should more than offset the impact of lower revenue....” He further says that it appears that the province is on track to beat its deficit target. He also says, “In the three years following the recession, Ontario was able to achieve steady improvements in its fiscal position, reducing the deficit....” He goes on to explain that there are times that are challenging.

We recognize that. We’ve been saying that all along. As a result, we have had to redo and recalibrate our spending. That is why we have a line-by-line program review of all that we do—in a strategic way, not across-the-board cuts as proposed by the opposition, but ensuring that we stimulate the economy, ensuring that we protect those programs, and ensuring that we balance the books by 2017-18, as we are doing, and we’re on target to do just that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, I don’t know what book the minister read, but in the book that we were given, his numbers are wrong.

The FAO expects a $3.5-billion deficit. We’ve been telling them they’re wrong, and today the FAO confirmed that. In order to balance, he said, you have to reduce the deficit at “a rate of improvement nearly four times greater than the pace of the past four years.”

It’s clear that this repeated pattern of scandal and mismanagement is now coming home to roost for the people of Ontario. Ontario is at real risk of being stuck in a perpetual deficit under their watch.

Speaker, will the fall economic statement recognize the fiscal risks pointed out by the officer this morning and provide realistic numbers, unlike the fluffy projections we have been getting for the past two years?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The Conference Board of Canada has consistently, year over year, reaffirmed that Ontario’s representation and integrity of our numbers outpaced the rest of Canada.

We have been very open. We have, in all economic statements and in our budgets, been very clear about what those challenges are, what it is that we must do in order to achieve our balance. We have also been clear that we must invest in those initiatives that make us competitive, long term.

The member opposite would rather we fill in those very holes, that Eglinton Crosstown—the Minister of Transportation only today recognized the importance of making those investments, under budget, for the benefit of the people of Ontario. They didn’t want to do that. They don’t want to invest. They don’t want to provide for economic stimulus. They would rather we go back in time and, Mr. Speaker, we’re not going to do that.

We are looking forward to promoting more growth in the province of Ontario and balancing our books at the same time.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Back to the minister: Last week, the officer told us that the Hydro One sale will make Ontario’s books look better this year and then fall off the cliff in the years ahead. He has basically now reconfirmed that in his forecast today. This is important, because he stated Ontario’s revenue would be reduced by $2 billion in 2016-17 and reduced by a further $2.8 billion in 2017-18.

We know that their own law puts the asset proceeds into general revenues, not directly into the Trillium Trust. Now we know that they’re going to pay for this fiscal mismanagement with the Hydro sale, instead of infrastructure.

So I ask the minister to come clean. Isn’t the Hydro One sale really just a way to get one-time cash to cover over your record of waste, scandal and mismanagement before the next election?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s obvious that the critic for finance hasn’t really read the report. He’s making assumptions on Hydro One’s asset, which is not even baked into these conditions. He references—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Barrie, come to order. Thank you.

Carry on, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We have been very clear that, dollar for dollar, all of those proceeds are being reinvested into infrastructure, and that has been stated and reaffirmed by the Financial Accountability Officer in his first report, no less.

What the member opposite fails to see, or wishes not to, is in fact that we have taken steps necessary to control our spending. We have become the lowest-cost government anywhere in Canada as a result of those initiatives that we have taken. The FAO report has also affirmed that to be so.

We must do more to promote revenue, and we must do more to control our spending. We are doing all of that, and we will continue to do so.

Economic outlook

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Acting Premier. Today, Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer showed that the only way the Liberals can keep their promise to balance the budget is with more cuts.

The 2015 budget froze hospital budgets. We have seen what that looks like: firing nurses, closed beds and hospitals in gridlock. The FAO says that the only way the government can meet its targets is to cut even more. So how many more doctors and nurses will the Liberals be firing? How many more hospital beds will they close?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Actually, the FAO report noted that, in fact, controlled spending has occurred in this province. He has indicated that we have had to do some tough decisions—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, second time; member from Leeds–Grenville, first.

Please finish.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And he further noted that we have increased funding for health care, education and social programs that are so critical in our society. But we’re doing it in a very controlled manner and we’re ensuring that we don’t compromise the services that are important to Ontarians, while ensuring we also balance the books and take the necessary steps to be financially viable for the long term.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Liberals’ 2015 budget froze education spending, and we’ve seen the chaos that this has created. But the FAO says that to keep the promise to balance the books, the government will have to further slash education funding and close even more schools. We’ve already seen education workers fired and schools closed in communities across this province.

How much more chaos will children and families have to endure as this government continues to fire education workers and close schools?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The leader of the third party—it seems her favourite word of all time is “can’t.” She says we can’t balance, she says we can’t maximize value of public assets, and she says we can’t make investment in public transit, in her own community no less. It’s obvious that she’s so negative that she can’t even keep her team happy, and I can’t blame them either.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just a—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me.

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Are you serious, Gilles?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am. Let’s make sure the tone stays the way it should be in this place.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In the last budget, the government planned to slash over $3 billion in services over the next three years. Now the FAO says that the Liberals will have to cut even deeper in order to keep their promise. We’ve already seen nurses fired, education workers fired, hospital beds closed, schools closed. What other services are families in Ontario going to be losing with this government?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The FAO said the following, “In the three years following the recession, Ontario was able to achieve steady improvements in its fiscal position”—that was on page 8. He said that health care spending increased by 1.8%, well below the previous average pace of 3%, however, it’s increasing as opposed to decreasing; and education spending is projected to grow by 1.3%, nearly half the pace of previous years, but increasing still.

Spending in other programs is declining as necessary to ensure that we provide the appropriate services while still balancing the books, and we are doing just that. We are increasing and providing support where it’s necessary, ensuring that we provide the services the people of Ontario depend upon. We’ll continue to do that.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Acting Premier. When the Premier first announced her scheme to sell off Hydro One, Ed Clark said it was worth $15 billion. But the FAO showed that as of October, it’s only worth $11.9 billion. That’s a gap that will have to be filled if the Premier is going to keep her promise to build transit.

Will this government be slashing from other areas, putting another revenue-generating public asset on the auction block, or will they be breaking their promise to build transit and infrastructure? Will this Acting Premier tell us exactly how the Liberals are going to make up the difference?

Hon. Charles Sousa: The market has priced the deal and it’s at the high end, so the gap that you speak of isn’t the case. But, notwithstanding, what’s important to note is the tremendous amount of capital infusion into the Trillium Trust is being dedicated dollar for dollar for public transit and for the projects of priority in our municipalities to ensure that’s reinvested so we can get greater returns.

The Conference Board of Canada estimates that every dollar we invest in infrastructure and in these programs produces about $1.43 back. That’s much more than the current rate of return on Hydro One. At the same time, we own Hydro One, and we’ll get the benefit of that appreciation of values as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, when the Premier announced the plan to sell off Hydro One, she claimed that it would reduce the provincial debt. In fact, the sell-off will increase the debt. People won’t pay less for electricity; they’re going to be paying more. In the long term, it will mean less money, not more, for services that Ontarians rely on, like health care and education. It barely scratches the surface of what this province needs to invest in infrastructure and transit.

Will the Acting Premier and the Liberal government admit that Ontarians and the independent watchdogs are right, the government is wrong, and stop the sell-off of Hydro One?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the FAO even this morning reaffirmed the fact that while he was evaluating Hydro One, he did so on a stand-alone basis. He didn’t look at the merits, and he said specifically that he wasn’t going to.

But others have. Independent writers from the Globe and Mail, the Post and others have noted that the returns that will accrue to the province are much greater. The net benefit will be better for the province after we do this transaction.

He says the following: “This report does not seek to assess the merits of the decision” of Hydro One. He fully states, “The results of this analysis are sensitive to the timing of subsequent” activity, recognizing that there is more to be done in replacement of that forgone revenue. He says the “forecasts are subject to change in the financial performance of Hydro One,” which is obvious because we know Hydro One can do better. The impact on the balanced budget would depend on marketing conditions and policy decisions around the repayment of the sector and debt.

I can assure everyone in this House that the transaction that’s going to follow in the next few days—$1 billion of that goes to—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Financial Accountability Officer said the Hydro One sell-off won’t raise the money that the Premier promised. It won’t lower debt like the Premier promised. Every time we learn something new about the Hydro One sell-off, the deal gets worse and worse for Ontarians.

How bad does this deal have to get for the people of Ontario before this Liberal government does the right thing, steps up to the plate and pulls the plug on this terrible deal?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, in the Post today it talks about Hydro One and the upside of the sale. Maybe I can refer the member opposite to review and look at what other experts are saying with regard to this transaction. She’s only harping on the forgone revenue, which we acknowledged would be the case, as we provide in our prospectus and the report. But it is being mitigated and replaced by greater revenue and greater returns to the province on the other side.

The transaction pays down substantive debt, lowers costs, lowers interest and lowers risk to the government. It retains ownership of Hydro One to benefit us from the appreciation in value and possible dividends.

We’re also the government that will tax the system on an ongoing basis in the future. All of that is being retained, being protected, and the people and the ratepayers will still have the benefit of the OEB to control any exposure to the consumers.

Taxation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Speaker, it’s clear the minister intends to amend the Municipal Act to allow all municipalities to create a land transfer tax. This will double the amount of land taxes due at closing on the average home in Ontario to over $10,000.

For many Ontarians, this will crush their dreams of owning their own home. That’s why yesterday I tabled my motion calling on this House to take a stand against any new municipal land transfer taxes.

Is the minister so out of touch with the struggles of Ontario families that he thinks they have an extra $10,000 under the mattress to pay his double-dipping land tax?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I take no advice from the party that downloaded billions of dollars in services to the property tax base.

The member opposite knows very well that we are currently reviewing the Municipal Act and listening to input—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Again, I comment on the conversation that seems to be deteriorating and against what I’ve asked for in terms of names. It’s highly inappropriate, guys.

Let’s finish, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: What this is about, and what I’m asking myself and asking Ontarians to think about, is this: Do our municipalities have the tools they need to provide for the services their citizens want, and what options can municipalities have to get the job done?

Interjection.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Back to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing: Ontarians are sick and tired that the answer to every single question facing this government is to invent a new tax—a carbon tax, commuter tax, beer tax, pension tax. It all adds up to tax increases of $30.8 billion on their watch.

Now they want to tax the dream of home ownership. My motion says that enough is enough. Just because the minister has no plan to manage the issues raised by municipalities, that doesn’t give him the right to download the burden onto the backs of hard-working young families. Either the minister believes they should have the same ability as their parents and grandparents to save for their own home, or he doesn’t. Will he prove it, if he does, by supporting my motion on December 3?

Interjections.

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

Please finish.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We haven’t made any decisions yet. We’re listening carefully. But at the end of the day, it’s municipalities that need to decide what works best for their communities. That’s their job as responsible leaders.

I think it’s time that my friend came clean about his real motives here. His party has always stood for downloading more and more responsibilities to municipalities without any thought about how they’re supposed to deliver those services. As a former mayor of a small municipality, I am keenly aware of the damage caused by the previous PC government, which burdened Ontario’s 444 municipalities when they downloaded—

Interjection.

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

Wrap up, please.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Yes. The way his party treated municipalities when they were in power—they didn’t have a ministry of municipal affairs; they had a ministry of downloads—

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

New question.

Economic outlook

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Today’s FAO report shows that this government plans to balance its books by deeply cutting and slashing program spending because this minister’s revenue projections were way off. The 2015 budget showed Ontarians that the government is cutting program spending in real terms by 5.5% in other programs.

Now we have learned from the FAO that programs that are extremely important to the people of this province—Ontario families—like health and education are going to be cut even further. Yesterday, we learned that there are 16,000 children who have autism who are on a wait-list.

Minister, can you shed some light for Ontarians and tell them what program cuts are in store for them?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question from the member opposite and, again, I appreciate the work done by the FAO in recognizing that there are challenges that the province faces, as does Canada, for that matter, as do other parts and other economies around the world.

Ontario, notwithstanding—the FAO has reaffirmed this—has exceeded its targets. In fact, our ability to gain greater employment was at a faster pace than the United States. Our ability to control spending also outpaced the rest of Canada, but he noted that we are supporting health care and education and social programs.

When it comes to autism, we all recognize the great need that exists in our communities. The province of Ontario has invested over $140 million in supporting autism. We’ll continue to do that. That is not being sacrificed as we proceed to balance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Minister, you will not balance your books by 2017-18 because your revenue projections—for some reason, you built them into the economic forecasting using the wrong GDP levels. The only way that you’re going to balance your budget in 2017-18 is by hurting the people of this province.

Mr. Speaker, since this Liberal government took power, Ontarians have seen hospital budgets frozen, nurses fired, heartbreaking wait-lists growing for services like autism therapy, all of which have had a significant impact on the people of this province.

With today’s FAO report showing significant risk in this government’s fiscal plan, I have to ask the minister: What cuts are coming? Will more nurses be fired? Will more schools be closed? Will poverty funding be cut again? The people of this province have a right to know what’s in store for them.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, the comments made are just untrue.

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: No. The fact is, we have based our assumptions and our forecasts on economists from across Canada. We’ve taken their projections and we pared them down by an additional point. We did so every year. In fact, last year, revenues were down by $2.2 billion and still we exceeded our targets because of what we had to do to recalibrate and control our spending. We’ll continue to do that even now.

Contrary to what the member just said, the FAO very clearly stated that we’re on track, that we’re able to meet our targets notwithstanding some of the challenges before us.

Furthermore, it is questionable how it is—and it’s why it’s so difficult—that the member opposite only sees it from one point of view. We must take a balanced point, Mr. Speaker, and that’s to ensure that we look at the benefits and the work that’s necessary to support the people of the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Before we move on, let’s make something clear: On the edge, there are always insinuations, whether they are—that we can’t say it if we say it right out, and if you try to say it in another way. I’m just going to ask all members, including the minister, that it’s pretty obvious that there could be an insinuation in what was just said. I’m going to caution all members to stop trying to find words that you think you can say.

Interjection: Ask him to withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you don’t mind, I’d like to rule.

I’m asking the minister to withdraw, under the premise that I did think that it was an inappropriate comment.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m using this as a moment for all moments to make an attempt to try to elevate the debate. No matter what, that should be your first focus.

Economic outlook

Mr. Yvan Baker: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Something that I have heard consistently from my constituents in Etobicoke Centre is how important it is that we manage taxpayer dollars wisely and that we balance the budget so that we can continue to invest in the services that the people of Ontario need and rely on. That’s why I’m so proud to work with the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and other members of caucus to make sure we do just that. I’m someone who’s a management consultant, someone who has taught at York University in the business school, and I share the view of my constituents that this is truly important.

On that note, Minister, I understand that this morning the Financial Accountability Officer released a report titled An Assessment of Ontario’s Medium-term Economic and Fiscal Outlook. Providing independent analysis on the state of Ontario’s economy is a key component of Mr. LeClair’s mandate. I know that our government first established this office in 2013 to further our commitment to fiscal transparency and accountability. I believe that Ontario is the only province in Canada to appoint such an officer.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, could you please provide my constituents and the people of Ontario with your update on the report released this morning by the Financial Accountability Officer?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I thank the member for the question. I first want to thank Stephen LeClair, Ontario’s Financial Accountability Officer, for his report. The FAO serves an important public service in providing independent analysis to the assembly about the state of the province’s finances. I enjoy a positive working relationship with Mr. LeClair and I welcome and value his independent analysis of our province’s finances.

The FAO’s report released today affirms our 2015-16 deficit target. This is the lowest deficit projection in Ontario since the onset of the global recession. Mr. LeClair further acknowledges in his analysis that eliminating the deficit by 2017-18 is achievable, and highlights that the province will be on track to beat this deficit target yet again.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yvan Baker: Back to the Minister of Finance: I’m pleased to hear that our government has established a good working relationship with Mr. LeClair’s office and I’m glad that Mr. LeClair has affirmed a few things. One is our ability to balance the budget in one of his scenarios—agree that we’ll meet our deficit target of $8.5 billion for 2015-16 and acknowledge that we have managed program spending below budget projections.

However, I’m sure, Minister, that the people I represent in Etobicoke Centre would like to hear a little bit more about the specifics of the report. I understand that Mr. LeClair’s report focuses on Ontario’s fiscal and economic situation, taking into account projections in our 2015 budget. The report also examines certain economic trends over the past 15 years to provide historical context for the province’s fiscal outlook.

Minister, could you please comment on Ontario’s progress, both on an economic and on a fiscal basis?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you again to the member for the question. Ontario’s economy continues to grow at a modest pace, despite a challenging and changing global landscape.

In his report, the FAO points at several external factors over the last decade that have had an impact on Ontario’s economy. However, the FAO states that following the recession, “employment rebounded relatively quickly” in Ontario. He also pointed out that “the pace of Ontario’s job recovery following the global recession was much quicker than in the US or other G7 countries.”

From a fiscal perspective, the FAO also applauds our ability to manage program spending. In his report, he points out, on page 12, that “in 2013-14 and 2014-15, program spending was $1.2 billion lower each year than the original budget plan projection.... As a result, it is reasonable to expect the government will continue to be able to manage program spending for 2015-16 below the original budget plan....”

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the FAO once again for his hard work, and I look forward to continuing our positive relationship.

Pesticides

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Yesterday, we heard from Ontario’s Acting Environmental Commissioner that this Liberal government has been ignoring the small things that matter. Speaker, we all know why: They’re so busy being preoccupied managing their blunders, like the sell-off of Hydro One, and scandals, like the Sudbury by-election, rather than being busy with the environment.

In her report, the commissioner highlighted several areas that the government is failing our environment, one being that “the many gaps in knowledge that still exist on this subject [of neonicotinoids] need to be addressed promptly.” She goes on to state, “The ECO encourages the Ministry of the Environment and Climate Change to fund independent research examining neonicotinoids, and their effects on food chains and ecosystems from an Ontario perspective.”

My question for the minister should have a straightforward answer. Does he agree with the Environmental Commissioner and that there needs to be more Ontario-focused, science-based research conducted with regard to neonics?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment and Climate Change.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker, and to the member opposite. It’s a peculiar question, since the Environmental Commissioner’s report last year demanded that the government take action to reduce neonicotinoids, based on the large volume of evidence globally.

In the intervening year, from Harvard University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Sussex and the University of Toronto, there is a larger body of research on neonicotinoids. As a matter of fact, we’re doing research on our water systems, and Quebec is in the middle of major research, where they found systemic neurotoxic pesticides in all 20 of their rivers.

We have said that we’re applying the precautionary principle. We continue to monitor, support and work with the best research centres in the world. The evidence is on the side of the prudent action we are taking, which is to start to reduce, annually, the amount of this very dangerous toxin.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Clearly, Speaker, the minister’s puffed-up rhetoric is showing that he is continuing to ignore the Environmental Commissioner. She has specifically asked the minister to conduct Ontario-based, science-based research, and you know what, Speaker? We need to see this minister focusing in on the policies regarding neonicotinoids here in Ontario. But this Liberal government is moving ahead, without the facts, and they’re banning them in the agricultural sector.

My question to the minister is this: Will he heed the advice and the recommendation from the Environmental Commissioner, and will he agree to halt the ban on neonicotinoids until Ontario-based research is completed? That is what the commissioner is asking for. Will he do it?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I don’t know where the member opposite has been. There have been several studies published on Ontario, including by Purdue University. The member should read some of the things I sent her, because of the 19 studies done by Purdue University, one of the leading agricultural universities, five of them were done in Ontario. Sussex university—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows better than to do that, and I would like to hear the answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: —Sussex university, Guelph university, the University of Minnesota—Dr. Marla Spivak, one of the world’s leading experts.

Mr. Speaker, we’re not banning them. That is completely not true. I have visited about three dozen farms; I’ve talked to farmers. There are many farmers that are using it. What the opposition is proposing is that we should use pesticides prophylactically where there are not wireworms and there are not grubs.

Could the member explain why we should use pesticides where the very pests that they’re supposed to address are not even present? Because that’s the position of her party.

Autism treatment

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Acting Premier. Let’s take a trip down memory lane on this government’s record of wait-lists for autism services. In 2004, the Deputy Premier said, “The waiting lists are simply too long and there are too many kids who aren’t getting what they need.” Five years later, the Deputy Premier said that “clearly the wait-list is not acceptable.” Yesterday, the same Deputy Premier suggested that 16,000 kids on a wait-list for autism services was government progress.

The government cannot plead ignorance. They have known for years about the devastating impact of these wait-lists. Will the Acting Premier admit that this government has failed kids with autism and their families?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I sincerely appreciate the question and the concerns that we all share in this House.

I understand that families caring for young people with autism indeed face unique challenges. We recognize that wait-lists for services remain a concern. In recent years, the prevalence of autism has increased from one in 100 to one in 68 children. We’re working hard to address this issue because we know that we need to make further progress for these children, especially for their families.

Our government has introduced a range of programs, as the member knows, to help children and youth with autism, to build system capacity, to improve supports in schools, and support families. This year, we’re investing over $190 million in autism services, an increase of over $100 million since 2004.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Back to the Acting Premier: Yesterday, the Minister of Children and Youth Services said that she didn’t think there was a decrease in the number of spots available for ABA and IBI services, but the estimates show that the number of spaces has decreased for ABA services.

Families have made plea after plea to this minister to deal with the wait-list, to ensure that kids are getting the supports they need. Parents and kids have had enough. They’ve had enough excuses; they’ve had enough talk; they’ve had enough studies; they’ve had enough panels. Now is the time for action.

Will the Acting Premier instruct the minister to immediately end wait-lists for children with autism?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I think one of the things we need to recognize is that there’s a variety of ways in which children with autism are supported. One of the things that we have done is we’ve actually invested in ABA specialists in each school board. Those ABA specialists at each school board are able to work with the teachers, the EAs and the spec ed consultants to make sure that can be incorporated into the programs, into the specialized support that each student has.

There is more than one way to support the needs of a child with autism. They actually have quite different needs. That’s how the school system deals with the school-age kids: to look at the needs of the individual child and provide appropriate—

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

Immigration francophone

M. Grant Crack: Ma question est pour la meilleure ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones.

Cette semaine, partout en Ontario et au Canada, les communautés francophones célèbrent la troisième Semaine nationale de l’immigration francophone. C’est l’occasion de mettre en avant les réalisations de notre gouvernement.

Est-ce que la ministre peut nous mettre à jour sur les contributions du gouvernement en ce qui a trait à l’immigration francophone en Ontario?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Premièrement, je voudrais remercier le bon député de Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, qui est un fier défenseur des droits des francophones. Je voudrais aussi prendre l’occasion de féliciter le nouveau ministre de la Citoyenneté et de l’Immigration, John McCallum, qui vient d’être nommé ministre.

Notre gouvernement travaille très fort sur le dossier de l’immigration francophone. En Ontario, nous recevons le plus d’immigrants francophones hors Québec. Nous accueillons en fait 16 fois plus d’immigrants francophones que le Nouveau-Brunswick et neuf fois plus que le Manitoba.

Les choses avancent de bon pas. En juin 2015, nous avons établi un groupe d’experts francophones pour faire des recommandations à notre gouvernement. Nous comptons d’ailleurs sur le gouvernement fédéral et M. le ministre McCallum pour qu’ils nous aident à atteindre notre cible de 5 %. En retour, nous l’aiderons à atteindre sa cible d’immigration francophone hors Québec de 4,4 %.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci. Question?

M. Grant Crack: Merci encore à la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones pour sa réponse. La question de l’immigration est, comme vous le savez, une question importante pour l’ensemble de la communauté francophone. Au printemps dernier, nous avons annoncé un objectif de 5 % d’immigration francophone en Ontario.

Monsieur le Président, je souhaiterais que la ministre nous explique comment nous allons atteindre cet objectif.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Oui, en fait, nous avons cette cible de 5 % et nous travaillons en étroite collaboration avec le ministère des Affaires civiques, de l’Immigration et du Commerce international.

Entre autres, nous avons développé une stratégie de promotion et de recrutement international francophone en Europe et en Afrique. Nous travaillons avec Citoyenneté et Immigration Canada et leur nouveau système électronique, appelé Entrée express, pour gérer des demandes d’immigration économique, et nous finançons un portail Internet qui met en valeur 19 communautés à travers l’Ontario pour y favoriser l’immigration francophone. Je vous assure que le travail est acharné et que notre gouvernement poursuit ce travail-là.

Probation services

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is for the Attorney General. There’s a quote that I’d like to read: “Ontario communities must ... remain safe. Because every child in this province should be able to walk home without fear, and no parent should face an unthinkable loss.” That was a promise that the Premier made in the throne speech in 2013.

Anastasia Kuzyk, Nathalie Warmerdam and Carol Culleton had families—families that have suffered an unthinkable loss. Despite this promise, the fact is crown attorneys aren’t even notified when convicted offenders refuse to sign their probation orders.

Mr. Speaker, can the Attorney General explain why crown attorneys are not being told when offenders refuse to sign their probation orders?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: First of all—and I’ll say this again—this is a real tragedy. Our thoughts continue to be with the families.

As this matter is before the courts, you will understand that I cannot comment on it.

Domestic violence is of concern to all the communities. It is a serious issue that crosses every social boundary and will not be tolerated in Ontario. Our government is committed to continuing to work with violence-against-women organizations and the professional health, education and justice sectors to find ways to prevent domestic violence, to support victims and to address the justice system response.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Laurie Scott: Back to the Attorney General: Ontarians do deserve a criminal justice system that is robust, a system that is far more vigilant and responsive in monitoring dangerous offenders. After what happened in Renfrew county, Ontarians are left with unanswered questions.

The truth is that there were so many things that this government could have done to prevent the tragedy in Renfrew county. The government is adamant that probation orders are enforceable, but Mr. Borutski thumbed his nose at our criminal justice system, and he refused to sign the order. You have an opportunity to make the system better.

My question only needs a simple yes or no: Will the Attorney General issue a directive to the crown attorneys to bring offenders to court when they refuse to sign their probation orders?

Interjections.

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

Attorney General.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a great question. Again, yesterday, the three ministries involved had a meeting to address exactly this question. The signature of the condition to release someone on probation is not a condition to keep someone or not release them on probation.

The probation is the decision of the court, and there is the condition—also some are prescribed, some are not prescribed and are added by the judge. Again, the signature of this condition is not a condition to release someone or not.

Air-rail link

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today, we’re visited in the Legislature by Mr. Daryl Frimer, a resident from the constituency of Parkdale–High Park, who owns a home near the UP Express tracks. During the construction of the UPX, significant damage—$27,000—was done to his home.

This homeowner, like many others living near the rail line, did his due diligence in attaining three quotes from contractors to assess how much repairs would cost. He submitted those quotes to his claim with Metrolinx. However, like in other similar cases, Metrolinx is pressuring Mr. Frimer to accept a settlement that is half of what the quotes said the repair will cost.

Why is Metrolinx refusing to pay people what its own process has determined they are owed?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I do thank the member from Parkdale–High Park for raising this particular question and I respect the fact that the constituent from Parkdale–High Park is here today.

While I personally don’t know the specific details of this individual case, I do understand that there has been correspondence that has gone back and forth between the member and Metrolinx regarding this particular case. I think it’s also important—every member in this Legislature would recognize the importance—while provincial agencies are responsive to these kinds of requests—that we ensure, for the sake of protecting taxpayers, that the scope of work that’s required as a result of something that might have occurred is, in fact, accurate.

My understanding is that this is a process that is still ongoing, but I do appreciate the member standing up for her community and for asking this question today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Mr. Frimer is a taxpayer, by the way, and has submitted over 100 emails to Metrolinx at this point.

Metrolinx has also known that the construction of the UP Express would damage nearby homes, yet has refused to take responsibility and adequately compensate all homeowners living near the line. What we’ve consistently seen since the first piledriving started along the line is that any claim put forward by a homeowner ends up being an absolute nightmare. The homeowner is not only expected to prove that the damage happened as a result of the construction and arrange for three independent quotes from contractors to assess what the damage would cost to fix, but then, whatever that amount ends up being, Metrolinx consistently offers a fraction of that price. This is absolutely unacceptable.

When will Metrolinx start adequately compensating homeowners like Mr. Frimer for damage caused by the construction of the UP Express, which, by the way, runs empty?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: In my follow-up answer to the member from Parkdale my answer essentially remains the same: What I believe in this case is the most important—along with making sure that all provincial agencies, including Metrolinx, are responsive to these kinds of matters that get raised, and very respectful of the challenges that some homeowners in your community and perhaps others are facing—is that we get it right. This, from my perspective, would also mean that the scope of work that’s required as a result of something that Metrolinx might have done is actually reflective of the damage itself. There needs to be a very direct correlation between the two.

I respect the fact that some constituents from Parkdale–High Park have provided quotes. My understanding is that Metrolinx continues to work itself through the process. I don’t know of the other cases that you’re raising in this particular case.

To the member’s final point about the UP Express: Let’s just remember that’s an infrastructure project delivered on time and on budget by this government.

Agri-food industry

Mr. Peter Z. Milczyn: My question this morning is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. The agri-food industry is an important contributor to our economy and continues to be a priority of our government. Through our government’s targeted investments in the agri-food sector, we’ve been able to foster growth and help companies boost productivity, expand capacity and grow market access for processed goods.

In a fiercely competitive economy, it’s important that producers in Ontario have a dynamic and innovative business climate in which they can afford to invest and grow their operations. We know from our stakeholders that one key to expanding production in the province is through processing capacity. Ontario is already one of North America’s leadi