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

December 10, 2015

41st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2015-Dec-10 (PDF)

L134 - Thu 10 Dec 2015 / Jeu 10 déc 2015

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 10 December 2015 Jeudi 10 décembre 2015

Orders of the Day

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Health Information Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Introduction of Visitors

Member’s birthday

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Climate change

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Correctional facilities

Correctional facilities

La francophonie

Concussions

Child protection

Arts and cultural funding

Fire safety

Home care

GO Transit

Taxation

Correction of record

Visitors

Member’s birthday

Legislative pages

Notice of dissatisfaction

Deferred Votes

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

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Royal assent / Sanction royale

Season’s greetings

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Highway improvement

Jay Keddy

Commotions cérébrales

Dutch Treats

History of law in Windsor and Essex county

Jim Chaplin

Carpooling

Nanjing Massacre anniversary

Seasonal events

Reports by Committees

Select Committee on Sexual Violence and Harassment

Introduction of Bills

Microdistillers Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les microdistillateurs

Petitions

Medical practitioners

Partner Assault Response Program

Animal protection

Health care funding

Health care funding

GO Transit

Disaster relief

Lung health

Health care funding

Lung health

Health care funding

Health care funding

GO Transit

Motions

Appointment of Acting Integrity Commissioner

Appointment of Integrity Commissioner

Wearing of wristbands

Private Members’ Public Business

Protection of Vulnerable Seniors in the Community Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des personnes âgées vulnérables dans la collectivité

Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le comité consultatif de la Loi Rowan

Cy and Ruby’s Act (Parental Recognition), 2015 / Loi Cy et Ruby de 2015 sur la reconnaissance parentale

Protection of Vulnerable Seniors in the Community Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des personnes âgées vulnérables dans la collectivité

Rowan’s Law Advisory Committee Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur le comité consultatif de la Loi Rowan

Cy and Ruby’s Act (Parental Recognition), 2015 / Loi Cy et Ruby de 2015 sur la reconnaissance parentale

Committee sittings

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

Budget Measures Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur les mesures budgétaires

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 9, 2015, on the motion for third reading of the following bill:

Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes / Projet de loi 144, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre les mesures budgétaires et à édicter ou à modifier d’autres lois.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to have this opportunity to voice my concerns on Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes. I was scheduled to speak at the time of second reading of this bill but, at that point, it was referred to committee. I think that in my brief comments that I have time for this morning, I want to concentrate on the nature and the situation of the passage of this bill, given its length and complexity.

The bill was referred to committee and the second reading was shortened. Unfortunately, the government shut down debate on this bill and rushed it through committee with only six hours of public hearings.

As I say, I want to spend the brief time I have to look at some of the issues around it. Just to give people an idea of why the mechanics of the bill are important to recognize: Bill 144 is a 167-page bill; it looks like this, at 167 pages. It is really quite a lengthy, in-depth document. It’s to implement budget measures after the budget itself passed back in June. On November 18, the Minister of Finance spoke for only 16 minutes, and by November 30 there was the introduction of a time allocation motion.

It identified that this bill would be passed, by the process we are undertaking right now, December 10, as the end of third reading. So it had the opportunity, three weeks of opportunity, for the government to allow for debate on this bill.

I want to put that in the context of a bill such as Bill 9, Ending Coal for Cleaner Air Act. It was introduced on July 9, 2014, and it was passed November 23, 2015, 72 weeks after its introduction, almost a year and a half. What’s interesting about that is that it wasn’t that it was a contentious bill; in fact, the opposite. It wasn’t that it was so lengthy or detailed or complex, but, rather, it was an opportunity for the government to use it as a photo op. There was no opposition to the bill, so it could have passed within weeks or months of its introduction.

It’s an interesting example of the fact that in the 2003 election, we had already begun the decommissioning of a coal-fired plant. As the government, we promised in that election to be coal-free by 2014. But the Liberals told people in their election promises that it would be done by 2007—an unrealistic promise, obviously, broken by the Liberals. What we actually experienced was that in fact, the coal plants had closed by 2014.

So I just give that as a contrast to a bill such as Bill 144 and its complexity, and the speed with which it is being put forward in this Legislature.

This bill, Bill 144, would implement measures contained in the 2015 budget, enact five new statutes, and amend other statutes. It has 23 schedules. The issue is that it covers many different situations and issues. I’m just going to identify a few in the moments that I have, to be able to give people a sense of the complexity of this bill, and contrasting that with the speed with which this has made it through to third reading today.

I referenced a moment ago that there are 23 schedules, and each one of them could be, in itself, a bill. They deal with things as diverse as the Assessment Act; the City of Toronto Act; the Electricity Act, which deals with the debt retirement charge for commercial and industrial users; the Financial Administration Act, and the question of a transfer for payments for businesses; the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act—under it, the Ontario Economic Forecast Council is dissolved, so the Ministry of Finance will continue to consult but with their own experts and at their own discretion; the Government Advertising Act, for an error in the French translation.

But the one that’s probably going to affect the greatest number of people is the Horse Racing Licence Act. Here, there are many significant changes, including dissolving the Ontario Racing Commission. This means that it will be transferred to the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario through the registrar. This will then make rules for horse racing, racetracks and off-track betting facilities in Ontario, and enables the registrar to issue, suspend and revoke licences for jockeys, trainers, grooms and other horse racing professionals.

Much has been said in this House on the issue of horse racing in this province. What it boils down to is 55,000 jobs that are in that sector. The notion that it can be relegated to the kind of short shrift it is getting through this process is something that people should understand.

In the moment that is left to me, I want to tell you about the consultation process. Witnesses were to appear before the committee on Tuesday, December 1, each witness to receive five minutes. The deadline for written submissions was Thursday, December 3, and on Monday, December 7, the amendments which “have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall, without further debate or amendment, put every question necessary....”

What this meant was that we sat in the committee room and simply deemed that the discussion and amendments had been dealt with, and we would consider this now at third reading. So here we are with Bill 144, squeezed through the process to accommodate the government.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure, this morning, to add a few comments on the record regarding Bill 144, the budget bill. The first thing I want to put on the record: I will quote from a letter from Jennifer Clement, a nurse practitioner from my riding who is the director of the very first nurse practitioner-led clinic. I’m very proud that the very first nurse practitioner-led clinic was in Sudbury. It is a great place. They do great work. They look after thousands of people who did not have access to primary care before, and they do this in a way that is rated top-notch.

Whenever they do a survey of their clients, it always comes out that clients love them, the system loves them and the clinic works.

But we have an issue—and I’ll quote from Jennifer. She had discussed with me the problem the clinic had “recruiting a nurse practitioner for a vacant maternity leave position which has necessitated the entire team pitching in to cover that patient load and the strain it has placed on the team. We also discussed the fact that due to financial constraints, our budget has remained unchanged for over six years yet costs around us continue to rise due to cost-of-living increases.”

Things have not improved. Throughout the system, one in five nurse practitioner positions in primary care is vacant. Why is that? It’s because the government made a promise during the last election campaign. They promised that they were going to look at the salaries and compensation of nurse practitioners. Nurse practitioners working in primary care haven’t seen a penny of change in their compensation for the last eight years. Yet, during those eight years, the scope of practice of nurse practitioners has changed dramatically.

You will remember, Speaker, that they used to prescribe from a list—I don’t know who ever dreamed that up, but it certainly did not work. They now have open prescribing, and prescribe whatever is most appropriate, except for narcotics. They never used to be able to look after a patient in the hospital; now they are often the primary providers of care in our hospitals. They work in our emergency rooms. They work in our CCACs. They work in our long-term-care homes.

But the problem is that as new positions were created in our hospitals, in the CCACs and in our long-term-care homes—those salaries were basically rolled out with an understanding that they should be paid more, given that the scope of practice and responsibility had increased. But the salaries of the ones in primary care, the ones who give us access to the rest of the health care system, have been frozen for eight years, and that’s wrong. If you look through the different primary care models, whether it be community health centres, aboriginal health access centres, community-led nurse practitioner clinics or community family health teams, their salaries have not moved.

All of the primary care sector has been frozen. I highlighted nurse practitioners, but things are no better for dietitians. If you go through the health care system and you look at the number of vacant positions for a nutritionist or dietitian, it is really hard for an interdisciplinary team to do their work the way they’re supposed to when they cannot recruit. Why is that, Speaker? It’s because they have not seen a penny increase in one sector of the health care system, that is primary care—while the other sectors haven’t seen a bonanza or anything like that; don’t get me wrong.

We’re talking about a very modest increase. But over the eight-year period, those modest increases make a discrepancy of over tens of thousands of dollars sometimes between what you would get for Jennifer, who has been a nurse practitioner for the last eight years.

Had she stayed in her position at the hospital as a registered nurse, she would have better wages, she would have a good pension plan with HOOPP, and she would have a good set of benefits. She has chosen to go back to work, pay for her schooling, become a nurse practitioner, offer access to thousands of people who did not have access to primary care before by working in an underserviced area, and yet how do we compensate her for that? Less than she would have made. This has to be changed. We have a budget coming, and those issues have to be addressed.

I’m not the only one saying this, Speaker. We have received—and I’m sure all of us have received—hundreds of emails. We’ve received letters from physicians. Dr. Lori Chalklin, Dr. Stephen Duncan, Dr. Alicia Gallaccio, Dr. Dana Pintea, Dr. Kim Walsh, Dr. David Wallik, Dr.

Chris Williams—and the list goes on and on, Speaker—all say the same thing: that if you want primary care to do what it’s meant to do, to offer access, to help with disease prevention and health promotion, to help people take charge of their own health, then you need to fund those teams in a way that allows them to do recruitment and retention of their highly capable staff. But none of this is happening in Bill 144, in the budget bill.

This week I had the opportunity to talk with the occupational therapists. They have put forward a very good model that would make interdisciplinary rehab teams—so think physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, kinesiologists, and I am missing one that will come to me shortly—and make sure that those teams are available to people who live in long-term-care homes. The way the changes have been made to physiotherapy payments has wiped out access for the people in long-term care to an interdisciplinary rehab team. But they make such a big difference, Speaker.

If you can give the patient in long-term care access to an interdisciplinary rehab team, people who need to be fed will be able to feed themselves because the occupational therapist will show them adaptations they can make so that they can hold their fork or their spoon and they can hold their bowl and feed themself even if they are hemiplegic or had a stroke. They have a lifetime of knowledge and skills that help people stay as functional and independent as possible.

It’s the same thing with—rather than having a two-person transfer, if the person can help themself, you only need a one-person transfer. It’s the same thing with toileting, transferring in and out of the tub; it’s the same thing with a number of activities of daily living that occupational therapists, physiotherapists, speech-language pathologists certainly—you know, we look at how frustrating it is for people who cannot communicate what their needs are. If you can’t communicate, no wonder you get angry and act out, and then they get overmedicated and we spend millions of dollars on anti-psychotic drugs for people who just need an opportunity to communicate.

This is what speech-language pathologists do. They give people who cannot communicate an opportunity to say what they want, to be heard, to be understood. And all of a sudden, once you’re able to communicate, the frustration goes away. The acting out goes away. The need for anti-psychotic medication—that was not needed in the first place—goes away—and the number of falls. They make a huge difference.

But yet again, we have a budget that has changed the way rehab dollars are allocated, in the worst possible format, so that none of those services are available to people living in long-term-care homes anymore, and that’s wrong.

This budget bill had an opportunity to right this wrong, and it needs to be changed so that the funding model—we’re not asking for more dollars here, Speaker. I want you to fully understand that. We’re not asking for more dollars. We’re asking for dollars that already flow, to be accessible in ways that are not accessible right now, so that it would change the level of activity, the level of independence, of tens of thousands of people in our long-term-care homes. But this budget bill does not allow us to do that.

I have to put a little bit on the record regarding the OMA and physician compensation. Speaker, nothing good comes from a unilateral agreement. Nothing good comes when you refuse to talk. What they’re asking for is the same thing as every other workers’ group. Yes, I know that physicians are well compensated, and, yes, I know that they are part of the 10%. This is not what the discussion is about. The discussion is about a group of very important workers in our communities—physicians—being able to have an opportunity to negotiate an agreement—an agreement that nobody will like, but everybody will be able to live with.

This is wrong. The fact that the government won’t let them have their say, won’t let them have a chance to negotiate, is bringing all sorts of unrest into our health care system that is not good. I know the Minister of Health will be interested in changing that. He understands the importance of having a good and trusting relationship between the care providers and the patients. You do this by bringing forward respect. You do this by bringing forward opportunities to be heard and to settle things so that everybody has an agreement they can live with.

Speaker, I also have to bring forward that flatlining the budgets of our hospitals for year after year—we’re looking at year five and year six—is causing a lot of hardship. Some of our bigger ones are still managing relatively okay, but most of our community hospitals are having a tough time. What has been happening is that anything that is not acute hospital care is being shifted into the community, where it has no oversight, where it has no accountability, where it has no transparency. We’re not opposed to transferring care into the community where it makes sense, but we are opposed to having it done when there is no framework for transparency, accountability, and maintaining quality.

I have nothing but respect for the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. They’re trying hard. But their mandate for out-of-hospital services is very narrow. To have this one agency that is supposed to be the guardian of quality care, of transparency, of accountability—this is not happening, Speaker. CPSO does a good job; they do a good job within their mandate.

But what we had before in our hospitals, with freedom of access of information, with Ombudsman oversight—which I hope will come pretty soon—with boards of directors, with being able to have a person or a department in place that looks at your complaint—all of this is gone.

I cannot FOI the out-of-hospital premises. I cannot be sure that there will be a person there who will handle a complaint if there is one. I certainly know that you cannot escalate this anywhere. There is no transparency; there is no accountability. This is wrong. It has to be fixed. This bill would allow us to make those kinds of changes because of the number of bills that it opens up, but it is not in there.

Another promise that was made through a budget—as you will remember, Speaker, when we were in a minority Parliament, we were able to negotiate a five-day wait time for people waiting for home care. We did not like many parts of what they had in their budget, but we agreed to support a Liberal budget on the promise that the tens of thousands of people who were waiting for home care would receive it within five days. Well, the Auditor General told us the result of that. The result of that is that people wait 195 days before they get home care.

For children waiting for children’s services, we’re talking over two years for speech-language pathology, and over two years for occupational therapy and physiotherapy. For a kid who is two, three or four years old, this is half their life that they have spent on a wait-list to get the services they need. Those are opportunities lost. This is a promise that is being broken each and every day.

We have an opportunity with this budget bill to fix that, to say that there will be a commitment that nobody who needs home care will wait more than five days. Most people are being discharged from hospital with the promise that home care will follow. But if home care doesn’t follow, their needs don’t go away. It’s not because they’ve been discharged from the hospital that a miracle has happened going through the threshold of those doors and all of a sudden all is fine. They were discharged with a promise of a care plan that included home care, which doesn’t show up.

If it does finally come together, the number of missed visits, the number of missed appointments, the number of appointments that do not come when they’re supposed to come—because if you’re supposed to be getting home care to help you get out of bed in the morning and it’s 3 o’clock in the afternoon before the PSW shows up, it is no good. If you’re supposed to get somebody to help put you to bed at night but the PSW comes at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, it’s still no good. This is what we’re facing.

We have an opportunity to commit to a five-day wait time for home care. This was a commitment that was made through a budget. This was a commitment that was made very publicly. This is a commitment that is being broken each and every day for the tens of thousands of people who are waiting for home care.

There are other things that I wanted to talk about but I see that time is going away. Right now, we have a campaign led by our midwives that says that we don’t need to put antibiotics in the eyes of newborns. There are very limited cases where this could help, but most of the time—99% of the time—we should not do this. If we stop doing this, as the best practice is telling us, we would save $618,000 a year on medication that is not appropriate for newborns and should not be used.

The $618,000 means that—remember the $200,000 that the OPP is going to save by moving the helicopter from Sudbury to Orillia, putting the people of the northeast at risk each and every day? Lots of us like to go into the bush. Winter is coming. There will be snowshoeing, skiing, trappers and snowmobilers, and sometimes we get in trouble—and it’s dark at 4 o’clock at night in my neck of the woods. This helicopter is going to be no good to us. Well, that $618,000 would pay for that helicopter three times, because they’re saving $200,000.

There is lots of opportunity for saving. It is disappointing that it is not being acted upon and that the opportunity to make modifications to that bill is next to nil.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Further debate? Last call for further debate.

Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 26, 2015, I’m now required to put the question.

Mr. Bradley has moved third reading of Bill 144,

An Act to implement Budget measures and to enact or amend certain other statutes. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

All those opposed to the motion will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

A recorded vote is being required. It will be deferred until after question period today.

Third reading vote deferred.

Health Information Protection Act, 2015 / Loi de 2015 sur la protection des renseignements sur la santé

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 3, 2015, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, to make certain related amendments and to repeal and replace the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004 / Projet de loi 119, Loi visant à modifier la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements personnels sur la santé, à apporter certaines modifications connexes et à abroger et à remplacer la Loi de 2004 sur la protection des renseignements sur la qualité des soins.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Speaker, I’m on my third day of my one-hour lead; it seems that we keep running out of time. But I’m sure today we’ll be able to finish off the lead with regard to this bill.

I’ll just go through what the bill will do. Basically, the bill will create an electronic health records system that will enable health information custodians to store and use a patient’s health information over an electronic interface. This effortless exchange of health information is designed to improve patient care. It will become an integrated electronic system by creating the prescribed organization as an entity under this bill to manage personal health information in electronic format and to create and maintain an electronic health record. The prescribed organization is intended to become the hub of information.

Before I carry on with what the bill will consist of, seeing that I only have a few minutes left, I’ll just raise some concerns that have come forward from some stakeholders, something that we can discuss further in debate and as we head into committee and see if we can either tighten up the rules or find a solution that will alleviate the concerns of the stakeholders and/or strengthen the bill.

The integration of electronic health records is a much-needed step forward, but there are a few concerns. Many stakeholders will use the system and have great insight into how it currently functions, although collaboration is required with the development of the framework and the implementation if the government hopes for this legislation to become a success. So the key is collaboration.

Patients and providers should play a key role in this process, alongside the government, as they are the ones who deal with the system on a daily basis and hold all of the insights into its functions. There needs to be clarity on how the new requirements in Bill 119 will work in a practical and clinical context.

The bill creates a series of new reporting obligations where health information custodians are required to notify the Information and Privacy Commissioner and patients when dealing with a breach. These reporting obligations on the unauthorized collection and use of personal health records seem to differ between electronic and written files. Where possible, these obligations should remain consistent with any type of file.

Concern has also arisen about the feasibility of the new reporting requirement in the case where a consent directive is overridden. The concern over the feasibility of the new reporting requirement arises when dealing with an individual who made the consent that was overridden, who threatens harm to others.

Within a clinical setting, it still remains unclear when custodians or doctors have a reporting obligation to the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Although the provision where privacy breaches are to be reported to the related colleges is a good thing, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario suggests the language be changed to remain consistent with the mandatory reporting provisions in the Health Professions Procedural Code of the RHPA and the Public Hospitals Act, to avoid confusion as to when reporting is provided.

It remains unclear what would happen if the doctor were to provide the college with inaccurate information, and if the onus is on the college to ensure the accuracy of the information provided, how could the college ensure the information is correct? Clarification remains for what information is contemplated for collection beyond what the college currently collects from Ontario physicians.

The changes to the Quality of Care Information Protection Act are very much due, although further information about the circumstances in which critical incidents may be restricted from being reviewed under the QCIPA by a quality-of-care committee is required.

As many of the changes are required, questions remain about how these changes will operate in actual practice—for instance, the disclosure of information about a monitored drug to a doctor when determining future prescriptions.

Those are some of the concerns that have been brought forward. I’m sure the Ministry of Health has received much input from other stakeholders.

I’m hoping, through the continuation of debate, that we will see this bill get stronger, get through committee and be put in place. I think it’s an important bill that we must update, and ensure the privacy of individuals throughout the province as we move to a more electronic format in our province with regard to our health records.

I hope this government will continue to meet with stakeholders on this bill. I’m hoping that the consultation process that occurred in developing this bill was much stronger than what occurred with Bill 122, where we found that the majority of stakeholders didn’t engage in conversation until after the bill passed second reading.

The two concerns I brought forward from a number of stakeholders today, I think, can be taken into committee. We can strengthen the bill through strengthening the language and clarifying roles, or ensuring that those roles will be clarified when the regulations are created, to ensure that Bill 119 is strong for today and tomorrow’s growth of electronic health records, so that we don’t have to return to strengthen this bill sooner. I know, down the road, we will; it’s obvious. Technologies change; they get stronger, and they grow in size and capabilities. We need to ensure that our laws keep consistent with it.

We see, with regard to the SAMS records that the government put forward, that their proper planning wasn’t in place, and it has cost the government an extra $90 million just to implement that computer system throughout the province.

I’m hoping that we get this bill correct, that the government listens to the opposition, listens to stakeholders and makes the necessary changes, so that there isn’t an additional cost to the system and so that in fact we can implement, and assure Ontarians that they have privacy with their health records as we move to an electronic format and expand the amount of individuals who can have access to those records throughout the province, whether we be increasing the exchange between labs and doctors’ offices, labs and pharmacies, independent health facilities, health units.

As that expands and grows, there’s so much potential. We could utilize that information to study how health care is operating in this province, to study the best practices of usage of medical information, and usage of drugs and how they’re utilized in various parts of the province. I think we can actually have the opportunity to grow the health care system, to be more effective, to have higher quality, by utilizing the data that we’re moving to electronic format.

Our role here, though, is to ensure we have the necessary structure in place to protect the privacy of everyday Ontarians, so that there’s no manipulation of their data and/or publication of their data for gains for the person who would actually open up that data. I mentioned earlier Councillor Rob Ford, whose medical information was exposed for pure political purposes and/or notoriety in the media. We need to ensure that whether they’re Rob Ford or whether they’re the average person living in Aylmer, Ontario, people’s data is safe and they know they can go to their doctor, get the best-quality care available in Canada—but also ensure that their medical information is safe and secure.

I look forward to further debate as we move forward with this legislation. It’s interesting that it took three debate days in order to get my hour out. It’s coming to a close. We look forward to the third party’s continued deliberations. As we move forward in committee into the new year, I look forward to hearing from the stakeholders who I haven’t heard from yet, but at the committee level, and working to make this a strong bill for Ontarians.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: I happened to be on duty all three times that the member has tried to do his lead, so I want to congratulate him for keeping at it. It has been in sort of a funny way, but he got it all out. His comments are worth listening to.

This bill was needed for a long time. It basically deals with three pieces of legislation. It deals with privacy and how we ensure privacy and what do we do so that there aren’t any more breaches of privacy. It deals with electronic health records and how we ensure that our health care system has a robust and effective electronic health record system so that we can have access to patient information, which will help us transform our health care system in the right direction. But you have to be able to do this in a way that ensures patient confidentiality. Right now, the bill is really short on ensuring that part.

The third

part is the Quality of Care Information Protection Act. This is a part that—we knew from the start, when you told hospitals, “If you’re having a quality improvement meeting, then you don’t have to share information,” that some hospitals would use it wrongly. It was up to us to correct this and make that clear when we first put it out. It wasn’t done and we’ve seen what has happened. People who had adverse events where things went wrong were never able to gain closure, were never able to turn the page because they were told by the hospital that they cannot share that information with them.

They cannot share the information with their loved ones because they’re using our law in a way that was never meant to be.

This bill needs changes.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Chris Ballard: I’m delighted to provide a couple of minutes of comment, having listened to most of the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London’s one-hour debate on this.

At a very high level, people deserve to know that they are protected by a health care system that is both accountable and transparent, and ensures the highest quality of care. We continue to believe that the default in our health care system should be disclosure and transparency. That’s why I’m very happy to see that the amendments proposed in this legislation include increasing accountability and transparency by making it mandatory to report significant privacy breaches to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and, in certain cases, to relevant regulatory colleges.

As well, the legislation seeks to strengthen the process to prosecute offences under the privacy act by removing the requirement that prosecutions must be commenced within six months of the alleged privacy breach. I think we’re all horrified at fairly recent news stories about celebrities whose medical records were snooped into. This legislation would discourage such snooping into patient records by doubling the fine for offences from $50,000 to $100,000 for individuals and from $250,000 to $500,000 for that organization. I think we all agree that that’s a good thing.

As well, the legislation would clarify the authority under which health care providers may collect, use and disclose personal health information in electronic health records.

It’s very good legislation, in my opinion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to add my voice to Bill 119, the health protection act. I think the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London covered a lot of the territory that we, as a party, are concerned about.

As individual MPPs, we all have had—I think back to Sarnia–Lambton as I’m standing here. I’ve had people come into my office, now that I think about it, who were complaining about health care breaches themselves. Either they were removed from employment because they were accused of it, or people came in and had stories that they wanted to communicate to me in my office over health care breaches.

Probably one of the famous ones here in Toronto is the Rob Ford fiasco with health care. But there have been some in the States, too. I think there were just some high-profile ones the other day, where some people were removed from health care. There’s one in Toronto about selling the newborn baby material to life insurance companies. It was thousands, and they sold it for very little money. I couldn’t believe they sold it for as little as they did.

Anyway, I think this law will go somewhere towards protecting those individuals from that kind of access. At the end of the day, if we can take legislation and make it better, that’s what we are here for.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Wayne Gates: I’m certainly pleased to rise today. Before I really get into it, I’d like to welcome the corrections officers, some of whom have been on the road for five hours to be here today to try to correct some of the problems that they are having in the workplace and some of the things with the Conservatives wanting to privatize their jobs and get rid of the good-paying jobs. That’s what we’re seeing in health care. That’s the problem with health care.

I’ve said this to the health minister a number of times, as we talked about CarePartners, a group of nurses that were making $15 an hour, and their jobs were scabbed out as they tried to get a first collective agreement—seven months. We talked about home care. I know I talked to the health minister on this, but when you talked about home care—there are people in my riding, in Niagara—they service the entire area—who, when they’re expecting to get service at 8 o’clock in the morning, they were getting a nurse at 10 or 11, and sometimes not until 7 or 8 o’clock at night. Again, what was the problem?

What was the common denominator on what was happening? Our health care system is being privatized. There is no doubt about that—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Excuse me. Can I make sure that you are in your own seat?

Interjections.

Mr. Wayne Gates: And I appreciate the Clerk helping you out on that one, too.

I think it’s important to talk about the privatization of our health care, because if we don’t stop the privatization of health care, our patients are at risk. When you take a look at the layoffs and the cuts to our hospitals, when you look at the AG report that said that we spent close to $9 billion more on P3 hospitals than what you did on a publicly delivered hospital—when I talk about that, I can talk about Peterborough and I can talk about St. Catharines. St. Catharines hospital was $1 billion dollars for approximately 350 beds.

The Peterborough hospital, which was publicly delivered, publicly built, was $355 million. We can take that $600 million and put it right back into front-line health care rather than fighting with nurses who are trying to provide home care for my area.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I return to the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London. You have two minutes.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I appreciate those who made comments to Bill 119. I, too, want to welcome the correctional officers from across the province who are here today. I have Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in my riding, and I’ve worked hard to try to ensure that the working conditions are at least improved, at the minimum, with regard to the correctional officers at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre.

I think also at this time we could make mention that, with regard to information within this government, passing on health information—sure, it’s secure, but we also need to make sure that the information that we do have accessible, that front-line workers are able to access the entire database of information they need to do their job. I’ll make reference to the correctional officers who I know at the Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre who are unable to get all the information they need in order to do their job to the best safety and also to their best potential. I will make mention of that while they’re here.

The member from Niagara Falls did make mention of past Conservative policies. They keep throwing that in our faces, but I will throw back at him the fact that when they were government, the third party, they did throw the social contract in the face of all public sector workers. I haven’t met a single person who was happy about the fact that they either had their days cut or their pay cut without any regard to any negotiation. So the member can throw forward any old Conservative policies, but I do remember that the days of Bob Rae were terrible for this province. I hope we never, ever reach that point again.

We’re getting close, with the current government in power today. However, Bob Rae and the NDP, when they were government, obliterated this province, in fact, with their new initiatives.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: It is a pleasure for me to rise today, on behalf of the people I represent in London West, to offer some thoughts on Bill 119,

An Act to amend the Personal Health Information Protection Act, 2004, to make certain related amendments and to repeal and replace the Quality of Care Information Protection Act, 2004.

This is a very complex bill. Unusually for the pieces of legislation we deal with in this House, there are four pages of explanatory notes to provide an overview of what is in the bill. The amendments proposed are complex. They put in place a bit of a regulatory framework to address three of the most critical issues in our health care system: protecting personal health information, protecting the privacy and confidentiality of e-health records—electronic health records—and also ensuring accountability and full transparency when medical errors occur.

These three issues are addressed in two schedules in the bill: The protection of personal health information and of e-health records are addressed in

schedule 1 of the bill, and the issue around accountability and transparency in addressing medical errors is addressed in

schedule 2 of the bill.

The reason that these three issues—the protection of patient privacy and confidentiality, and also accountability when mistakes occur—are so important for this Legislature to address is because the health care system relies fundamentally on having a strong framework in place so that trust is maintained between patients and health care providers—actually, it’s not only health care providers; it’s the physicians that they deal with, it’s the nurse who they talk to, it’s every health care professional that they come into contact with while they are in that circle of care.

But it’s also the system as a whole. Patients have to have trust in the system as a whole; that the health care system will ensure the protection of their personal information, ensure that their privacy will be protected and that their information will not be leaked or released inadvertently to others in society.

When we visit the doctor, we are asked all kinds of questions and we watch our physician recording this information—often, now, into a computer. We’re asked, “Do you drink? How much do you drink?” We’re asked about our sexual activity. We’re asked about whether we use drugs. All of this information is very sensitive, Speaker, and you can imagine, the implications for employment and for personal life if this information is released.

Unfortunately, over the past decade we have seen numerous examples of where the trust has been broken and where people’s personal health information has actually been leaked. In large part, that has resulted in the amendments that we see before us today.

The legislation that is being amended in Bill 119 was introduced over a decade ago. It was introduced in 2004, and we have seen very egregious examples of where that legislation has failed to protect people’s personal health information. Of course, with the advent of electronic health records, there is a need for a new framework to address the reality that people’s medical records are being maintained in electronic form rather than the paper form of the past.

One of the examples of a leak of personal information that has happened quite close to my community: Just last year a woman in Sarnia had booked surgery at a hospital in London. She had made arrangements to have her surgery conducted, and she received a letter from a private cosmetic surgery clinic—a privately owned, for-profit clinic—inviting her to come and get her surgery done at this private, for-profit clinic instead of at the public hospital in London where she had booked her surgery.

Certainly, Speaker, as you can imagine, this raised all kinds of questions about how on earth this private, for-profit clinic gained access to her personal information, to the fact that she had surgery booked in London. This clinic was able to try to solicit her business, frankly.

I know that when my children were born, about 20 years ago—I think anybody in my age cohort who has kids about that age remembers going home with the new baby and very shortly thereafter being contacted by a baby photographer. In my case, I got a phone call. This was routine practice. The hospital had sold the lists of new mothers to the photography studio, so the photography studio could access that personal health information about somebody who had just given birth and was then able to use that information to try to make a profit.

Speaker, this is absolutely unacceptable. It must not happen because, as I said at the beginning, it erodes trust in the system, and the system is based on trust.

There are some other recent examples of where personal health information has been leaked. In 2013, data storage sticks—flash drives—containing the personal health information of 18,000 patients at Toronto Western Hospital’s eye clinic went missing. That prompted an investigation by the privacy commissioner and it also led to an apology being issued by the chief doctor, who had failed to provide appropriate oversight over these data storage sticks that contained this information.

In 2013, again, there was a memory card and 18,000 people were involved: 18,000 people had their names, their addresses, their birth dates and their marital status all recorded on this memory card. The card was stolen from the car of a Peel region employee.

Speaker, we recently in London had an example of that just this past summer, where an employee at the health unit had their laptop, which included personal health information, again, on new mothers and babies, stolen from that employee’s car in the parking lot.

We have to ensure that there are appropriate protecttions in place to prevent these kinds of thefts, these kinds of losses of personal health information.

We know that Councillor Rob Ford and Jack Layton were two very high-profile cases, where their personal information was leaked to the media while they were being treated in hospital.

Finally, another very high-profile incident of a privacy breach of personal health information was at Scarborough’s Rouge Valley Health System, when the identities of new moms were allegedly sold to a firm that was offering education investment vehicles, RESPs. I mentioned my experience 20 years ago of my identity as a new mother being sold to a baby photography studio; here we see new mothers’ information being sold to a financial firm so that they could sell education investment products.

So these kinds of leaks really do great damage to the trust that needs to be maintained in Ontario’s health system. But, you know, there are other things that are equally corrosive in terms of that trust relationship between patients and their health care providers and the health care system as a whole.

In my community in London, just this week, we learned that 500 patients have been informed that their surgeries will have to be delayed. These are surgeries that they had booked in advance, and now they are being told that the surgeries will be delayed. Many of these people have been waiting up to two years to have these so-called elective surgeries performed. Now, they are told that they are effectively being bumped.

The problem is, booking a surgery is not like booking a flight on a plane; it’s not as easy as when you are a passenger on a plane, you’re going on holiday and you’re informed, “Oh, sorry, we overbooked. We’ll have to bump you to the next flight.” For many of these people who are being bumped, whose surgeries are being delayed because there’s a cap on the number of surgeries that the hospital can perform, this is not like they were taking a vacation and it’s a minor inconvenience. For many of these people, this opens them up to all kinds of risks that can have a very serious effect on their health status.

There was a constituent of mine that I spoke about in the House the other day, Brian Peck, who is waiting for hip-replacement surgery. He has fallen three times since he initially got the recommendation for surgery. His surgeon actually told him that he will likely end up in a wheelchair before he is able to get the surgery conducted. His health is being seriously compromised by his inability to access the surgery. The long-term consequences, the need for more costly interventions down the road, are really affecting the quality of the health care provision that he is entitled to.

Some of the other contexts in which we’re looking at this bill, when we talk about trust in the health care system—we have seen, day after day, announcements of more cuts in the system. We’ve seen a government that has frozen budgets for hospitals for four years in a row. As our population ages, the implications of freezing hospital budgets mean that hospitals are being asked to do more effectively with less, when you factor in the impact of the true cost of inflation and when you factor in the fact that there are more frail elderly who are needing to access hospital services. They come to hospital with much more complex needs.

I want to move on to the other part of the legislation that deals with electronic health records. The bill includes some new provisions for the prescribed organization, who will have access to these electronic health records. Those are the organizations that are responsible for developing and maintaining these eHealth records. This is our reality. As I mentioned, we are moving to an electronic age. We know that it is important. There are lots of benefits from having computerized health information.

But as we do that, as we move in that direction, we must make sure that there are appropriate safeguards in place to protect the confidentiality and security of that data that is recorded in these electronic databases.

One of the issues that New Democrats are very concerned about deals with data storage of these e-health records outside Ontario and outside Canada.

The chief technology officer at Toronto’s University Health Network said, “There’s a lot of nervousness about storing data in the United States because of the Patriot Act. Our main concern is privacy, partly because of sharing with other people and partly because the Patriot Act gives the US government authority to have access to records if they’re stored on American soil.”

In a system that actually encourages hospitals to outsource some of their functions, hospitals may well be looking to data storage providers that are based in the US because it is cheaper; because it saves the hospital money, in a context where they have been dealing with frozen budgets for four years. In that process of saving hospitals money, we may be compromising the security and confidentiality of patients’ data that is stored in these electronic health records. As I said, that is a direct hit on the trust that we need to maintain between patients and the health system.

The final issue that I want to briefly address that is dealt with in this legislation concerns quality-of-care information. Bill 119 repeals the Quality of Care Information Protection Act to respond to some of the scathing investigative reporting that was done by the Toronto Star about a shocking lack of follow-up with families of loved ones who have been subject to medical error. Certainly, we absolutely believe that the loved ones of patients who potentially died as a result of medical error deserve to know what happened. They deserve to be informed of the results of any kind of investigation that is conducted.

And health care professionals who were involved in the care of that person who was harmed by a medical error need to feel that they can be honest and that they can share what they know during the process of an investigation, without the threat of disciplinary action or reprisals against them if they co-operate with an investigation about what happened.

The amendments that are proposed in this

section of the bill are certainly long overdue. They were, as I said, prompted by some recent high-profile cases. Frankly, it’s appalling that these provisions weren’t in place earlier on.

Having said that, one of our ongoing concerns, and an issue that I know that we will be raising during the committee input on this bill, is around inconsistency and variability in how these protections are applied in the first place. What is proposed in Bill 119 will not address those issues. It will not address the fact that different hospitals, different health care providers are able to interpret their obligations under QCIPA as they see fit. This is a big problem. In particular, it’s a problem when we’re looking at the number of private for-profit health care providers who will not be covered by this legislation.

So this is a long-overdue step. We’re glad to see it come forward, but we have lots of concerns that we will be talking about when it moves to committee.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1010 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I have a great deal of constituents here today from Nepean–Carleton, starting with two family friends, Gordon and Kathleen Stringer, who are Rowan Stringer’s parents. We have a bill in Rowan’s name.

I’d also like to introduce Dr. Henry Svec, who is a registered psychologist; Ashley Powers, who is the co-owner and physiotherapist at Dynamic; Dr. Sarah Cohen from Dynamic; Paul Hunter of Rugby Canada; Ashton Spear from CG Group, on behalf of the Ontario Athletic Therapist Association; Dr. Frances Flint of the Ontario Athletic Therapist Association; Dr. Cameron Marshall and Kyle Reidhead from Complete Concussion Management; Carol DeMatteo from McMaster University; Scott Watson, Louise Logan and Normand Côté from Parachute Canada; Barb Gillie, Phil Selig and Gary Thomas of the Barrhaven Scottish rugby club; and Susan Kitchen and Mercedes Watson of the Coaches Association of Ontario.

Please welcome them all to the chamber to see their government in action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It does look like we have quite a few people who are anxious to get up and introduce. Please stick as closely to the introduction as possible, and we’ll get through all of these. I make the commitment that our guests will be greeted.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: I have three guests this morning from OPSEU Local 368, at the Central East Correctional Centre. They are Adam Richards, Leanne Richards and Evan King. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for being here.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: In the gallery today, we have got many of our hard-working and brave correctional officers, who keep our communities safe across the province. I want all the members of the House to welcome our correctional officers who are here with us at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It gives me great pleasure to welcome corrections, probation and parole officers from throughout Ontario this morning. We have representation from the following facilities: South West Detention Centre, Local 135; Central East and Central North Correctional Centres, Locals 368 and 369; Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre, Local 108; Maplehurst Correctional Complex, Local 234; Ontario Correctional Institute, Local 229; Ottawa-Carleton Detention Centre, Local 411; Thunder Bay Correctional Centre and the Thunder Bay jail, Locals 368 and 737; Toronto East Detention Centre, Local 582; Chatham, Local 130; and the Roy McMurtry Youth Centre, Local 290.

I hope I haven’t missed anybody, but if I did, forgive me. Let’s welcome them once again. Thank you for coming.

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: I’d like to welcome corrections officers from the South West Detention Centre in my hometown. I’d like to welcome Zack Swainson, Rob Wilson, Darrell Rockwood, Karim Sakaan and Darren Wilson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Joining us today in the east members’ gallery is someone from my staff, Morgan Stahl, and her mother, Margaret Stahl. Joining them, also, are William Petker and Tracy Wilson. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Michael Harris: I want to introduce Ryan Graham and Dennis Berg from Kitchener, correctional officers belonging to Local 234 at Maplehurst. Thanks for coming, guys.

Mr. John Vanthof: On behalf of the member from Welland: One of our page captains is Benjamin Shoalts. His mother, Kerry Shoalts, and father, Todd Shoalts, are in the gallery this morning.

Mr. John Fraser: We have a number of people in the galleries here today in support of Rowan’s Law. We have Myles Spencer from Rugby Canada; Al Charron from Rugby Canada, who also happens to be a constituent; Patrick Hamilton; Patricia Hamilton; Lindsay Hamilton; Spencer Hamilton; Katherine Frost; Sandy Niquet; Maya Rattray; and David Butler, and Mark Johnson, Edie Michel, Bob Illman from Rugby Ontario.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: I’d like to introduce Kyle Johnston-Laplante, who works in my constituency office in Carleton–Mississippi Mills. He is here to visit with us today.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: It is my privilege to welcome, as we have heard, correctional officers from across the province.

I would also like to welcome Smokey Thomas, president of OPSEU; Eddy Almeida, VP of OPSEU; Ron Elliot; Tom O’Neill; and Monte Vieselmeyer, MERC chair.

Mike Lundy is here, and I would like to point out that Mike Lundy is the president of OPSEU Local 737 in Thunder Bay and also vice-chair of health and safety. We would like to welcome him specifically.

Mrs. Kathryn McGarry: I’d like to welcome my OLIP intern, Eric Zinn, who is in the members’ east gallery today. Welcome.

M. Jeff Yurek: C’est un honneur pour moi de vous présenter deux invitées spéciales qui sont à Queen’s Park aujourd’hui. Ce sont des représentantes du Centre francophone de Toronto. Nous saluons la présidente du comité d’administration du centre, M me Claire Francoeur, et la directrice générale du centre, M me Lise Marie Baudry. Bonjour et bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome some delegates in support of Rowan’s Law today: David Patterson and David Butcher from Rugby Ontario; and Andrew Laskoski, Jeannette Quach, Jennifer Mark, Darryl Gomes, Jessica Pemberton, Heather Tugnett, Loriann Hynes and Derek DeBono from the OATA. Thank you very much, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Cristina Martins: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the mother and father of my page, Michelle Lewis, from the riding of Davenport. Welcome, Nicole Knowlton and Shaun Lewis, here to Queen’s Park. Thank you so much.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’d be pleased to continue my list: Tammy McGregor-Carson, the chair of provincial health and safety from OPSEU; and Sean Dunn, Alex Sawicki. I recognize some presidents here—Chris Jackal and Chad Oldfield—and many other vice-presidents and elected officials from OPSEU, and the hard-working corrections officers here today.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Today, my wonderful page, Dayo Kehinde, has in the public gallery her mom, Imo, her father, Michael, and her sisters Tolu and Ayo. Welcome and merry Christmas.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I have two guests here today from the Canadian Women’s Foundation. We have the president, Sheherazade Hirji, and board member Marilyn Roycroft. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I, too, have a visitor from the correctional officers from Sudbury Jail. His name is Nathan Aubin, and he is the president of OPSEU Local 617 and a good friend of mine. He’s making his way here. I hope he gets here pretty soon.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to welcome Dr. Michael Strong, dean of the Schulich School of Medicine at Western University.

Also, a big hello to Smokey Thomas and all of the OPSEU members who are here.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome Ron Elliot, regional vice-president of OPSEU, who is also a constituent of mine in London West. Welcome, Ron.

Mrs. Marie-France Lalonde: I would like to acknowledge, on behalf of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, page Jack Farley, who is welcoming his parents to the House this morning. Simon Farley and Manjusha Pawagi are here with us this morning.

Member’s birthday

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would like to congratulate my colleague from Huron–Bruce for a great birthday today and wish her well. I know that all members will wish her well, after a very long trip that she just took, representing our province. Congratulations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Happy birthday.

Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

It is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: I’d like to go back to the Auditor General’s report about energy. I’d just like to remind the government that the AG revealed that the Liberals will be overcharging the equivalent of $12,000 for every man, woman and child in Ontario for the cost of electricity—$12,000.

That’s a year’s worth of rent in downtown Toronto. That’s the cost of a young person’s first car. That’s a graduate student’s tuition for a year. That’s a semester of backpacking in Europe. That would cover the average family’s food for an entire year.

Mr. Speaker, why is it okay for the government to pick the pockets of Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very eager to answer this question. But just before I do, this may be my last opportunity before the House rises to wish everyone a very, very happy holiday. I hope that everyone in the House, in the gallery and in the province has an opportunity in this time period to spend some time with family, with friends. It’s not always an easy time of year for people, but I hope that everyone has the opportunity to appreciate this beautiful place that we live in.

Mr. Speaker, on that note, I just had the opportunity, with members of the opposition parties, to be in Paris at the COP21 conference on climate change. I have to say—and I don’t know if the opposition members had this experience—I had people coming to me, including Premiers of other states—Australia, for example—looking to us as a model for the changes that we have made, and I will come back to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier, and since I didn’t get the question answered the first time, I’ll try the second time: The AG said the government could have achieved all of their renewable goals and not overcharged $9.2 billion.

The government’s overcharging of electricity will cost an average family $32,000. That’s a down payment on your first home in my riding of Simcoe North. That’s a new Dodge Caravan. That’s a 24-foot pontoon boat. It’s a complete kitchen renovation.

So my question, very directly, is this: How can this government knowingly take opportunities away from families by overcharging them on energy? The question is, how do you justify this unprecedented overcharging of energy in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the changes that we have made in Ontario, including the shutdown of the coal-fired plants, the investment in renewable energy, and the avoidance of pollution that has saved lives in terms of asthma and costs—those are initiatives that other jurisdictions are looking to us for. They are looking to us.

They were very happy to see us there—for example, Manitoba, Quebec and Ontario signing a memorandum of understanding on cap and trade. They are looking to us. They are asking us how we did it, in terms of the shutdown of the coal-fired plants, the avoidance of those health care costs.

We are leading the way. We will continue to do that, whether or not the Leader of the Opposition is with us.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again for the Premier: It is the Christmas season. Parents, grandparents and guardians have been saving all year to put an extra present under the tree. This government could have made that a little bit easier if they hadn’t overcharged $32,000 for every family in Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: That could have bought 65 iPads to wrap.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: That could have bought 80 Xbox Ones to put under the tree. That could have bought 248 kids a new Supercycle to ride.

Mr. Speaker, just picture those gifts. Picture the look on a kid’s face as they see those gifts under the tree—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I took the approach of trying to ask for order only, but if I’m getting the signalling from you that it’s not good enough, I’ll ramp it up. I wish I didn’t have to. So when I ask for order, please give it, and don’t start right after I ask for order.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: In the spirit of Christmas, will you give Ontario one important Christmas gift? Never again will you intervene in the energy sector. Will you give us that present? Never again will we have Liberals intervene and cost Ontario more. Will you do it for Santa?

Interjections.

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

Premier—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. As the Leader of the Opposition—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. I’m still standing.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Oh, sorry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Please finish.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Well, as the Leader of the Opposition measures the world in terms of the cost of Xboxes, let me just talk about some costs that I think are critical.

Tim Gray of Environmental Defence says this—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Want to measure it in the cost of scandals?

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

Interjection: Do you want to go home?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do you?

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Ontario’s renewable energy program was instrumental in the coal phase-out, which was justified because the coal plants were estimated to cost $4.4 billion in health and environmental costs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Agriculture, come to order. The member from Dufferin–Caledon, come to order.

Finish, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Five billion dollars in extra costs over 20 years to avoid $4.4 billion per year sounds like good value to me. Of course, there’s also the tiny bonus of clear blue skies and smog-free summers. That is the cost we have avoided.

The health costs of those children who have not been admitted to hospital? That’s how I will measure success.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Your signalling is telling me that you need to be warned, and if I have to get that today, I’m going to get it.

New question.

Climate change

Mr. Patrick Brown: The Liberals were recently chiding the third party leader for not having questions on climate change. Well, to the Premier: It’s difficult to criticize a climate change plan that has no details, that hasn’t been released to the public.

The Premier’s idea of fighting climate change is photo op environmentalism and press release politics. The reality is it was the two previous Premiers of Ontario who closed the coal-fired plants, not this Premier.

I’ve asked for details about this government’s climate change plan. They wouldn’t give us any. The government has sat on their cap-and-trade plan since 2009. If she has a plan, if she has a strategy, what is it?

Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, will the Premier tell the Legislature what will show up first at Queen’s Park: details on her climate change plan, the Loch Ness monster or Polkaroo? What will show up first?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the Leader of the Opposition understands how important it is that all of the coal-fired plants have been shut down and that we have passed legislation to make sure they will not be rebuilt. There will not be coal-fired generation of electricity in Ontario again.

I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition knows that investing $20 million in charging stations for electric vehicles is a very important step, because if we are going to have electric vehicles in the province, if there’s going to be uptake, that infrastructure has to be in place.

I know the Leader of the Opposition understands that the cap-and-trade system that is being developed is being developed in conjunction—

Interjection.

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

And now, if it’s going to get ramped up, I’m going to warnings. That means I’m not waiting. A warning: Next time, you’re out.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is being developed in conjunction with Quebec and California. We signed a memorandum of understanding with Manitoba while we were in Paris, so central Canada is on the same track.

The plan is in place, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: I would have hoped in that response we would have had some details finally, but unfortunately, not.

It’s awfully easy to stage photo ops and claim you will fight climate change. It’s easy to set greenhouse reduction targets for 2030 or 2050, but it takes actual work, actual details to make a difference now.

Your Environmental Commissioner has told us that you won’t reach your 2020 targets—not even close. In fact, during this Premier’s first year in office, greenhouse gas emissions actually rose 171 megatonnes. The Premier is more concerned about a green backdrop than dropping emissions.

Can the Premier give a single example of what she has done during her time as Premier—not previous Premiers? Other than signing agreements and attending conferences, it’s all lip service. Will the Premier tell the House what she is going to do? What are the details of your plan? Please—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, this from a member of a government in Ottawa for nine years whose record was so dismal on this file that the current Prime Minister, when he was in Paris and said, “Canada is back,” the room cheered.

The Leader of the Opposition may not like the fact that we have set clear targets. We have set an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions against 1990 levels by 2015. He may not like the fact that the design features of our cap-and-trade system are being developed. We’re working with California and Quebec. He may not like that we’re investing in infrastructure for electric vehicles. But that’s what we’re doing because we are going to continue to lead in the fight against climate change.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Premier: It just appears to be more hot air. You will ultimately be judged on—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is warned.

Carry on.

Mr. Patrick Brown: To the Premier: You will ultimately be judged on your greenhouse gas emissions. It’s easy to blame previous Prime Ministers and previous Premiers. You will be judged on your actions alone. The Premier loves to talk about fighting climate change, but it has been just that: just talk.

We all know you just got back from Paris. I think it’s great that you went to represent our province. I would never say you shouldn’t attend. In fact, our own critic went as well. But if you want to talk about a carbon footprint, the Premier flew back and forth twice. You took 22 advisers with you on that trip. That just seems excessive.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Actually, it’s difficult to get one side when the other side continues.

Wrap up, please.

Mr. Patrick Brown: So I ask again: Other than photo ops, press conferences and press releases, what has this Premier done to fight climate change? I don’t want to hear about your predecessors. Your only announcement in Paris was about Manitoba.

What has this Premier done to fight climate change in Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, here’s what the Leader of the Opposition needs to know: I walked into a concert in—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I got back from Paris yesterday afternoon and I walked into a concert in one of the schools in my riding in the evening, and the first person who spoke to me was a young girl from grade 5. Her name was Sloane, and she came up to me and she said, “I just wrote a letter to you and I want to talk to you.” Her question, Mr. Speaker, was about climate change.

So here’s a child in grade 5, talking to the Premier of the province, saying to me, “What are you doing?” My answer to her was exactly the same as it is to the Leader of the Opposition. We are doing everything we can. We are challenging industry. We have shut down the coal-fired plants. We are developing a plan to make sure that we continue to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, and we’re developing technology to help other countries. We’re taking the leadership—

Interjections.

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

New question.

Privatization of public assets

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I want to begin by wishing the best of the holiday season to Ontarians, on behalf of New Democrats, and to encourage Ontarians to reach out a helping hand to those who are less fortunate, particularly the Syrian refugees who are arriving in our province today.

My question is to the Premier. In November, I raised the fact that public hydro agencies in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba are investing more in conservation than here in Ontario, while Nova Scotia’s privatized hydro agency is actually fighting against conservation.

When the Premier was in Paris, did she explain why she’s selling off Hydro One and giving away one of the most important tools in the fight against climate change?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: One of the conversations that was very, very front of mind in Paris was the investment in infrastructure. There was a lot of conversation about the need to invest in public transportation.

So, quite to the contrary, people wanted to know how we were moving ahead to make that investment, and the leader of the third party knows that in order to make that investment, we need funds. We need money to be able to do that, and that is the motivator for the broadening of the ownership of Hydro One.

In fact, I had many conversations in Paris about how we are moving ahead with making the largest investment in infrastructure across the province in the province’s history, and a large part of that is transit and transportation infrastructure. That’s what people in Paris are talking about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier travelled to Paris to talk about fighting climate change. Hydro One will be—should be—one of the keys to energy conservation in this province. As a private company, though, Hydro One will make money when they sell more electricity, but it is in the interest of our planet to use less electricity. I’m sure the Premier can see the contradiction.

Can she explain why she is handing away control of Hydro One?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think what’s critical is that we have clean, renewable generation in this province. That is what we’ve got. We know that having companies that are efficient and competitive is a good thing for the province.

We know that Hydro One can be improved. And though I’ve said that the motivation for broadening the ownership of Hydro One is the investment in infrastructure, which it is, we will also see an improved company as a result of this change. That’s a benefit to the people of the province and it’s a benefit to the people who get their service from Hydro One.

As I said, there was a lot of conversation about the importance of having infrastructure investment that’s sustainable. That is the work that we’re doing as a result of broadening the ownership of Hydro One.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families want to see investments in transit and transportation infrastructure that will help make our economy greener. Transit takes cars off the road, but selling Hydro doesn’t build transit, according to the FAO, and, in fact, according to the Minister of Finance in his own fall economic update. On the one hand, selling Hydro One hobbles our ability to conserve energy and tackle climate change; and on the other hand, it actually fails to build transit.

I thought the Premier was serious about climate change, so why is she moving Ontario backwards?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The premise of the leader of the third party’s question is just not accurate. The fact is, a cap-and-trade system, the shutdown of coal-fired plants, the introduction of infrastructure for electric vehicles, the investment in sustainable infrastructure—all of those things are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

We have set firm targets; we have met our 2014 target, and we are working with our partners across the country to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Ontario and across the country.

I understand that the leader of the third party is not going to support the investment in infrastructure that we’re making. I think that’s wrong-headed; I think that she should be supporting that. But the reality is, we are going to continue on this path because we know that there is an environmental and an economic imperative to making those investments.

Interjections.

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

New question.

Hydro rates

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. In less than a month, hydro bills will be going up another 10% because the government is eliminating the clean energy benefit. The government’s plan for low-income Ontarians seems to have a bit of a short circuit.

What is this Premier going to do to make sure that people struggling to pay their hydro bills actually get the relief that they’ve been promised by her government?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The OESP, the Ontario energy support program, is designed exactly to do—

Mr. John Yakabuski: You’ve spent more time advertising it than it’s been subscribed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned. I guess you didn’t hear me.

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member who was heckling thinks that low-income Ontarians shouldn’t know about the program, but we actually think low-income Ontarians should know about the program. It is designed exactly to address the challenges that the leader of the third party has identified.

We are going to make sure that people get that information—there have been flyers that have gone in electricity bills. The reality is that we are going to redouble our efforts to make sure that people get the information so that they can apply for those programs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Some 7% of low-income Ontarians have applied for the OESP. Once they have applied, it takes six to eight weeks to be approved. Even if every single person applied by the end of the day today, they wouldn’t get approved until sometime in February. Supporting our most vulnerable neighbours is something people expect the government to get right, but yet again, here we have the Liberals making yet another mess in the energy sector.

What will this Premier do for the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have been promised support but won’t be getting it during the coldest months of the year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to say to the leader of the third party that I was concerned about the outreach to low-income Ontarians. I’ve said to my staff that I want to make sure that local distribution companies make an extra effort to connect with low-income Ontarians to make sure they make the application, because that funding is earmarked for those people. That money is earmarked for low-income Ontarians who may be struggling to make ends meet.

We will make sure that they get that money. We will do everything we can to make sure that that happens within the next couple of weeks.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The holidays are around the corner. Selling Hydro One is a big gift to the Premier’s friends, and she’s giving Ontarians a lump of coal. People are going to pay more, and they have their Liberal government to blame.

How did this Premier so quickly lose sight of what matters to the people of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party knows that she’s trying to connect things that are not connected. The fact is that there is a new program in place, the Ontario energy support program. At the same time that the debt retirement charge is coming off bills, we are putting in place a program that will support low-income Ontarians.

The broadening of the ownership of Hydro One is an unrelated issue. It is an issue because we are investing in infrastructure and we are broadening the ownership of Hydro One. The leader of the third party knows that and she’s desperate to make a connection, a connection that is not there.

We will continue to invest in infrastructure because we know that our competitiveness as a province relies on those investments.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton Mountain is warned.

New question.

Correctional facilities

Mr. Rick Nicholls: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Minister, you know about the fire this past week at Toronto South. Several correctional officers and staff were taken to hospital and treated for smoke inhalation. Well, we just learned that there was a fire at Toronto East Detention Centre back on November 27, resulting in 12 staff, including six COs and six RNs, being taken for smoke inhalation. An additional three inmates were also taken to the hospital.

As was the case, several safety and security breaches occurred, and it would appear as though staff were muzzled once again.

Staff and inmate assaults, suicides and disturbances are occurring more frequently. Minister, you need to start listening to the issues these officers are bringing forward.

Actions speak louder than words. Demonstrate the respect that they deserve before an officer is seriously hurt or, God forbid, killed. Their lives are placed in danger daily and they watch even the worst of the worst offenders. They play an integral

part in rehab.

To the minister: When will you start listening and act upon their recommendations and fix this crisis in corrections?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, let me start by recognizing many of our hard-working corrections, probation and parole officers who are here today.

The member is right: They work in a very difficult environment and they work very hard every single day to keep our communities safe. One of the things that I’ve been doing in my capacity as the minister is talking to a lot of people, including our correctional officers, as to how we build a better system of corrections, and one thing I’ve heard again and again, including from our correctional officers, is that the status quo is not good. We need to transform our system.

The very first step in that transformation is hiring more new correctional officers. That is why we have been working hard on that front. Over the last two years alone, we have hired 571 new correctional officers, but we are not stopping there. We will continue to hire even more correctional officers in the months and years to come and make sure they get intensive, proper training in order to keep our community safe.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Well, Minister, if you respect them, stop endangering them.

We learned this morning that corrections staff rejected your tentative agreement, citing a 67% “no” vote. So it’s back to the table.

Detention centres are overcrowded and understaffed; caseloads for our probation and parole officers are huge, and there are instances where these officers are met by probation parolees carrying weapons. Where are the safety measures to protect our officers?

A labour disruption means putting management, even inmates, at risk at our detention centres. Communities would be put at risk where detention centres are, and I’m told by very reliable sources that a strike could also mean a huge setback of months or even years for all the work that probation and parole officers are currently doing for their clients, since there would be no accountability.

Minister, we know your ministry has been preparing for a labour dispute. What steps have you taken, in the event of a labour disruption—

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: —to ensure the safety of all?

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

Interjections.

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

When I say “thank you,” it’s over.

Minister?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: We will continue to work with our correctional staff and all our partners to make sure that our—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Windsor West is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: —that our jails are safe and our correctional offices in particular are safe at all times.

What is ironic is that, from the member opposite, of all the questions he has asked, I have heard of no plan around transformation. How would he propose that we change the status quo?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

I’m seeking co-operation from everybody, and we are on the warning system.

Finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, he serves under a leader who actually supported the tough-on-crime policies by the Harper Conservatives that resulted in the kind of overcrowding that we see in our jails—not to mention, just in October 2012, the member opposite issued a press release asking for a wage freeze increase—

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

New question.

Correctional facilities

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question will be to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I’m pleased to be able to ask these questions today with a full house of corrections officers and another few hundred outside this room. So maybe, today, we’ll get some real answers.

Correctional officers and probation and parole officers across this province soundly rejected a contract with this Liberal government. The fact that there is no deal puts this province one step closer to a strike or lockout in our jails. I asked the Acting Premier about this earlier this week and received an impressive non-answer, so I’ll try the minister instead.

We know that while jails stay chronically overcrowded and clearly dangerous, the province has built or kept aside bed space for managers in the event of a strike or lockout. The last time there was a lockout, the government—a Conservative government—used managers from other ministries and departments to staff the jails.

What’s the plan? In light of the hostage-taking and crisis in Thunder Bay, the fires at Toronto South, floods, lockdowns, assaults, malfunctioning cell locks, breaking glass, riots and overdoses, does the Premier really want unqualified managers from various ministries like finance, the environment or the Treasury Board running our jails?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, we’re disappointed that the tentative agreement that was negotiated between the Treasury Board and the OPSEU correctional bargaining unit was not approved by the members. It’s a democratic process and we respect that. Of course, we as a government remain committed to bargaining and look forward to determining the next steps.

As I was saying earlier, though, what our focus needs to be is to ensure that we transform our correctional services. We need to move away from a model of warehousing—that’s what our correctional officers continue to tell me—to a system that really focuses on corrections, that really focuses on the rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates. What we need to do is break the cycle of reoffence.

We, as the government, are not interested in dealing with capacity issues by building more jails. In fact, we want to reduce the demand for jails in order to deal with the issue around capacity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Monday night in Thunder Bay was a terrible night, as we’ve talked about. Again, I’m pleased to welcome Mike Lundy, the president from Thunder Bay jail. His team went through one heck of a night on Monday.

The correctional officer that was taken hostage at the Thunder Bay jail underwent a traumatizing experience none of us could imagine. What he couldn’t imagine was getting to see his family again. Though he is physically safe now, the incident will undoubtedly have a lasting impact on the officer, his family and his colleagues.

Over the past three days, $23,000 and counting has been raised for the officer and his family through a crowd-funding campaign. This will only scratch the surface of the support that this affected officer will require. I think it says a lot that Ontarians are raising money to support a front-line officer in his time of need. I also think it says a lot about the lack of public faith in the support that he and others in need can expect from this government.

Will the minister commit to working with the Minister of Labour to ensure that correctional officers receive the respect and post-traumatic stress supports they deserve?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Let me address the issue around Thunder Bay. It was a very dangerous situation. I want to thank again our very professional correctional officers and all staff, along with the Thunder Bay police, who worked extremely hard to defuse that situation in a very professional way.

I had the opportunity to speak with the correctional officer in question and I’ve given him assurance that all supports will be there for him so he gets healthy sooner. I also had the opportunity to speak with the superintendent and the local president, Mr. Michael Lundy, who is here with us today.

Speaker, I’ve said this before: Our correctional officers, and our probation and parole officers as well, do dangerous work. I’m working very closely with the Minister of Labour to ensure that all the work that he’s doing around PTSD and around prevention and resiliency as it relates to our first responders—that our correctional officers are part of that conversation.

La francophonie

Monsieur le Président, est-ce que la ministre peut nous faire un survol des célébrations qui ont eu lieu cette année?

Alors, c’est toute la province qui a pu participer à des événements comme le Rendez-Vous Champlain à Penetang, le Festival franco-ontarien à Ottawa, la Franco-Fête de Toronto, et tant d’autres célébrations culturelles et touristiques, comme à Thunder Bay, Hearst, Sudbury et Windsor. Bien sûr, nous avons aussi investi dans de beaux legs. Les legs dans lesquels on a investi, j’en parlerai plus tard à la question supplémentaire.

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

M me Eleanor McMahon: Ma question est encore pour la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones, et j’aimerais la remercier pour sa réponse.

Je suis fière que la province ait ainsi reconnu la contribution des Premières Nations et des francophones à bâtir notre société. La ministre nous a parlé de legs permanents. Pourrait-elle partager avec la Chambre quels héritages le 400 e anniversaire va laisser pour les générations futures?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Les legs dont je voulais vous parler tantôt—premièrement, nous avons investi 1,4 million de dollars dans le beau parc à Penetang, lieu de rencontre de Samuel de Champlain et le chef huron-wendat. Nous avons aussi investi dans un excellent docudrame, le Rêve de Champlain, fait par TFO, qui a reçu un prix Gémeaux de reconnaissance. Je vous encourage à le voir. Il a été visionné aussi par beaucoup de citoyens en Europe et dans différents pays.

Nous avons aussi offert une plaque commémorative à Honfleur, le port de départ de Champlain. Nous avons également investi dans un musée franco-ontarien en ligne. Et, monsieur le Président, restez à l’écoute; il y aura d’autres annonces qui vont être faites plus tard.

Mais comme procureure générale, je voulais dire, à toutes fins, que dans la période des fêtes, je demande aux gens d’être très prudents et surtout de ne pas conduire en état d’ébriété ou lorsque vous avez pris de l’alcool. On veut que tout l’Ontario soit en sécurité dans ce temps des fêtes.

Concussions

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Merry Christmas, Speaker, to you and all of my colleagues.

My question is to the government House leader. I’m joined today by Kathleen and Gordon Stringer—

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. There will be no interruption from the gallery, please. Thank you.

Please finish.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m joined today by Kathleen and Gordon Stringer, my constituents from Ottawa. They are here to support a tripartite bill that bears their daughter, Rowan’s, name. This law would make Ontario the first jurisdiction in Canada to put in place a law around concussion identification, treatment and awareness. It is based on 49 recommendations from a lengthy and emotional coroner’s inquest into Rowan Stringer’s death.

Rowan’s Law has enjoyed massive support from Ontario, across Canada and in other parts of the world, with the federal government calling for a federal law that would emulate this bill. Just moments ago, Brains Worldwide International, based out of Austin, Texas, called for the swift passage of this bill.

What assurance will the government House leader give my constituents that this Liberal, NDP and Conservative bill will be called immediately for committee and third reading so Rowan’s Law will be enacted?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Obviously, our thoughts and prayers are with the Stringer family and with all of Rowan’s friends—because I know this has had a big impact on the friends and teammates that Rowan played with.

We at the Ministry of Education and other ministries that have been affected are reviewing the coroner’s recommendations, and we’ll respond directly to the Office of the Chief Coroner, but I want to thank the member and my colleagues the member from Ottawa South and the member from Kitchener–Waterloo—is that right?—all three parties’ sponsorship, and obviously the member here.

The government will be supporting this bill. We believe that this is a good bill and that the structure that has been set up—

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

Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’d like to thank the Minister of Education for acknowledging her government’s support, but the question actually is a process question to the government House leader.

Rowan Stringer’s inquest took place over several weeks, with many expert witnesses forming the basis of those 49 recommendations. Many of those experts are here with us today, including Lisa Fischer, Charles Tator and Michael Sharpe, some of North America’s leading concussion experts from right here in the province of Ontario. Other groups, like Coaches of Canada, Parachute Canada, the Ontario Athletic Therapist Association and Rugby Canada, are here today to see this bill through.

Given that a previous concussion bill, Bill 39, died on the order paper, and given that the inquest was both lengthy and substantive, the Stringers and our stakeholders reasonably expect that this bill would pass expeditiously so that the committee, which will be led by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport, can get moving.

So I’ll go back to the minister of the House: At the very least, can you assure the Stringer family today that Rowan’s Law will indeed pass the Legislative Assembly of Ontario?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I do want to update the House on what has happened. Since this came up as an issue, we have actually required all the school boards in the province to have a concussion law.

The Ontario Physical and Health Education Association, Ophea, has updated their concussion rules within what’s known as the Ontario Physical Education Safety Guidelines. That’s a living document, and as a result of the coroner’s inquest and of the work that Ophea has done and the experts that are here today, we look forward, as this bill moves forward and the advisory committee is set up, to continuing to update those guidelines, because we realize that there is more research, new research, and as that new research becomes available, we know we need to continue—

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

New question.

Child protection

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is for the Premier. The Auditor General found that the delays and cost overruns in bringing CPIN online for children’s aid societies are being shouldered by the societies themselves and come out of their general operating budgets. That means less money to provide protection to children in care and more opportunities for them to fall through the cracks. A coroner’s inquest into the death of Jeffrey Baldwin called for CPIN to be implemented in February 2014 because Jeffrey fell through those cracks.

Speaker, how does the minister explain how her government went from a commitment to implement the CPIN program in 47 children’s aids at a cost of $150 million in January 2016, to now saying the cost will be as much as $200 million and it won’t be implemented until 2020?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank my critic for the question on CPIN. As she knows, this was asked by the official opposition yesterday as well.

I first want to say again to this House that my ministry is acting on all the recommendations from the Auditor General, and we won’t be stopping there, Speaker. I talked in the House about our action plan going forward.

When it comes to CPIN, this is a very important system. This essentially brings together 47 disparate IT systems into one Child Protection Information Network. Already we have 20% of the cases on file, and I expect 30% of the cases to be on file by the spring.

We’re investing heavily in this system because it’s about the protection and safety of our most vulnerable children in care. We already have 17 million child welfare files on the system and we will continue to support our front-line workers in making this an effective system for our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: Speaker, what the minister doesn’t seem to realize is that bringing this money out of the operating budgets of children’s aids is actually putting children at risk.

The problems with CPIN aren’t just what the Auditor General identified. We know that the province’s First Nations child welfare agencies, which are responsible for a large percentage of the province’s wards, don’t feel that they’ve been consulted on CPIN, yet this government committed to consulting with First Nations child welfare providers and communities to reform the system by 2015.

Speaker, where is the urgency to reform the children’s aid system in this province? How many Jeffrey Baldwins and Katelynn Sampsons do there have to be?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, the reason I’m committed to seeing CPIN come to fruition is because of the safety and protection of children in care. The reason I am committed to this is because I don’t want more tragedies in our child welfare system.

It’s very important that we get this right. The system must be perfectly correct as we go forward. We’ve had good progress, and we’ll have more going forward.

I have met with the front-line workers who are working on CPIN, and it is a big-change process. We are continuing to invest in more supports, training and communications. I listened to the front-line workers; I listened to the leadership of children’s aid. In fact, on Monday I’m meeting with the leadership of child welfare agencies and the association so we can talk about the Auditor General’s recommendations and how they’re feeling about CPIN.

Arts and cultural funding

Mr. Han Dong: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Last week I hosted one of the Culture Talks sessions in my riding of Trinity–Spadina, as part of the consultation process for Ontario’s first cultural strategy. It was very well attended, Mr. Speaker. In attendance were representatives from arts organizations, artists, art patrons and other constituents. My local BIAs were represented, and the Dano festival, the Chinatown festival, the Toronto Symphony Orchestra and the Design Exchange were represented as well.

It was a fantastic gathering filled with energy, excitement and deep conversations. Our discussions highlighted some of the things our government has done well and illustrated some of the next steps and opportunities.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Now that the Culture Talks consultations are complete, can you provide us with some more details about this initiative?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’m happy to respond to the member’s question and thank him for his continued advocacy for arts and culture here in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time a government has gone out and asked people what they think about culture in order to build a provincial-wide strategy. We know things are changing in culture with technology, and we’ve seen a lot of new art forms come forward. This is a sector that contributes $22 billion to our economy and employs over 280,000 people.

We went out there and we spoke to people in 11 different parts of Ontario. We had smaller meetings with indigenous First Nation groups. We spoke to young people. What we did was we had these conversations—and I want to thank members from all sides of the House, because I know there are members on the other side who had their own consultations, like the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Trinity–Spadina.

We got a lot of positive information. It’s about building on the success that we have in Ontario and continuing to build our economy up through a strong culture sector.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Han Dong: I want to thank the minister for the good work he does in his ministry. I’m proud of the investment our government continues to make in the arts and culture sector.

The arts have a profound effect on our lives. For seniors, participating in the arts can lead to better health and well-being. Researchers have indicated that the presence of artists and art organizations reduces neighbourhood crime and delinquency. For children and youth, participating in arts can lead to better social skills, better grades in school and lower dropout rates. Cultural organizations build community identity and pride, and lead to increased tolerance, free expression and diversity.

Arts and culture strengthen the economy, attracting people to live in, visit and spend money in our communities.

Can the minister provide us with an indication of our government’s next step on this initiative?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We’ve had these great conversations. We had over 1,000 people participate in person, and we had over 800 submissions—online submissions, written submissions and submissions coming in directly to the website. What we’re going to do is we’re going to take all that information, collect it, analyze it, come forward with a framework for the strategy, bring it back to Ontarians and get some more feedback, and we hope that by the end of June of next year, we will have the first-ever culture strategy here in the province of Ontario that reflects what Ontarians want.

This is about making sure that our government resources are aligned with what people want and that we can work towards building our economy, but, even more importantly, that we continue to build great culture that tells our story here in the province of Ontario.

Fire safety

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. This government and the Ontario fire marshal created a risk-based assessment tool for communities to use when evaluating fire services. Unfortunately, they created a tool that doesn’t work. This is partly because they forgot to consult firefighters—the people who actually understand what is needed to keep communities safe. The assessment tool should be able to tell a community the level of fire service they need to get the job done. Instead, the tool doesn’t say anything.

It produces a number—not on a scale, or on a grid; just a number that means nothing. The vagueness of the tool puts public safety at risk.

So, Mr. Speaker, I suggest the solution is simple. Will this government put a hold on the use of the current tool, consult firefighters and develop a tool that will keep communities safe?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, Speaker, I think the member opposite recognizes that fire safety is a very important responsibility that we take very seriously. The Office of the Fire Marshal, under the provincial legislation in our Fire Protection and Prevention Act, exercises his authority to ensure that we have the appropriate services available across the province.

On this particular issue around risk-based assessment tools, my understanding is that the tool was created with consultation, but I have had conversations with professional firefighters, as well, about their concerns. I have committed to them that I will work with them to ensure that that assessment tool is reflective of the reality, and that it ensures that our communities, our homes and our businesses are safe at all times.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Again, Mr. Speaker, back to the minister: Sault Ste. Marie believes they can operate with 20 less firefighters, who they plan to slash over the next three years. But how did they come to that number, and how do they know it won’t affect public safety?

Common sense would tell me that 20 less firefighters means community safety is being put at risk, but this government refuses to create a proper risk-based assessment tool to guide municipalities in their decision-making. Communities are left to speculate if they have enough firefighters, or they’re forced to spend thousands of dollars on consultants to find the answer.

Why is this government afraid to offer a proper risk-based assessment tool, one that will actually help to ensure there are enough firefighters to ensure community safety?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m not going to start judging a decision of an elected body like the Sault Ste. Marie council; it’s their decision. Of course, we require that fire safety, as required in the legislation, remains paramount.

I also want to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie, who has also spoken to me about this matter before. I thank him for his advocacy in urging that I look into this matter carefully as well.

As I mentioned earlier, I’ve had conversations with Ontario’s professional firefighters. I have committed to them that I look forward to working with them. My staff has already been engaged with them on this particular issue, and we will of course consult them and Ontario’s municipalities to make sure that we have the right tools in place. But the key will remain that we need to make sure that our communities are safe at all times for fires. Our businesses depend on it; our residents depend on it.

Home care

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Today, over 2,000 patients in Whitby, Oshawa, Scarborough and across the Central East CCAC are stuck on a wait-list for home care. The Liberals like to say they’re committed to five-day home care, but they are forcing thousands of patients with high and moderate needs to wait an average of four months for personal support services.

Speaker, this is unacceptable. There is no way that any senior in Ontario, living alone and struggling to meet ends meet, should be forced to wait for home care that they desperately need. So why is this Premier ignoring literally thousands of patients and seniors in Whitby and across the region who need home care now, but have to wait months just to get it?

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I appreciate the question. It is unacceptable that individuals who are in serious need of support need to wait far too long to receive that. That’s why we’re acting. We’re acting on the basis of three reports now that we’ve received this year. We introduced a 10-point action plan on home and community care in the spring. We’re implementing 10 different recommendations to bring down those wait times.

There are more than 800,000 people across this province who, each and every year, access home care through our CCACs. We have hard-working front-line workers who are doing as much as they can.

I look forward in the coming weeks as well to releasing a discussion paper that is going to speak to additional changes, including structural changes that are needed to continue to improve the service that these individuals, and others like them, so badly need and deserve.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s not lost on anyone that the Liberals are actually waiting for the House to rise and the Christmas break to occur before they release that secret paper on home care. It’s quite disappointing.

Seniors from Whitby to Peterborough are waiting hundreds of days for the home care they need. In schools across the region, there are over 3,000 students stuck on the wait-list for occupational therapy—more than 1,800 in Whitby alone. They’re being forced to wait an average of 423 days for the support they need. Others are waiting two years for speech-language therapy. It means a child in grade 1 might actually get the support they need by the time they get to grade 3.

How can this Premier think it’s acceptable to force children and seniors in Whitby and Oshawa to wait months, or even years, to get the support they need?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know, and I understand, the reasons why the leader of the third party is focused on Whitby right now, but we’re focused on the entire province, Mr. Speaker. Our goal is to make sure that we’re providing that high-quality service to all Ontarians, wherever they reside. Whether in northern Ontario, southwestern Ontario, eastern Ontario or central Ontario, our obligation is the same to everybody.

I look forward to discussing with members of her caucus, once we release the discussion paper on home and community care, to see how we might work together on creating a plan that invests in these people, treats them with dignity and respect, and provides them with that service that they deserve.

GO Transit

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. In spring of this year, our government announced that we will be investing $13.5 billion in improvements across the GO rail network as part of the regional express rail plan. A key component of delivering on this promise is eliminating the existing Davenport Diamond, one of the busiest rail crossings in North America.

I was proud to host Minister Del Duca in my riding this summer to discuss this important project and happy that he accepted, recognizing the importance of this project to my community. But many of my constituents continue to express real concerns about the potential impact that any change to this crossing could have on our community.

Can the minister please tell members of this House what he is doing to ensure that the voices of my residents of Davenport are being heard and that they are getting the best project possible?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: I’m very happy to take this question from my friend and colleague the member from Davenport. I know that I’ll have the chance to provide a little bit more detail in the supplementary answer. I just wanted to use this opportunity to say that she is 100% right. She organized a town hall meeting in her community that took place during the summer that I was quite honoured to attend.

On this side of the House, there are, I think, 58 women and men who serve as strong champions for their communities. I want to pay tribute to all of them, but I want to pay particular tribute to the member from Davenport. This is not an easy issue to deal with as we continue to build up the infrastructure that we need in our province. It is expensive, it is time-consuming and it is disruptive to communities.

I know that the team at Metrolinx and at MTO will continue to work with residents in Davenport—especially because of the advocacy of this MPP from Davenport—to make sure that we produce an outcome that’s better for the region, but also better for Davenport.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I want to thank the minister for his response. From the onset of this project, I have been committed to working with residents and all levels of government to ensure that our community is heard on this issue. I will also continue to champion modern and environmentally sound legacy pieces that properly represent our vibrant community—items which were also recommended by the residents’ reference panel.

One of the things I continue to hear about from those in my community, and that I’m advocating for on their behalf, is their desire to have a GO station at Bloor and Lansdowne. Can the minister please provide members of this House and my community in Davenport with a status update on this station?

Hon. Steven Del Duca: Again, I thank the member from Davenport for the follow-up question and the specific request.

People in this Legislature and people across Ontario have heard us say that the GO regional express rail plan will increase weekly trips across our entire GO rail network from the current 1,500 to nearly 6,000 trips. I said in my original answer that in order to get this right, in order to build the province up and build the infrastructure that we need—it is disruptive; we recognize that. That’s why Metrolinx and MTO are working very hard with the member from Davenport.

Not that many weeks ago, Metrolinx identified that we had narrowed a list for future potential stations across the whole network down to 50. I recognize that in the spring or summer of 2016, we will confirm the final number. While I’m not in a position to confirm what might take place in Davenport, I know, and everyone on this side of the House knows, that that MPP from Davenport will continue to be a champion and she’ll make sure that we get it right.

Taxation

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last week, our PC caucus, with the help of thousands of realtors, home builders and hard-working Ontarians, slammed the door shut on this government’s municipal land transfer tax grab. We fought hard to keep the home ownership dreams of young families in this province alive.

But Ontarians know this Liberal government all too well. Taxes are in their DNA and have climbed a staggering $30.8 billion on their watch. Since we know a leopard can’t change its spots, Ontarians are worried about what other taxes this minister has up his sleeve to pick their pockets.

Is the minister considering making the family car his next target by authorizing all municipalities to collect a vehicle registration tax?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I’d like to wish the member opposite a very merry Christmas. He deserves one, I think, after this session in the House.

I want to say very simply that I answered that question last week when I talked about the dialogue we’re having with our municipal partners. I want to say to the member opposite that if he wants to propose that we don’t allow municipalities to tax people who have baby kittens, I’d be pleased to stand in my place and say we’re not going to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Here we go again. I heard the same lines when I asked him about a land transfer tax scheme. For weeks, this minister claimed I was making it up—until he fessed up and backed off.

Drivers in Ontario already pay $10 billion every year to the provincial treasury through taxes and fees. What’s more, this government’s looming carbon tax and road tolls make the commute to work an even more expensive one.

Enough is enough. Just like the MLTT, the buck stops with this minister. No more jokes—I want a straight answer. Does the minister feel drivers in this province already pay enough taxes and will he commit today that he won’t let a new car tax out of the garage?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: This is too rich by three quarters, coming from a member of a previous government that did everything they possibly could to debilitate our municipal sector. It downloaded $3.6 billion, and when municipalities complained about it and said that they were going to have a tough time making ends meet, they said, “Go raise taxes.”

Thanks for the question.

Correction of record

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Speaker, a point of order: I’d like to correct my record. During question period, I said GHG emissions rose by 171 megatonnes. They rose to 171 megatonnes during the Premier’s first year in office.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is a point of order and all members are allowed to correct the record.

Visitors

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s get through these quickly. I hope they’re not things that I need to get moving on, because we’ve got two very important things to do.

The member from Nepean–Carleton on a point of order.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate it. Merry Christmas again to all colleagues.

I just wanted to introduce my daughter, Victoria, and her friend Shannon who are here today to