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

October 18, 2016

41st Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2016-Oct-18 (PDF)

L016 - Tue 18 Oct 2016 / Mar 18 oct 2016

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 18 October 2016 Mardi 18 octobre 2016

Protecting Students Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 protégeant les élèves

Introduction of Visitors

Legislative pages

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Hydro rebates

Electronic health information

Electronic health information

Health care

Disaster relief

Arts and cultural funding

Horse racing industry

Workplace safety

Access to justice

School closures

Hydro rebates

Correctional services

Hydro rebates

Health care funding

Child care

Visitors

Correction of record

Introduction of Visitors

Members’ Statements

Derek Van Dieten

Tim Catherwood

Ontario Bengali Cultural Society

Hydro rates

Services for children and youth

Children’s aid societies

Automobile insurance

Hispanic Heritage Month

Reports by Committees

Standing Committee on Government Agencies

Comité permanent de la justice / Standing Committee on Justice Policy

Introduction of Bills

PANDAS/PANS Awareness Day Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la Journée de sensibilisation au PANDAS/PANS

Bangladeshi Heritage Month Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur le Mois du patrimoine bangladais

Statements by the Ministry and Responses

National Teen Driver Safety Week

Autism Awareness Month

National Teen Driver Safety Week

Autism Awareness Month

National Teen Driver Safety Week

Autism Awareness Month

Petitions

Energy policies

Disaster relief

Hydro rates

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Hydro rates

Shingles vaccine

Hydro rates

Hospital funding

Hospital funding

Privatization of public assets

Hydro rates

Orders of the Day

Ontario Rebate for Electricity Consumers Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la remise de l’Ontario pour les consommateurs d’électricité

Promoting Affordable Housing Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 sur la promotion du logement abordable

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Protecting Students Act, 2016 / Loi de 2016 protégeant les élèves

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 17, 2016, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 37,

An Act to amend the Early Childhood Educators Act, 2007 and the Ontario College of Teachers Act, 1996 / Projet de loi 37, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les éducatrices et les éducateurs de la petite enfance et la Loi de 1996 sur l’Ordre des enseignantes et des enseignants de l’Ontario.

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

Mr. Mike Colle: Good morning, everyone.

Interjections: Good morning.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yes, it’s appropriate that we say good morning. It’s like being in school here with all the pages.

As a former teacher for over 20 years, I have some interesting reflections about Bill 37. I would like to share some of the highlights of this legislation that’s before us. The bill is called the Protecting Students Act and, if passed, the bill would make important amendments to the Ontario College of Teachers Act.

Most people don’t know unless—if you’re in the teaching profession, you would know about the Ontario College of Teachers. It’s an autonomous governing body that deals with teachers’ standards and proper accreditation. It’s also a disciplinary body that deals with issues with teachers in schools.

The interesting thing about the Ontario College of Teachers is that it really tries to raise the standards and expectations of our teachers across the province of Ontario. We sometimes take for granted the critical importance that our teachers, schools, school volunteers, parent groups and CSAC groups play in education across this province, and this bill is basically trying to update and ensure that the Ontario College of Teachers and its focus are up to today’s standards, you might say. It builds on achieving excellence for teachers, ensuring equity and fairness, promoting well-being and enhancing public confidence in education.

I don’t know if you are familiar with the riding of Eglinton–Lawrence, Mr. Speaker, being from Chatham-Kent, the beautiful part of Ontario where all the soybeans, corn and tomatoes come from, but in Eglinton–Lawrence we have a very interesting phenomenon in that the public schools in Eglinton–Lawrence, many of them, are in some of the highest-priced neighbourhoods—probably, in part of my riding, one of the highest-priced neighbourhoods you’ll find anywhere in Canada. It’s not unusual to pay $2 million, $3 million, $4 million, $5 million, $6 million, $7 million, $8 million, $9 million or $10 million for a home, and that’s another issue about home affordability.

But the interesting thing is that many parents will want to live in parts of Eglinton–Lawrence near one of our great public schools. In other words, in some communities, you will see where people will buy an expensive, exclusive home and then send their kids to private school. Private schools—I don’t know if you are aware of it, Mr. Speaker. It’s not unusual to pay $20,000, $30,000 for tuition for one year,

whereas with a good public school system, we have people basically lining up to enrol their sons and daughters in our public schools.

Our public schools in Eglinton–Lawrence are generally filled to the rafters. You almost can’t get in. There are waiting lists to get in. I’m talking about schools like John Ross Robertson, John Wanless, Blessed Sacrament school, Lawrence Park Collegiate, Forest Hill Collegiate and John Polanyi public high school. These schools, again, are public schools, yet people will pay the high price of real estate to be near one of those public schools, to be in that area, so they can send their kids to schools like John Wanless, John Ross Robertson, and Blessed Sacrament.

That is a very positive reflection on the quality of education that students are getting in our public schools, because we have involved parents and we have excellent teachers and excellent principals. Therefore, we have this great desire to attend these public schools.

Those public schools, again, are part of the public school system. You don’t have to pay that $20,000, $30,000 to go to one of the private schools. That’s a reflection on the excellent quality of teachers we have in our education system, whether it be the public board, the French board, or the Catholic board.

They are not perfect in terms of delivering what is described as quality education, but on the other hand, they have an open-door policy. In a private school system, they can pick and choose their students, so they won’t take the struggling student. They won’t take the student who is maybe academically challenged. But our public schools will accept all comers, so that means our teachers have to deal with the reality of their community. They take in the bright students, the students that are struggling, the students with special needs. They take all comers. Yet despite that, where they can’t pick and choose like the private schools, they achieve great results.

In my riding, in the Fraser Institute grading of schools across Canada, some of my schools, like John Wanless and John Ross Robertson, come up in the top 10, beating out the best private schools in the country in their scores.

Those are the types of things you’re not going to read about in the newspapers or see on television, but those are the behind-the-scenes efforts of all of our teachers, our school boards and our parents that are making our public schools great places to learn.

In this legislation here, what we’re trying to do is to ensure that the best standards are met by our teachers, to reinforce these standards and to ensure that parents know that there is a body like the Ontario College of Teachers that works at this on a daily basis behind the scenes.

It’s not a glamorous job. It’s not one, as I said, that makes the headlines unless something, an abnormality or something, goes on that’s out of whack. But generally, this is the day-to-day work of the Ontario College of Teachers that is going on and has gone on, and now we’re just trying to update that to ensure that there’s a proper regulatory body in place with a disciplinary system. As you know, whether it’s students or whether it’s teachers, there are always, as I said, exceptions to the rule, and we have to be ready to protect the greater student body. We have to ensure that we have these standards in place.

The college has had very robust, you might say, agendas over the past years. I know that a few years ago we had the esteemed Judge Patrick LeSage, who put forward the report with many recommendations, looking at the disciplinary practices of the college of teachers and also the modernization of the college. Justice LeSage is one of the most renowned jurists, certainly, in Canada, and he put forth these recommendations. So the government has continued to work with the college of teachers to address all of 49 recommendations of Justice LeSage.

Now, as you know, most recommendations can be very technical, can be much more challenging than you think. So it’s not as if, when these recommendations come forward, they could be introduced overnight. But they are being introduced and phased in to the process of the Ontario College of Teachers. This is an ongoing activity, and this is something that would, again, I think, benefit the teaching profession.

Ultimately, when you have a teaching profession that is meeting high standards, obviously students benefit, but this is not something that day-to-day parents deal with because, as you know, day-to-day parents are rushing to get their children to school, get them to after-school programs, going to work. You know, it is very, very difficult for parents to—especially in today’s world, it’s difficult to get a stay-at-home parent. It just can’t happen, especially when you’re paying all the bills and you’re trying to take care of your job and career at the same time.

So therefore, parents rely on schools, rely on the college of teachers to ensure that the focus in our schools is appropriate for their sons and daughters and that this is the highest of standards. That’s something that parents really don’t get involved in unless there’s some circumstance where there needs to be a parental intervention, which happens from time to time.

As you know, our principals across this province deal with this kind of issue on a daily basis, and they have a very, very difficult job as principals, because they’re not only managing staff—they could have 10, 20, 30 teachers and staff. I mentioned here the other day that one of my granddaughters goes to a school, Runnymede public school in Toronto, where there are over 1,100 children in that public school. The interesting thing is that people are lined up to go to that school. It’s one of the best schools in the city. Despite its size—I think they have seven junior kindergartens. It’s in the Bloor West area of Toronto.

People want to go to that school because it has such good teachers and such good results. And so people want to go to this public school. You can imagine—I don’t know how many; I think they’ve got five or six vice-principals in that school and a number of principals. But you can imagine you, as a principal, being the chief administrator in a school with 1,100 children. We are challenged enough as parents when we’re trying to deal with our two or three or four kids in our household. We’ve got so many interesting activities our children get into.

You can imagine being responsible for a school of 1,100 little boys and girls. Every day, they come in and they’re scraping their knees, they’re having issues with learning mathematics etc. That’s what goes on in our schools across the province of Ontario. Every day, there are families depending on our schools to give their children the best possible tools as they grow up.

That’s why this legislation attempts to continue to ensure that there are the proper standards in place to protect students, protect schools and protect families in an educational setting. That is what this bill is trying to do. It’s trying to ensure that when something is off the rails in terms of a teacher’s behaviour there are rules in place and discipline in place to take care of that.

It is not an easy thing to do in any profession to impose mandatory, arbitrary rules and benchmarks. It has to be done in collaboration with the teachers. It has to be done in collaboration with the principals and the Ontario College of Teachers. That is the process and that is the framework of this bill that is before us today. The disciplinary processes are never easy, as you know, in any profession, but they have to be there. I think parents expect that if there is something that is not kosher, as they say, there is a responsibility of some disciplinary body to intervene.

That’s what the Ontario College of Teachers is doing. So this legislation tries to enhance that regulatory regime that the Ontario College of Teachers deals with.

While I’m here talking about education, as I mentioned, there are schools in one end of my riding in which the property values are quite high, but then people of very moderate means live in another end of my riding. In some of the areas around Avenue Road and Yonge Street, I have some fabulous schools. I mentioned Ledbury school, which is another great public school in my riding.

The beauty about walking into these schools is—I don’t know whether you have this in Chatham-Kent, but I’m sure you have a variety of different situations in Chatham-Kent. Just this past Christmas, I was at a school where my brother teaches. It’s called Archbishop Romero high school. It’s just outside of my riding. It’s in the Rogers Road and Weston Road area. Again, almost 90% of the kids are sons and daughters of recent immigrants. In that school, they were doing a fundraiser for a local charity. Every student was from a different country, spoke a different language—every student.

If you look at the spectrum, you’ll see they come from China, the Philippines, Ecuador, Mexico, Guatemala, Grenada—they come from everywhere. Every student is from a different background, yet all these students were coming together, raising money for a local charity, for a food drive, and all having a great deal of fun with their teachers and principal. Where else in the world could you find that but in Canada, in Ontario? You go to some of these other countries and they’re very homogeneous, not to say they’re bad. But I walk into these schools and, as I said, the whole world is represented.

That teacher has to be cognizant of the cultural background and the language challenges of each and every student. That isn’t easy. If you know that everybody is from Hamilton and they all come from Ancaster, you’ve got a certain—but even there, there’s a lot of diversity coming. Everybody is moving to Hamilton, I hear. It’s becoming the hot place in Canada to move to.

Just getting back to that challenge the teachers have, the diversity—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Thank you.

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you very much for listening to me, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to compliment the member for Eglinton–Lawrence on his speech this morning. This Bill 37, the government’s education bill, is the first piece of education legislation which the government has introduced in quite a long time. We support it and sincerely hope that students will be safer once these amendments to the Early Childhood Educators Act and the Ontario College of Teachers Act are passed into law.

There’s another education matter that I need to address to the Minister of Education and her staff today, who I know are monitoring this debate. That is a concern I have received from a constituent, Jeff Baechler of Georgetown, which we repeatedly raised with the former Minister of Education. It deals with the accreditation of teachers, which of course falls under the responsibility of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Mr. Baechler writes that the implementation of the two-year teacher education program is unjust and inequitable. He has repeated the point that concurrent teacher education students, who are students simultaneously enrolled in two programs leading to two degrees, are being treated differently than students who are studying to be teachers via the consecutive teaching education route; in other words, seeking to obtain an undergraduate degree before they study for a bachelor of education degree.

These concurrent education program students, if enrolled before 2015, are in effect exempted from the new two-year teacher education program, while the future teachers taking the consecutive education route must study for two years to receive their bachelor of education program.

We have repeatedly raised this issue with the government on Mr. Baechler’s behalf. I appreciate the research he has done and I admire his persistence. At the very least, he is entitled to an unbiased review of his concern and a satisfactory explanation. I urge the new Minister of Education to review this matter with a view to seeking a solution which is fair both to concurrent and consecutive teaching education students, and respond to Mr. Baechler. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mrs. Lisa Gretzky: It’s my pleasure to rise on behalf of my constituents of Windsor West and as the NDP education critic. I had an hour yesterday to discuss the bill before us, Bill 37, but there’s always more to add so I’m happy to have the opportunity to do so.

The member from the government side spoke at length about schools in his riding and the importance of our education system and kids being safe while at school and how important that is to the students, to the parents and, frankly, it’s important to the large majority of education workers. So I want to make it clear from the top that this legislation before us would actually only touch on a very, very small minority of educators.

Most of them would not ever see any disciplinary action under this bill because most of our teachers—again, the large majority of our teachers do a very, very good job of not only educating our children but taking good care of them and making sure that they’re safe while at school.

I think an important parallel—because the member was speaking greatly about schools in his riding—is that when we’re talking about the safety of students, we need to talk about not just those who are put in charge of the care of the students while they’re in the buildings, but the actual condition of the buildings that students are in. Often those conditions are not safe.

We’re looking at a $15-billion repair backlog that the government is not addressing. We’re finding heating and cooling issues in schools, so kids are cold or they’re too hot and they’re passing out. We’re finding that roofs are failing, so we’re having leaking roofs. In some extreme cases, roofs and ceilings are actually falling down in gymnasiums while students are in the gym.

I think the government needs to do a better job of actually taking care of the entire education system, rather than standing up and just talking a good talk.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments? I recognize the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thanks very much, Mr. Speaker. It’s the riding with the longest name because our people have the biggest hearts, the biggest hopes and the biggest dreams. You can tell I’m in politics.

I always enjoy the member from Eglinton–Lawrence and his wise words. I was particularly touched by his reference to not only Hamilton, but to kids from diverse backgrounds. I have always thought that we need to be measuring our success as a society by our kids’ success in school, because that’s fundamental to how they manage later in life.

The honourable member’s wise words talked about a broadened approach to finding some creative ways to bring peace to the schoolyard and to deal with discipline in a collaborative way with our teacher friends, all the time celebrating that virtually all of our teachers have come through this collaborative arrangement to see children not as children of modest means, but rather as boys and girls of unlimited potential. As long as we can continue to support that, we’ll do well.

The best way to do that, of course, is to work collaboratively with our educators and those who have a profound interest in making sure that our kids succeed. The best way to do that, of course, is to ensure confidently that they’re protected and that the recommendations of Justice LeSage are implemented as quickly as possible. The honourable member drew attention to that, and he deserves our praise for his wise words.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Bill Walker: I commend the member for bringing this forward. I really wish it was already in place. It was actually introduced back in 2013 after a report by the Honourable Patrick J. LeSage made 49 recommendations. It’s interesting that here we are in 2016 and it’s still not through, sadly. But at the end of the day, as a caucus, I believe we’re prepared to support.

We have to have unequivocal responsibilities as a society to protect our children and students. There’s absolutely no place for child exploitation in this province or in any part of our society, for that matter. We expect all individuals, regardless of profession, who engage in this abhorrent behaviour to be brought to justice.

We’ve actually suggested as well that there are some other potential amendments. One would be creating a public website that lists individuals who have had their certificate revoked for certain forms of sexual abuse or acts relating to child pornography. That way parents can go on and they can be assured in their own mind. That’s the most important thing—making sure that the children are safe, first of all, in an environment that allows them to have that safe and comfortable feeling, but also allows parents, as we want to ensure that for our children, to know.

Any member of the college who is accused of

an act of misconduct will be subject to immediate leave without pay. In lieu of transparency, unless the teacher has been the subject of death threats or the like, there will be a public hearing. If the act against the student is punishable under the Criminal Code for five years or greater,

section 23 would include additional details such as the address of the member who committed the crime in order to serve and protect the public interest.

As I’ve said all along and as I believe, I hope this bill is trying to address the safety of the children. Ensuring there’s an environment where they can thrive, grow and learn, obviously, is the most important fiduciary responsibility of all of us as legislators; but more importantly, it’s all of us thinking as parents, what we would want for our children and our schools.

I’m pleased to see the members continuing to push it forward. As I said, I wish it was already in place. The 49 recommendations from Mr. LeSage are there. I hope that we can move this through. We’ll monitor it in committee and support this bill when it comes to a vote.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Back to the member from Eglinton–Lawrence for final comments.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to thank the members from Wellington–Halton Hills, Windsor West, Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale and Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound for their helpful comments.

I just was thinking, while I was speaking and hearing the comments—as I said, I was a teacher for 18 years in Toronto in the high school system. I was just recalling my father—the member from Windsor West mentioned it’s not just teachers that make a great school. My father was a caretaker in a local school in Toronto. He had been a steelworker for many years, until the plant closed down. Then when my dad got a job as a caretaker, he thought he’d died and gone to heaven, from working in a foundry to working in a school. He just loved the job. He would work the night shift. That was the greatest job he ever had, and it was a joy for him, going to work every day.

I remember an incident. One time, a grade 6 teacher came up to me and said, “You know, your dad saved my teaching career.” I said, “What do you mean?” He said, “Well, I was just a beginning teacher, and I was having problems with disciplining the kids.” Basically, the kids, as they can, can take over a classroom, so this new teacher was really in deep trouble. My dad heard of his concern, so my dad marched into the classroom one morning and to each student, he said, “If you don’t behave and obey this teacher—I know each and every single one of your parents, and I’m going to tell them that you’re not behaving.

Believe me, your parents will take care of you if you don’t behave.” Ever since my dad, as the caretaker, marched in and read the riot act to help out this teacher, that teacher said the kids’ behaviour totally turned around. So that was an interesting anecdote.

It takes more than just teachers. It takes the caretaker staff, the support staff. Everybody makes for a good school.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to join the debate today with regard to Bill 37, Protecting Students Act. Of course, we all concur in this House that students are the future of our economy, of our communities and our families, to be straightforward. I’m going to just put that out there. We need to put every best effort forward to ensure that our most vulnerable are protected.

In that regard, the safety and security of our children and young people is a very serious matter. As policy-makers, we have an obligation to ensure that we do all we can to address potential threats to that security in a timely, responsible manner.

I’m going to talk about timeliness in a moment, because we need to give recognition where recognition is due. I’m pleased to say that the PC Party of Ontario recognized this early in the 2000s. I’m glad that finally, today, in 2016, we’re getting back to seriously putting forward legislation that will make a difference. Because at the end of the day, when our students jump on the school bus or walk to school and enter that institution, we put our trust in our educators to ensure that our children are cared for, protected, nurtured and respected so that they ultimately can have the best learning environment possible.

As figures of authority, we look to teachers to guide our young people into the future in a positive, healthy way. As a result, teachers have a level of influence that is unmatched by any other profession. Most of our teachers understand that importance. There is responsibility and hard work to keep the confidence of parents and their charges. But when that trust is violated in extreme and profound ways, it has serious, long-lasting impacts for the student.

As I mentioned, to children, teachers are authority figures who have a significant degree of influence. They not only assign grades but report behaviour to parents. Students who are being exploited may thus feel pressure to comply with a teacher’s demands, for fear of negative repercussions. For younger students, they may also fear getting in trouble if they don’t comply with their teacher’s wishes.

At the end of the day, when we take a look across the province, we all agree in this House that our teachers are the most important resource. We all appreciate the good that they do in order to help our young people become productive, happy members of our communities.

In fact, as you may recall, I have many friends and family members myself who are part of the education system, both here at home in Ontario and abroad in places such as China, Kuwait, Thailand and South America, just to name a few. They work their butts off, Speaker, to ensure that their classrooms are the best environments possible. They have come forward with every best intention, but unfortunately, just like any basket—or bushel basket, I’ll say—of apples, there unfortunately could be the potential bad one. So we do need legislation that addresses this particular issue, and Bill 37 does get to that.

As we take a look and drill down on Bill 37, we in the PC Party of Ontario wholeheartedly agree that this legislation is indeed needed. We’re glad, as I mentioned before, to see the Liberals are finally taking steps to address such a serious subject.

As I hinted just moments ago, it was actually the PC Party of Ontario that established the groundwork on this matter, going all the way back to 2002, when former Minister of Education Janet Ecker introduced Bill 101, the Student Protection Act. At that time, Minister Ecker took steps to remove potential threats to children from the classroom by amending

section 30 of the Education Act. Her particular work read as follows:

“On becoming aware that a teacher or temporary teacher who is employed by the board has been charged with or convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) involving sexual conduct and minors, or of any other offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) that in the opinion of the board indicates that pupils may be at risk, take prompt steps to ensure that the teacher or temporary teacher performs no duties in the classroom and no duties involving contact with pupils, pending withdrawal of the charge, discharge following a preliminary inquiry, stay of the charge or acquittal, as the case may be.”

I thank Janet Ecker for her efforts back in 2002, and I’m glad to see that the essence established at that time by the PC Party of Ontario has transcended the years and has finally landed in Bill 37.

I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that back in 2002, among several things, Bill 101, the Student Protection Act, also amended the Ontario College of Teachers Act with regard to the obligations of employers in reporting offences. At that time, it specifically stated:

“An employer shall promptly report to the college in writing when the employer becomes aware that a member who is or has been employed by the employer,

“(

a) has been charged with or convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) involving sexual conduct and minors;

“(

b) has been charged with or convicted of an offence under the Criminal Code (Canada) that in the opinion of the employer indicates that students may be at risk of harm or injury; or

“(

c) has engaged in conduct or taken action that, in the opinion of the employer, should be reviewed by a committee of the college.”

As you can see, Speaker, we on this side of the House absolutely take this matter seriously. Unfortunately, the government’s earlier versions of this bill have been sidelined due to their other priorities. That’s where it gets frustrating, Speaker. The very essence of Bill 37 needs to be embraced and championed through this House in a timely manner.

But unfortunately, for instance, when the Premier introduced—actually, before I get to that, I want to just make sure everybody listening today understands that in the last 13 years, this particular piece of legislation has been introduced to this assembly no less than three times, beginning with Bill 103 in 2013, and again as Bill 200 in May just this year. Now, for the third time, we’re debating it as Bill 37.

Each time, the government failed to get this job done, but we’re committed to a safe and protected environment for our students, so we want to see Bill 37 get right across the finish line this time around.

When I think about why Bill 200, introduced just this past spring, fell off the order paper, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that I feel it’s very much a shame that the Premier’s own self-interest caused this bill to die on the order paper the second time around when she prorogued this government in September. We may have been much further ahead on this issue had it not happened.

I want to take a few minutes to share with you some headlines that emphasize how important it is that we treat this issue in a timely manner and get the job done once and for all. These headlines are sad, but it emphasizes the point that we’ve lost time on this bill and we need to get it done.

For instance, in the Toronto Star on July 2016, a headline was published: “Ottawa Teacher Charged with Sexual Assault of Student.”

In June 2016, in the Toronto Sun, a headline was published: “Peel Teacher Accused of Sex Assault of Student.”

In March 2016, in the National Post, there was an

article and a student was quoted: “‘She Would Stalk Me’: Ottawa Teacher’s Aide Pleads Guilty to Sexually Assaulting Male Student for Years.”

Another headline: “Teacher Charged with Sex-Related Offences Involving a Student.” That was published by CTV Ottawa in May 2016.

In April 2016, the Ottawa Sun published a headline that read, “Female Teacher with Ottawa Catholic School Board Charged with Sexual Assault on Student.”

In the Windsor Star, in the summer—July, specifically—we learned of another headline: “Windsor Elementary Teacher Charged with Sexual Assault.”

I think these headlines speak volumes about the effect that inaction can have.

Unfortunately, as I said, we have seen this bill come to the floor three times now, and unfortunately, when the legislation has not been acted upon in a timely fashion, we’ve had these headlines hit the papers. It’s very, very sad. I think while the government delays and stalls progress on these changes as noted in Bill 37, the lives of real people, our children, our future, are being impacted in ways no child should have to experience.

I implore the government of the day to work with us to get this legislation through. It has been too long and it’s time to get the job done.

Applause.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Thank you.

Education seems to be a file that this government stumbles on time and time again. I’m reminded of one example in particular from earlier this year when the former Minister of Education refused, for weeks, to provide families and students who benefit from demonstration schools with answers on whether or not they would remain open for the 2016-17 academic year. While the minister eventually agreed to keep them open and operating for another year, there was no offer for a long-term solution for families looking to plan for the future.

Again, I share this today because it’s pertinent. Inaction creates instability, and our children, our future and their families deserve to have the respect and timely action that will make a difference in their learning environment and in their confidence in their future. Again, I impress upon this government: Let’s get this job done. Let’s work together. We can do this. Let’s not let it die on the floor or let it get lost in the committee process.

There’s another example that I’d like to share as well coming from my own riding of Huron–Bruce, and it impacts my friend’s riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound as well. Again, Bill 37 is about enabling a secure learning environment for our young people, but I would be remiss at this time of the debate not to touch on the fact that a secure learning environment and the future of communities are dependent upon a government that understands the important pillar that education plays in all of our communities.

In the north end of our riding we’re hearing a lot about the potential closure of Paisley Central School and Chesley District Community School. Chesley District is a K-to-12 school, and Paisley Central School is well-attended and there’s economic development initiatives happening that show that growth is going to be happening in that community, propping up the enrolment levels at Paisley Central. We need to have proper attention paid to our institutions. The fact that we’re talking about safe, secure learning environments for our students—I have a letter from Dale Steinhoff from Paisley.

He touches on a couple of other elements in his letter that I would like to share with the floor at this time. He writes, “Unfortunately, the Paisley accommodation review, like those others recently held throughout Grey Bruce, appears to have a predetermined outcome and the views of the local electorate are paid very little heed.”

Again, my riding of Huron–Bruce actually takes in the hinterland, the greater Paisley area, if you will. The school proper is in the great neighbouring riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Dale goes on to say that he has “every confidence that the administrators at the board office and the province have all their ducks neatly in a row to ensure that this closure is carried out.” It makes him concerned. He goes on to say, “It is unfortunate, but our pleas appear to be falling on deaf ears. I write this letter with the hope that there’s someone in a position of influence who appreciates that Paisley is on the verge of something very good and to close the school now would make absolutely no sense.”

It is shameful that this government has allowed our education system to fall into such disarray.

I would like to return to the bill and provide more background, if you will, on how we can amend and fix some of this frustration, address the disarray that this constituent addressed in his letter and talk about the proposed changes that we need to debate for Bill 37. We have to have a context of how all of this has come to be.

I know my colleague from Whitby–Oshawa provided a similar background yesterday, but I want to ensure that we’re all on the same page today. Here we go, in terms of the context. In 2011, the Ontario College of Teachers commissioned the Honourable Patrick LeSage, former Chief Justice of the Superior Court, to review its intake, investigation and discipline procedures and outcomes, and its dispute resolution programs.

Within these areas, Mr. LeSage was specifically asked to consider issues including communication and publication practices, impartiality and timeliness of adjudication, training and legal support, appropriateness of disciplinary outcomes, confidentiality and the handling of concerns about the college’s members. His 76-page report established 49 recommendations, which I am glad to see have all been included in Bill 37.

I want to focus on three of them that I believe are especially important. The first recommendation is 32, which states, “The penalty for sexual abuse or sexual misconduct by a teacher involving a student should almost invariably be” the stripping “of the member’s teaching certificate.” He goes on to state in his findings that “anything less brings disrepute on the college and the profession.”

We feel that we have amendments that would help strengthen the legislation and ensure that proper punitive measures are being taken at every stage of the process. We hope our amendments are given serious consideration, as I mentioned earlier, when it gets to the committee process.

Also of important note is Mr. LeSage’s recommendation 34, which states, “Decisions, including those that flow from dispute resolution agreements of the discipline committee, must be published and available on the website and the name of the member must be included.”

Transparency is paramount. It’s something that this government just can’t give lip service to. It is essential in ensuring that parents are able to make informed decisions about where they choose to enrol their children, which is why we’re advocating that the government take this a step further and create a public website that lists individuals who have had their certificate revoked for certain forms of sexual abuse or acts relating to child pornography. Pornography is a huge issue that I am glad my colleague and my seatmate from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock is addressing very seriously in Bill 17.

Going back specifically to what we’re addressing today, we believe that the amendment would make it easier for parents to see which members of the college have committed an offence against a student. No longer would parents have to search the entire college database of suspension for various reasons. Rather, they would be able to see the list of individuals who have had their certificate revoked specifically for sexual misconduct charges.

Thirdly, and by no means the least, is recommendation 24, which would require that timelines be set for drafting, reviewing, signing and serving notice of the hearing. In his rationale, LeSage emphasized: “If the discipline process does not quickly and appropriately deal with matters of professional misconduct and incompetence, the public interest is not being served.”

Speaker, that comment could apply to many other issues that this government is mismanaging, but I’d be remiss if I went in that direction, so I’m going to stick with the fact that in terms of recommendation 24 from LeSage, he went on to say, “School boards have expressed concerns about outstanding complaints. When decisions remain pending for a lengthy period, significant costs are incurred. The teacher is placed on administrative leave. The school board must pay a supply teacher. The delay in the communication of decisions can be a distractor in the work of schools and school boards.

Additionally, teachers who are under investigation, and who choose to move to another school district, create difficult situations for school boards during the reference checking process. While recognizing the complexity of the process, timely information is critical. Like the school board, the member who is the subject of the discipline proceeding deserves an early conclusion to outstanding allegations.”

Speaker, with these changes, we believe that we are on a positive track to protecting students and ensuring that our classrooms remain a safe environment where they can learn and grow, free from fear.

All that said, we believe there are still some areas which could be strengthened. One in particular that we’ll be bringing forward in committee is to see those who are employed by a school board, by way of a letter of inclusion, face the same standards, penalties and processes as members of the college. School boards often employ people such as sports coaches and second-language instructors who do not possess a teaching certificate but who possess a letter of permission. We feel that they too should not be exempt. They too should fall under the same standards and repercussions as their teacher counterparts, because they too are in a position of trust and influence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: A very important bill. The title, Protecting Students—of course, everyone here, and I think everyone in society at large wants to make sure, when we send our kids to school, that they’re in a safe environment.

That kind of leads me to talk about my granddaughter. She’s four years old. This year was her first year that she started school. She is extremely excited, and she has a wonderful teacher. The experiences that she comes home and articulates really warm my heart.

There are so many great teachers out there, and students always look up to their teachers. They’re their mentors. They spend more time, probably, with the teachers during the day sometimes than with parents at home—you know, like before they get ready for bed for the next day. We really value the work that teachers do.

We also understand the reason that the bill has been presented, because sometimes we do have to address situations where we need to protect our students. We have concerns with regard to some of the bill items. One of them is making sure that there is due process when that happens. We want to make sure that the process that’s set up is a fair and just process when the situation arises.

Overall, I think we need to acknowledge that the majority of our teachers are wonderful educators, wonderful mentors and examples of fine adults for what our children need to see as responsible human beings.

I’m glad to debate the bill, because we have to make sure that we do protect our students in situations that arise such as this. They are few and far between, but there needs to be a system in place such that, when it does happen, we do have protection for our students.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Hon. Dipika Damerla: This morning, I’m also very pleased to rise and add my voice in support of Bill 37. As many of the speakers have spoken to, I think teachers have played a central role in all our lives. Now that my daughter has gone to first-year university, I can reflect back to her own school years and all of the stories she would bring home about the various teachers.

Going back to my own childhood, which now seems very, very long ago, there are teachers who have left their mark on us. I certainly have a few teachers to whom I owe a lot of who I am today.

But keeping that in context, from time to time, I guess circumstances are such that some teachers may need to be disciplined. That is what this bill is about. I believe it strikes a fair balance between recognizing, as all of us do, that for the most part teachers play a very constructive and positive role, but also recognizing that teachers also have great responsibility as they shape the lives of hundreds and thousands of children, and to that end, to make sure that we have in place all of the tools so that children and their safety are at all times protected.

One of the things that I truly like about this bill is the fact that it very clearly says to require the publication of all decisions of the discipline committee on the OCT website. To me, that speaks to the issue of transparency, because once the decisions are put online and it’s public, I don’t think there can be any questions lingering around the fairness of the process; or if there were, they could be addressed.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s a pleasure to rise today and add my voice in support of Bill 37.

I’d like to commend our speaker this morning, the member from Huron–Bruce, who went through and outlined a number of the reasons why we support the bill, conditionally, as we do, a little bit of the background and history of the bill, about it having been introduced twice before, and of course going back to the original under the PC government, when the legislation was first introduced a number of years ago.

As a number of speakers have said, a number of us look back—some of us further back than others—to our formative years in education. I won’t go into any detail here about how far back that is for me, but, believe me, it was a number of years ago. I still remember those civics classes and those days, and there are certain teachers over the years, whether it was in grade school or in secondary school, who made an impression on me. Whether it was on history or civics or those types of courses that we took, it made a big impression on us.

They also outlined the 49 recommendations that were made as part of the LeSage report. Certainly, the college of teachers itself asked for the review. They recognized themselves that there was an issue either in the public’s eye or in their own administration, but they had issues with—in any occupation, there’s a certain number of people who need discipline, bad actors, whatever word you want to use. They recognized that themselves when they called for that review.

We certainly support the bill as it’s written. I know that there was one thing we didn’t get on the record, but they say here that British Columbia has provisions under

section 50 of the Teachers Act “to suspend the letter of permission of a person who is the subject of the report, complaint or investigation until the report, complaint or investigation is resolved.” So there are a number of initiatives being taken across the country to address this.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I think it’s absolutely important that we protect our students. It’s something that we all support in this House. There are circumstances that arise where we need to have certain protocols in place so that students are protected.

I think we’ve all shared stories about how teachers have had a tremendous impact on our lives. I recently was able to meet up with my grade 5 teacher after many years. He lives in the same neighbourhood in Windsor where I grew up. I went by his house on a whim. I was with my childhood friend, and we knocked on his door and he was there. We chatted, and it was amazing to connect with someone who was such an important part of my life.

While it’s so important to protect our students and while this bill is obviously important, it’s also important to note that as the speaker mentioned, this government has had a very difficult time—it has stumbled a lot with the education file—and I agree. They’ve caused chaos in schools.

Currently, we’re seeing a massive problem that’s looming and is continuing to grow. Schools are in great and dire need of repairs. The government has not moved forward in terms of protecting students in schools that are crumbling, schools that don’t have the right resources in terms of their infrastructure. In addition, this government promised not to cut in terms of education, and we’re seeing in the Peel region that classrooms are being closed. At a time where there are more and more portables, we’re seeing in addition classrooms being closed down.

This is not the right direction. We need to ensure that students have a healthy and safe place to learn. Education is paramount in our society. It’s the tool that provides society with the ability to grow and to learn, and particularly in the modern day where we have such an importance placed on the knowledge economy, we need a government that understands how important it is to invest, ensuring that our students are protected not only in terms of their treatment with their fellow classmates and by teachers but also in terms of the infrastructure of school.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Now back to the member from Huron–Bruce for final comments.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I certainly appreciate the comments that we had from the member from London–Fanshawe, the minister responsible for seniors, the member from Sarnia–Lambton as well as the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton, because we all concur. You heard it here, Speaker.

We care about our students, we care about ensuring that they have safe learning environments that fit so well in communities and, in particular, the last comments that we just heard in terms of further examples of how this particular government over the last 13 years has failed with the education file, from the crumbling schools to the cuts to education that they said wouldn’t be made; a failed accommodation review whereby this government purposely ripped out community impacts of school closures.

The list could go on and on in terms of how this particular government of the day has failed students and failed communities in terms of their lack of vision and lack of commitment to community with regard to education. But the one thing that we need to embrace today is we all agree that Bill 37, once and for all, needs to get done.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, at the PC Party of Ontario, we’re leaders in this particular issue. Going back to 2002, the minister of the day, Janet Ecker, actually introduced the legislation, and I’m so glad to see it’s finally coming through after this government failed three different times. Actually, it failed two different times to bring it forward, this being the third time—their third kick at the can.

To conclude, I just want to share some comments from an author by the name of Haim Ginott. It ties together exactly what Bill 37 is trying to do. He quotes a teacher: “I can humiliate or humour, hurt or heal.”

Let’s help our teachers be the best they can be and protect our students so that we have great learning environments throughout Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): Further debate? I recognize the member from Oshawa.

Ms. Jennifer K. French: I’m pleased to be able to rise today and speak on Bill 37, the Protecting Students Act. I’m glad to be able to follow our critic from Windsor West, the education critic, who has been doing fantastic work across the education sector with educators, education workers and those who really see first-hand what is going on in our schools and in our education system.

We are here talking about education. We’re here talking about our students. We’re talking about the climate in which they learn, the environment that they learn and grow in, and we want to ensure that that is always the strongest, best and safest environment it can be. Teachers and education workers do a phenomenal job every day. It has been very heartening to hear during the debate that members from all parties recognize the important work that they do every day; that teachers are social workers, they are mentors and they are role models. They are, of course, educators. They inspire. They guide.

I think everyone in this room remembers their teachers: the good, the bad, the strict, the fair, the fun, the eccentric. We all remember our teachers. Sometimes we had a year that we really enjoyed our teachers, and other years where we did a lot of personal growing. But that’s how we become who we are in our education system along the way, and we value the work of those who have shaped our understanding, our thoughts and our learning environments. All of those teachers, though, while they’re all so different, what they all have in common is that they’re in positions of influence, authority and trust.

I’ll tell you, though, that teachers, just as much as parents, want to keep their kids safe, so they bend over backwards to ensure that that happens. They will spend the money that the government won’t when it comes to art supplies, when it comes to sports equipment, when it comes to new shoes or food or whatever it is that they need to pay for to protect students’ futures and their potential. They advocate. They have a duty to report. They work with parents. They work with special education supports in schools. It really does take a team in our schools to ensure that students have the best opportunities.

But this bill is about exceptions. It is a strong piece of legislation that we support and recognize as being necessary. This bill talks about what happens when a teacher in a position of trust hurts, harms or abuses any of our children. There is never a place where our children should be at risk, and today we are discussing our schools and our classrooms. Certainly, there should never be harm in our schools and classrooms.

This bill makes changes—it amends the Ontario College of Teachers Act and makes changes that will affect a very small number of teachers—but it really is so important. This is necessary legislation, and we absolutely support it. We want it to be tough. We want to protect our kids. We want to ensure due process, as we’ve heard over and over again. We must have proper oversight and measures in place to ensure crimes are punished and kids are always protected.

A bit of history, Mr. Speaker: In 2000, there were changes to the Child and Family Services Act that required teachers to report all suspicions that they had if a child was in need of protection. As a teacher, I knew that I had a duty to report. We all did. We also had a duty to care and to protect.

Parents hand over what is most precious in the world to them to the care of those in our schools. We take that job seriously as educators. There’s trust and integrity that is involved, and so it makes me sick to my stomach to imagine any who would harm our most precious, our students.

Back in 2011, the Toronto Star brought to light failings in the Ontario College of Teachers. The Ontario College of Teachers actually did admit that there were failings in terms of transparency and maintaining that public trust, and that there were teachers who were granted anonymity, who pled guilty or no contest to certain allegations. There were a number of changes that needed to happen at that time, and the Ontario College of Teachers did take action. It hired retired Judge LeSage, who investigated and put forward a 76-page report with 49 recommendations.

At that time, the education minister said, “We are not waiting to take action.” Well, Mr. Speaker, here we are; and this is the third time that an incarnation of this bill has been brought forward. While I’m glad to debate this now—this hasn’t happened yet, and it’s about time that it did.

The LeSage report said the public interest “must underlie each and every decision made by councillors of the college” and “the overriding principle must be transparency and openness.” It absolutely must.

Speaker, there is nothing more important than the safety and the psychological well-being of our children. We know that teachers are always on duty. They’re professionals in positions of trust, and they must uphold high standards of conduct. When they fail to, they absolutely must be held accountable.

The Ontario College of Teachers has a role and that is to maintain public trust in our education system, to investigate, to discipline and to conduct public hearings while maintaining a fair due process and operating within their mandate.

The government has a role and that is to act effectively and swiftly when it comes to the LeSage report recommendations. But as I said, here we are four or five years later. This should be a matter of principle. We’re talking about safety and security, egregious misconduct and sexual abuse. So three bills and almost five years later, that sounds like a matter of politics, and that is unfortunate.

I don’t know what the government wants, but I know that parents want kids to be safe and students want to learn and grow in safe classrooms. New Democrats want that too. I would imagine all members of this House want that. We want tough legislation to ensure that guilty individuals are appropriately and fairly disciplined and kept away from our kids. We also need to ensure due process for the accused. We want stricter but fairer penalties.

Teachers are accused of any number of things on a regular basis in today’s schools. That is the truth. Unfounded, frivolous, vexatious and malicious accusations are not uncommon, unfortunately. I taught for almost 10 years, and there was never a year, there was never a school, where I didn’t bear witness to career-damaging false accusations directed at great teachers. That is, unfortunately, the nature of the business. Everyone deserves due process; however, if found guilty, then no one deserves to be let off the hook when it comes to our kids.

This bill, Bill 37, is called the Protecting Students Act. I would say that there are a few items missing. My colleague the critic for education has brought forward a number of issues when it comes to infrastructure, the school repair backlog and the unbelievable heating and cooling issues—the situations within our schools. We’ve talked about what chronic underfunding has led to. Really, it’s jeopardizing the learning environment. It’s jeopardizing learning.

I mentioned that teachers will reach into their own pockets and into their own hearts when it comes to school supplies, when it comes to food, when it comes to providing not the extras but the fundamentals—that they are filling in the budgetary gaps for this government. But it has reached a tipping point because, when we realize that so much is missing, our students are not being protected; their best interests are not being protected.

So I worry that this bill is a little bit of a misnomer—well, not a misnomer, but we’re missing something here; we’re missing an opportunity. Much like the Putting Students First Act was a great title—it was a great title, but it didn’t put students first; it robbed teachers of sick leave and, among other things, stole the right to freely bargain contracts, you may recall. It imposed a contract instead.

Now, by the way, after a charter challenge, the courts have found that Bill 115 was unconstitutional. Now, this government has a chance to make things right, a chance to remedy this illegal wrong. This government has done so much damage to our education system; I wonder where they’re going to begin. With language like “putting students first” and “protecting students,” you would almost be optimistic; you would almost think they were sincere in wanting to make education better.

However, since losing the charter challenge, this government’s offer is to apologize and stick teachers and students with the status quo. The status quo isn’t serving our students. Since it was against the law to forcibly take away the right to negotiate, this government’s remedy suggestion is to politely offer to take away the right to negotiate. Speaker, actually, wouldn’t that still be illegal? Just a question. I find this government unbelievable, and we will watch this play out. Instead of strengthening education or protecting learning or students, they seek to undermine and damage just to save a buck wherever they can.

I would say that we’re also missing an opportunity to protect students. I’m hearing, in my community and across the province, a distressing issue: One of the priority issues right now is violence in our schools. Bill 37 chooses to omit it. As a teacher and as the critic for community safety, I am concerned. We see escalating violence and a lack of funding for special education. We’re not doing what we need to protect our students in our classrooms. We have Kevlar in our classrooms. We have evacuations in our classrooms. We have teachers who are mandated to wear Kevlar hoodies and shin guards. This is real, in our elementary classrooms.

Mr. Speaker, you’re telling me to wrap up. I’ve got so much more to say. Okay, fine. I will finish with, “Shame on this government.” I think that students need protection from this government. That’s how things have turned out. Isn’t that a shame?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rick Nicholls): It is now 10:15 and this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

Introduction of Visitors

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Our new page from Parkdale–High Park, John Papanikolaou—his mother, Elena Poulos, is here. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Bob Delaney: On behalf of the member for Scarborough Southwest and his page captain, Cooper Custance, I’m pleased to recognize Cooper’s parents, Donna and Todd Custance; his grandparents Fran and Don Brownrigg; and his sister Kate Custance. They will be in the members’ gallery this morning. Please welcome them.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, as you know, a page from my riding, Elisabeth Lawton—her mother, Barbara Higgins, is here. Welcome to Queen’s Park this morning.

As well, from the Co-operative Housing Federation—I met this morning with my friends Douglas Wong, Denise McGahan and David Waters. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I’m really excited to welcome a good friend of mine to Queen’s Park. Her name is Céline Carrière. She is the executive director of the Co-operative Housing Association of Eastern Ontario. I want to thank Céline for her incredible work in our community.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I’m very pleased to introduce Josi MacCarthy, who is the proud mother of Paige MacCarthy, who is the page from the riding of Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Today I’d like to welcome guests from the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada: Harvey Cooper, managing director; David Waters, president; Barb Millsap, treasurer; and Dawn Richardson, program manager. Welcome. I look forward to the reception tonight.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’d like to introduce Simone Swail, Tim Ross and Peter Gesiarz. They’re here today as part of Co-Op Housing Day. I encourage everyone here to attend their event this evening in rooms 228 and 230, to learn more about the good work that they are doing. Thanks again for being here, and welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Sophie Kiwala: I would like to welcome some students from Queen’s University who are here for the legislative press gallery’s mentoring program. I would also like to acknowledge Christina Blizzard for her wonderful work in doing that mentoring, as well as the other members of the press. Please, everyone, join me in a round of applause.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I have some visitors from up north. We have the chief of Mattagami First Nation, Mr. Walter Naveau, and the fire chief of Gogama, in the north end of my community, who have made the trek down to take in question period this morning. Please welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to welcome Eva Pinto, who is the mother of page Aaron Pinto. Both live in my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville. Please welcome them.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Earlier today I met with Elder Garry Sault from the Mississaugas of the New Credit, and also David Suzuki from the David Suzuki Foundation, who are on the grounds today talking about the Environmental Bill of Rights.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature today, in the public gallery, James Edwards, the father of our page Carter Edwards. Welcome, James. We’re really thrilled to have Carter as a page from our community.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from—let me get it right. The member from—

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Scarborough–Rouge River.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —Scarborough–Rouge River.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: There was just a by-election, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shows you that I don’t pay attention to that.

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m exceedingly happy to welcome the students from Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute in my riding, Scarborough–Rouge River.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would like to introduce the House to our new pages. Could I have them assemble, please.

Is Aaron here? There he is. He was already working.

From Mississauga East–Cooksville, Aaron Pinto; from Davenport, Bianca Morelli; from Toronto Centre, Carter Edwards; from Oshawa, Catherine Pelicano; from Scarborough Southwest, Cooper Custance; from Willowdale, Do En Kim; from Nepean–Carleton, Dylan Manary; from Windsor–Tecumseh, Elisabeth Lawton; from Perth–Wellington, Emily Royce; from Parkdale–High Park, John Papanikolaou; from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, Kepler Pyle; from Vaughan, Nicolas Polga; from Ottawa–Vanier, Olivier Bélanger; from Simcoe–Grey, Paige MacCarthy; from Brampton–Springdale, Paige Schneider; from Halton, Riya Karumanchi; from Don Valley West, Samantha Lew; from Etobicoke North, Suryakant Jain; from Brampton West, Yasmine Ahmed; and from Pickering–Scarborough East, Randy Ai.

These are our pages for this session.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): After those introductions, it is now time for question period.

Oral Questions

Energy policies

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. We know the Liberal Party took $1.3 million in donations from renewable energy companies, we know the Liberal government gave those 30 companies energy contracts for power that Ontario did not need and we know the Liberal government will overpay $9.2 billion for renewable energy contracts already signed.

Rather than cast blame on others, rather than try games of diversion, I want a simple question answered. My question is: Can the Minister of Energy explain and reconcile whether this government took $1.3 million in donations for the Ontario Liberal Party in exchange for contracts that were overpaid—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no, no, no, no.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated. That will do.

Hon. Bill Mauro: How do you feel about that?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do. Minister of Municipal Affairs, I just said stop and you continued. Stop.

That is not an acceptable

section of your question. It will be withdrawn.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I thank the member for the somewhat of a question. When it comes to election financing, our goal with elections financing reform has been to change the way that politics are done in Ontario. We believe that the public interest must be paramount, and that’s why our caucus and our government have taken the step to look at making sure that we continue to hear from the general public over the summer.

When it comes to fundraising, I find it very interesting that the Leader of the Opposition held a steak dinner for $5,000 per person and, of course, then a golf tournament at $2,000 per person. That’s $7,000 for a little bit of golf and steak. I won’t take any lessons from people who like to throw stones in glass houses.

Interjections.

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

There are two points I’m going to make right now very quickly. Number one, I’m not going to allow the drop to the bottom on this circumstance. I’m going to ask everyone to choose their questions and answers delicately. If I continue to hear the kinds of accusations that are taking place, I’m going to pass questions and pass answers.

Supplementary?

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: It was the Auditor General who said that Ontario, because of this government, has overpaid $9.2 billion. That’s the independent legislative oversight, saying this government has overpaid by $9.2 billion. The question is, why did we overpay so much? Why has Ontario made such an error in judgment? Why did this government take us down this path? Why are we selling power at a loss?

The Minister of Energy’s talking point is that there is net revenue of $230 million, but that’s not profit. The energy could have cost hundreds of millions or billions of dollars. We are losing. We are subsidizing Pennsylvania, Michigan and New York and I can’t get a straight answer from this government. All I get is attacks. All I get is diversion.

I want the government to answer. Reconcile the fact of why they’re subsidizing other states. Why are they supporting our competition?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very happy to answer the member’s question once again. The heavy lifting was done by this government to get rid of coal. We’re not the PC party, the pro-coal party. We are very, very happy to ensure that we don’t have to send out warnings anymore to let people know that they can’t go outside to breathe. When it comes to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. This is a notice to both sides. If I must, I will move to warnings. Tone it down.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: The opposition left our electricity system in disrepair, and we had to do the heavy lifting to fix it.

But when we’re talking about our neighbours to the south and our neighbours around us, the Leader of the Opposition has his facts incorrect. Ontario’s 2015 average industrial electricity prices were $8.35 in the south, $6.35 in the north. We’re lower than New York, which is $8.72. We’re lower than Pennsylvania, which is $9.59. Michigan is $9.13. I look forward to more of this in the supplementary.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy, and I appreciate the Minister of Energy’s artistic spin and talking points, but the reality is that the Ontario Liberal Party took $1.3 million in donations. According to some estimates, since 2009 we have given away—hear this—$6 billion.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The chief government whip will come to order.

Please finish.

Mr. Patrick Brown: I understand this is a touchy topic for this government. They’re embarrassed of their own record. They have given away, since 2009, $6 billion. They should heckle. They should be upset about this because it’s embarrassing for Ontario. They have turned our energy policy into the laughingstock of North America.

I stress: Can I please get an answer? Why are we subsidizing companies in Michigan, New York and Pennsylvania? Why are we creating and giving away surplus energy? Can I get an answer rather than attacks and diversions? Please answer the question.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Next one.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m pleased, once again, to rise and answer the Leader of the Opposition’s question. The only party that should be embarrassed is that party for the system that they left for us to take over. We had to ensure that we built a system that’s reliable, that’s safe and that’s clean, and we’ve just done that.

When it comes to residential prices in the largest cities in North America, Toronto has a $161 average monthly bill. That’s lower than New York, Detroit and Boston: $289 in New York City, $177 in Detroit and $300 in Boston.

What’s important about the US states that the Leader of the Opposition loves referring to is that they all still rely on coal. We don’t, Mr. Speaker. We eliminated it.

Hydro rebates

Mr. Patrick Brown: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Despite the Liberals trying to undermine the Auditor General, we finally got to see the government’s books, and there were some very interesting items in the public accounts.

For example, the Ontario Energy Board spent nearly $12 million on the Ontario Electricity Support Program, the OESP rebate for low-income households. And of that $12 million spent on the OESP, $9 million went to consultants. That’s $9 million that went to high-priced consultants instead of families who needed it most.

Why did it take $9 million worth of consultants to hand out a rebate? Please answer the question, for once.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very pleased to rise and answer this question because we’re very proud of the OESP program. It’s a brand new program, and it’s designed to offer support to those who need it most.

In order to receive this benefit—$45 for families; up to $75 for seniors, for those who heat their homes with heat and, of course, for those who have to plug in with medical devices—they need to apply for the program. Here’s what the opposition doesn’t get, Mr. Speaker: They need to know about it.

So what we’ve done is we have ensured that the OEB is working on a program to ensure that this ad campaign lets as many people as possible in this province know about the program. In 10 months, 145,000 families have now signed up for this program. That’s one third of all people who are eligible.

We’re going to continue to work hard to make sure that every family knows about this program, rather than this party just shaking their fist at it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): When I’m seeking to have everyone heard on both sides, each side is having their own people interrupt the question that’s being put or the answer that’s being put. I’m going to start moving towards everybody who’s even deciding that they want to interject. Put your name on the docket for a question.

Supplementary.

Mr. Patrick Brown: Again to the Minister of Energy: I didn’t realize that it was a subsidy program for Liberal consultants and ad people. This was meant for low-income families. That’s what this is about. This is money meant for low-income families, not high-priced Liberal consultants.

Not only did the Liberals spend $9 million on consultants—hear this, Mr. Speaker—they spent another $2.5 million on ads. The government can’t pass up an opportunity to pat themselves on the back using taxpayer dollars.

Mr. Speaker, wouldn’t that $2.5 million and wouldn’t that $9 million be better used on low-income families? For once, do the right thing.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Be seated, please. The Minister of Children and Youth Services will come to order. The Minister of Education will come to order. The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will come to order and the Minister of Government and Consumer Services will come to order. I’ve got a good memory. And if it continues, I’ll move to warnings.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: I’m very happy, again, to rise and answer that question, because we are doing the right thing. We are bringing forward a program that’s actually helping 145,000 families right across the province, and that’s why this government is doing everything it can to inform Ontario families of this program that they are eligible for, Mr. Speaker.

Here are some of those initiatives that we’ve pursued so far: advertisements in print, on radio and in bus shelters; slips in the ODSP and the Ontario Works cheques; bill inserts from local utilities; partnerships with food banks, libraries and MPP offices; requiring that all utilities include a link on their website.

We’re doing everything we can to make sure families know about this program because we know it’s important that they receive this support. These efforts are reflected in the results. In just 10 months, we have a third of the eligible customers already online. That’s 145,000 families receiving this benefit. I hope we see more and I hope this actually gets more families signing up.

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

Mr. Patrick Brown: Back to the Minister of Energy: No matter the justifications, no matter the spin, I don’t buy for a second that it was appropriate to spend $9 million on Liberal consultants instead of low-income families that can’t pay their hydro bills. I don’t buy for a second that this government should have spent $2.5 million on ads instead of low-income families.

They just don’t get it. They are that out of touch. They think everything’s rosy in Ontario, that people can handle their hydro bills. People are in energy poverty, and I’m tired of the government being oblivious to it.

Now here’s a fact, Mr. Speaker: Only 137,000 applicants out of the 500,000 that are in need got approved—137,000. You’re leaving hundreds of thousands of Ontario families in need because this government decided to take care of Liberal consultants and ad men instead of the people of Ontario. How does this government justify that?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It seems the only way that the Leader of the Opposition knew about this program was by the ads that we put out. The Leader of the Opposition continues to offer no clear plan on the energy sector. We have a plan. We’re making sure that we’re helping those in need.

The Leader of the Opposition criticizes the government over legal challenges but wants to tear up renewable energy contracts and expose Ontario to billions of dollars in liability. He was against the carbon tax when he ran for the leadership; now he’s in favour of a carbon tax. Now he says he’s concerned about the costs for families but doesn’t want to spend money informing families about what programs are available.

On this side of the House we have a plan and we’re acting on it. My priority as the Minister of Energy is to ensure that Ontarians have affordable access to clean, reliable electricity, and that’s what we’re going to continue to do, unlike the pro-coal party.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound will come to order, the member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order and the member from Nipissing will come to order. I have a memory.

New question.

Electronic health information

Ms. Catherine Fife: My question is to the Acting Premier. When did the Liberals and Ed Clark first start discussing the privatization of eHealth assets?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Good morning, Speaker. I want to be very, very clear. The Premier has been very, very clear, Ed Clark has been very clear, and I want to be clear: eHealth is not for sale. Personal health information is not for sale.

Now, I know that kind of spoils their party because they want to make a party out of this, but I tell you, we take our responsibility—

Mr. Paul Miller: Put some mustard on that baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek will come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We take our responsibility for the health of the people of Ontario very seriously. We think we can do better using the digital tools that are available to us through eHealth and beyond.

The arrangement with eHealth comes to an end at the end of 2017. Now is the perfect time to take stock, to understand the value we have and understand how we can improve the value of eHealth in this province. It is saving $1 billion a year now. We think we can do even better with a more robust—

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: We know you can do better as well, and we’ve also heard this all before. On November 5, 2015, the Deputy Premier said, “We are looking at other assets.” Since then, nothing major has been put on the auction block—until last week, when the Minister of Health asked Ed Clark to start looking at Ontario’s eHealth assets. Has the government been planning to privatize our eHealth assets for the last 11 months?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’m not sure how much clearer I can be, but let me try: eHealth is not for sale, will not be for sale. Personal health information is not for sale, will not be for sale. No matter how much angst the NDP wants to stir up, I can assure them that they are going down a path that is simply their path and their path alone: eHealth is not for sale; personal health information is not for sale.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: Last November, the Deputy Premier said, “We are looking at other assets.” That same month, Ed Clark spoke to the Toronto board of trade and he said this about digital medicine in the province of Ontario: “I say: open them up, link them more closely to the private sector, turn them into exporters.” It does beg the question: Has Ed Clark been working on the sell-off of eHealth assets since last November?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Ed Clark has not been working on the sale of eHealth ever before, ever now or ever in the future. eHealth is not for sale. Personal health information is not for sale.

Electronic health information

Ms. Catherine Fife: Again, back to the Acting Premier. The Premier claims that she wants to improve digital health care options, but the Minister of Health didn’t write to Ed Clark asking for ways to improve digital health assets. That did not happen. Instead, he asked Ed Clark to figure out how much money the government could get for selling them off.

Can the government explain why they need to know how much money they’ll get for selling off eHealth in order to improve it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would suggest that the member opposite actually review that letter, because it’s very clear: eHealth is not for sale; eHealth will not be for sale. No matter how many times the question is asked, the answer is the same: eHealth is not for sale. Personal health information is not for sale.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, that letter contains the same language that they used when they wrote about Hydro One, and that wasn’t for sale either.

If you want to improve education, you don’t need to ask how much money you can get for selling all the schools off. But the Premier seems to suggest that in order for Ed Clark to improve our digital health assets, he needs to figure out how much they’re worth on the open market. It doesn’t make sense, Mr. Speaker. Even with Liberal math, it doesn’t add up.

What is the government actually interested in? And why do they need to know how much cash they can get from our eHealth assets?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said earlier, the mandate of eHealth does come to an end at the end of 2017, so the prudent thing to do is for government to look at the asset that has been created through eHealth, because we want to do even better with the opportunities of the digital age when it comes to health. That is the right thing to be doing.

We are already saving $1 billion a year thanks to the progress made on eHealth. We think we can do even better. It’s better value for money, and more importantly, it’s better health care for patients. It’s fewer unnecessary tests. It’s fewer trips to the doctor. We think we can do better, and we want to maximize the potential of digital health and eHealth.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: The Minister of Health wrote to Ed Clark asking him to figure out “the value of our existing digital health assets.” He was asking how much they would be worth if the Premier sold them.

Now the Premier says this is all about “the best digital health strategy possible.” The problem is, that isn’t what the Liberals were saying last week. If the government is truly concerned about improving digital health strategies, why are they so interested in how much money the Premier can get for our eHealth assets? The people of this province want to know.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’ll tell you what: The people of this province want to know that eHealth is not and will not be for sale, that personal health information is not and will not be for sale. What they want is a third party that actually holds us to account but doesn’t continue to stir the pot on something that clearly is not our intention and has never been our intention.

Health care

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Wait times for knee and hip replacement surgery are on the rise in southwestern Ontario. The real wait time in London is longer than what is posted by this government. Wait-lists are growing longer very quickly, and Londoners are now told that their surgery wait time will be at least 11 months, 15 months in Strathroy—and that is after waiting months or years to see their surgeon.

Last winter, I raised in this Legislature the issue of over 500 cancelled surgeries for knees and hips in London, St. Thomas, Woodstock and Strathroy from January to April due to a lack of funds. Patients’ quality of life has deteriorated, causing undue hardship and an increase in health expenditures. Now wait times are expanding due to this government’s rationing of care.

Speaker, will the government act now and properly fund knee and hip surgeries in southwestern Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure the member opposite that wait times are something that we put a very high priority on. In fact, when we took office, we didn’t measure wait times; nobody measured wait times. Now we know what wait times are, and we are focused on getting those wait times down further.

We have made significant investments, but we are the first to admit that the job is not done. There is more to do when it comes to reducing wait times, and that’s exactly the focus of our wait times strategy.

We have funded an additional 77,000 hip and knee replacements. Since 2003, our government has invested almost $2 billion for more than three million additional procedures to reduce wait times. Is there more to do? Absolutely.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: It was shown last week in the media that wait times are no better today than they were when they started their strategy in 2005. They’re failing the people of London and southwestern Ontario with their strategy.

On top of this, Ontarians deserve some transparency to the system. The wait times posted by the government do not include the amount of time it takes to see the surgeon. The government keeps that information secret. It distorts the reality of how rationed our health care system has become.

Patients in southwestern Ontario deserve better. Many are waiting months and years just to see their surgeons on top of the additional wait time to get the surgery. Will the minister and this government be open and transparent and release the true wait times they’re hiding from the public?

Interjections.

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Come clean. We’re waiting.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am, because every time everyone says something, I’m going to get you. The member from Renfrew, come to order—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —and the member from Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, come to order.

Carry on.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I’d like to correct the member opposite’s assertion that wait times are not better in the South West LHIN. They are. Hip replacements are down 15% for the 90th percentile and knee replacements are down by 32%. So there is progress being made.

Is it enough? The answer: We acknowledge that we still have a challenge. When it comes to what is known as wait time 1, that is, from the time of referral to the time of consultation, that is part of the plan to measure the entire wait time.

We started with wait time 2, from consult to procedure. Focusing on wait time 1 is the next step in improving transparency when it comes to wait times.

Disaster relief

M me France Gélinas: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and Climate Change. Two weeks ago, I shared with this House that the good people of Gogama and Mattagami First Nation had reached a tipping point with the lack of action to clean up the Makami River following the CN derailment. On Thanksgiving, the entire village of Gogama and First Nations of Mattagami, young and old, all came out and blocked the road peacefully, when they should normally have been enjoying Thanksgiving with their families.

Chief Naveau of Mattagami First Nation as well as Gogama fire chief Mike Benson are here today. They made the long trip from up north to Queen’s Park to hear you answer this simple question: Will the minister order the cleanup of the Makami River?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The short answer is yes. The process to get there is, I have to follow the laws of Ontario.

I want to welcome the chiefs and thank them and their colleagues for coming down today.

We have a process to go through. There are studies and assessments that are required by CN, which are reviewed and enforced by the ministry. We have to ensure that the proper testing is done, because much of this oil that may be residual will be in sediment, and the removal of it has to be done prudently so it doesn’t cause unintended negative impacts on fish and fish health.

It also has to involve fully the First Nations and the citizens of Gogama, and we’ll work through the proper process with Sudbury public health and the members of the community supporting.

I just want to conclude by saying I think our relationship is collaborative on this. I appreciate your leadership, and I thank you for raising the issue again today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Time is of the essence. Winter is coming in the north. There’s going to be five feet of ice on the Makami River, and then the next thaw will bring the oil further down, maybe into beautiful Minisinakwa Lake. I don’t want this to happen.

For anyone who takes the time to come to Gogama, to come to the Makami River, all you have to do is look and you will see dead fish. All you have to do is throw a rock or stir the bottom, and you will see oil coming up to the top.

I’m not the only one. Thousands of people have signed petitions, from 81 different communities. The Northeastern Ontario Municipal Association, the town of Timmins, the Algoma District Municipal Association and many more are passing motions to urge the minister to act now, before the winter comes and more oil gets down into the river, further into the lake.

We are looking at another Grassy Narrows, and I don’t want this. Will the minister order CN today to start cleaning the river?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, through you to the member opposite, again, thank you for raising the issue. CN has already cleaned up a great deal of the oil in the river and has spent a great deal of money doing so. The first major cleanup, on two separate occasions—because the great tragedy of this is that this is not one Gogama incident; it has been two. One is too many, and two is a ridiculously great number. We now are working with the federal government on rail safety issues as well, because one of the most important things is to prevent this from happening again.

The next phase of that was to go back and do very direct studies to figure out where in the river system this oil exists. Now we’re trying to figure out how that can be best extracted.

I will hold CN to account. I will be meeting with them in a couple of weeks. I said I would report on the progress of that. I will continue working hand in glove with you to ensure we get this—

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

Arts and cultural funding

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Northumberland–Quinte West.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yes.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I’m glad we agree, Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. Tourism is an important economic driver. In 2013, numbers indicate that tourism supported over 362,000 jobs and generated over $28.5 billion of economic activity in Ontario.

In June 2016, the minister released Ontario’s Tourism Action Plan, aligning the specific action items the government will undertake immediately to enable a positive environment for industry growth. Ontario’s festival events in particular attract tourism, create jobs and support economic growth.

The Ontario government recently launched Celebrate Ontario 2017. Last year, Celebrate Ontario supported an increased performance schedule, which included a 28% increase in tourism.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you tell the members of this House about how Celebrate Ontario supports tourism?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: I want to thank the hard-working member from Northumberland–Quinte West for his excellent question and his advocacy for events and attractions in his riding.

Ontario’s festivals and events attract tourists, create jobs and support economic growth. Every year, they support tens of thousands of jobs in Ontario and generate millions of dollars in revenue. That’s why our government continues to make strategic investments in festivals and events. Since 2007, Celebrate Ontario has invested $153 million in more than 1,900 festivals and events across Ontario.

This year, our government is supporting over 200 festivals and events through Celebrate Ontario 2016. According to past recipients, every $1 of funding results in $18 of visitor spending. That’s spending in communities right across our province. That’s money going directly into the local economy, creating jobs and supporting economic growth and contributing to the quality of life of Ontarians and visitors alike.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Supplementary from the member from—

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Northumberland–Quinte West. Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the minister.

It is fantastic to hear how wide-reaching and how successful our government’s Celebrate Ontario fund is. A number of successful festivals were held in my riding of Northumberland–Quinte West, including Westben Arts Festival Theatre in Trent Hills and Float your Fanny Down the Ganny in Port Hope. It’s great to see that rural and northern Ontario festivals and events have been added as target sectors, given their importance to these communities.

Members of this House know that funding from Celebrate Ontario helps festival and event organizers offer new experiences, reach new audiences and generate more economic activity in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you tell the members of this House about what’s new with Celebrate Ontario in 2017?

Hon. Eleanor McMahon: Thank you again to the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

Speaker, I’d like to begin by thanking the hundreds of organizations and thousands of volunteers who organize the festivals and events that attract tourists, support tens of thousands of jobs and generate millions of dollars in revenue for communities across our province.

As part of the commitment made in Ontario’s Tourism Action Plan, we have reviewed the Celebrate Ontario program and, based on input, we’ve made improvements to further streamline the application process: things like reintroducing multi-year funding, integrating marketing supports as an eligible expense and applying a rural and northern lens to events that play a vital role in smaller communities.

This year, applicants are encouraged to apply for funding for events in 2017 that promote Canada and Ontario’s 150th anniversary. I want to let members of the House know in particular that this year’s applicants have until November 8 to apply for both the Celebrate Ontario 2017 category and the Celebrate Ontario 2017 multi-year category.

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

Horse racing industry

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Finance. By cancelling the Slots at Racetracks Program, the government left the horse racing industry a shadow of its former self. Racetracks, horsemen and local economies are still struggling. The death of 13,000 horses and the loss of thousands of jobs rest on the shoulders of this government. Instead of apologizing, the government plowed ahead with its misguided modernization program. It’s going to put even more of the industry out of business.

Ontario Racing has a plan that could bring some stability. We still need to remember that proposed funding will not come close to the previous revenue-sharing agreement; uncertainty will persist. Speaker, will the minister ease that uncertainty and commit today to keeping the doors open at all 15 of our racetracks?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the question. I think we all appreciate that we want a very sustained horse racing industry in the province of Ontario. It’s why we have made a commitment for long-term sustainability of the horse racing industry. We’ve taken steps to support a stable industry by providing the appropriate funding by extending the government’s $100-million annual funding program by two years. The OLG will establish a future long-term funding arrangement with the industry.

As I said, we’ve also passed legislation to integrate the operations of the Ontario Racing Commission with the OLG and the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario, all of which promotes and allows the industry to benefit from a centralized marketing resource and its expertise to expose more Ontarians to the thrills of horse racing. We are taking every step necessary to provide a sustainable industry because we’re partnering with that industry in an appropriate manner in conjunction with members of the industry.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: It’s obvious the minister has not spoken to anybody in the horse racing business. If the minister is truly serious about the future of horse racing, why did he make it such an insignificant part of his modernization plan?

This government seems determined to create winners and losers, but mostly losers. Funding or no funding, the losers seem to be the smaller tracks and those who rely on them. If the government allows slots to leave tracks, racing areas like Ajax Downs will be in jeopardy. That could spell the end of quarter horse racing in Ontario.

Does the minister believe it’s modern to wipe out a vital industry in rural areas?

Hon. Charles Sousa: It’s vital to provide the appropriate supports to maintain long-term sustainability of the horse racing industry, and that is why we are very much working in conjunction with the stakeholders from the horse racing industry to provide us with the recommendations necessary to move forward.

We all recognize that we want a much more broadened and more effective racing industry in the communities across Ontario. That’s why we’ve taken the steps that we’ve taken. It’s why we’ve made the commitment for long-term funding. It is why the horse racing industry is working with the province of Ontario and it is why we’re taking their recommendations in the recommendations that we make and put forward at this time.

Workplace safety

Ms. Jennifer K. French: My question is to the Acting Premier. Today, front-line mental health workers from OPSEU will be here to call for government action to keep people safe on the job. Workers in the mental health sector are put at risk every day. Hundreds of physical assaults against staff are being reported every year, and that is not okay. Every front-line mental health worker needs to be able to go home safely to their families at the end of their shift.

Workers need to know: When will this Liberal government step up and take real steps to prevent violence against workers and patients in the mental health sector?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you to the member for that excellent question. It’s a very important question because we take incidents of workplace violence and workplace harassment very, very seriously. The nurses and the employees who work in our mental health facilities provide the highest quality of care for Ontarians. While they are providing that care, we’re committed to ensuring that they work in safe conditions.

Now, to help with this goal very specifically, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care and I announced a leadership table some time ago, the workplace violence in health care roundtable. It’s comprised of key stakeholders, including those people who do such a wonderful job in the mental health facilities. It includes patient advocates. What they’re doing is looking at the root causes of violence against health care workers, and where we began very, very specifically is with the nurses in those facilities.

The union, OPSEU, sits at that leadership table. I know they’ve expressed recently how successful this program has been and how they plan to remain committed to it. I look forward to adding more in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Jennifer K. French: Again to the Acting Premier: Front-line mental health workers have reached a tipping point. They cannot carry on facing hundreds of assaults and incidents of workplace violence against staff day after day, every year. The people who work so incredibly hard to provide mental health care need to see real action from this government to protect them on the job. They deserve answers today.

Will the government’s leadership table on workplace violence prevention consider each and every recommendation from front-line mental health workers, those who do the job, and provide a funding package to pay for the implementation of these health and safety initiatives?

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you once again to the honourable member. OPSEU sits at the leadership table. They are right there. They are not afraid to express their opinions, believe me. I’ve been at some of the meetings and they’ve expressed recently how successful they think the process has been to date.

Both the Ministry of Health and my ministry, the Ministry of Labour, have been working with OPSEU to make these facilities as safe as possible. We remain committed to that goal. The process is going well.

Based on the advice at the table, whatever the recommendations are that the table comes up with, we’re going to develop a plan to make hospitals safer, mental health facilities safer.

I have offered to visit Waypoint myself. I will be quite happy to go up there, speak with the folks. I’m awaiting the invitation to be accepted. Certainly we’re committed to making sure that those people who do a wonderful job for us work in safe working conditions.

Access to justice

Mrs. Cristina Martins: My question is for the Attorney General. This week is Access to Justice Week in Ontario. Ontario’s justice system is an important part of our democracy and plays a crucial role in people’s lives every day.

In my riding of Davenport, many of my constituents are reliant on legal aid organizations like West Toronto Community Legal Services to access the justice system. They understand the importance of equal access to our justice system and justice services regardless of financial means, geography, ethnicity, sexuality or gender identity.

Can the Attorney General tell us about our government’s efforts to help increase access to the justice system in Ontario?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member from Davenport for asking a very important question. Access to justice is an important challenge and I recognize that we have a lot of work to do.

A key part of helping people access justice services like legal advice is enhancing affordability. That’s why our government continues to invest in legal aid. Our 2014 budget included the largest infusion of new funding toward financial eligibility in Legal Aid Ontario’s history: $95.7 million of new funds.

This past April marked a third increase to the legal aid eligibility threshold, making it possible for an additional 400,000 people to access legal aid services. Once our strategy is fully implemented, an additional one million low-income Ontarians will be eligible for legal aid services. That’s more than double the current number.

I look forward to sharing more information during the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Cristina Martins: I would like to thank the Attorney General for his response. I am pleased to hear that our government is taking steps to ensure more people have access to important legal services by investing in legal aid—I believe it was 400,000 more people the Attorney General spoke of.

I’m also aware of the growing opportunity to use technology and digital innovation to increase access to justice. These modernization initiatives aim to enhance access to justice by making the justice system and services more user-friendly like other updated public services such as online driver’s licence renewal.

Can the Attorney General elaborate on his ministry’s efforts to increase access to justice using technology and digital innovation?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: It’s very much my commitment that justice services be accessible and user-friendly. This means examining current processes and procedures that are largely paper-based and are delivered in person. While we are only at the beginning, the Ministry of the Attorney General has taken some important first steps to modernize the justice system, like our court process.

Earlier this year, we launched an online service where parents can start or update straightforward child support payments electronically without having to go to the court. We’ve also increased remote video capacity in our bail courts and correctional institutions. In addition, we have introduced e-filing for all small claims, available 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I believe that there is so much more we can do to use technology and digital innovation to increase access to justice for everyone in Ontario and I look forward to working on that important issue.

School closures

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: My question is to the Minister of Education. Last week, I attended a community meeting at St. Gabriel Lalemant Catholic School in my riding. The meeting was part of the Ministry of Education accommodation review process. I learned there that you are asking school boards to consolidate as many students as they can in larger schools and close as many small schools as possible. No consideration is given to the distances these kids have to travel to the new school.

No consideration is given to the fact that a school with a larger number of students limits the potential for kids to participate in school sports. No consideration is given to the students with special needs.

Why would you put students and their families through this type of abuse?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: I want to thank the member opposite for this question. I fully understand that when school boards have to make decisions about schools, it’s a very difficult conversation that they have to have. It’s a difficult conversation to have with communities and with parents, and there is concern. That’s why we have a process to consult with communities, to consult with parents, and it seems as if the member opposite—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Chief government whip, second time.

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: —is participating in that particular process.

Mr. Speaker, I’m also a member from Scarborough so I know that there are difficult decisions that have to be made because we don’t want to be funding empty class spaces. We want our funding to be invested in students and in their outcomes and in the learning supports that they need, so that’s what we’re focused on. When school boards have to make very tough choices around schools, they have a process in which to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Raymond Sung Joon Cho: Back to the minister: I heard from one mother at the consultation about her child with special needs. She is worried he will not get the attention he needs at a larger, congested school away from home.

Do you realize that these are kids and they’re not just some small objects? Why would you treat them like objects?

Hon. Mitzie Hunter: Ontario has one of the best education systems in the world and we are continuing to invest in our education system. Our graduation results have moved from 68% to 85.5%. We are very much investing in our schools and investing in our students, including our students with special education. We invest $2.7 billion in special education needs for our students.

What’s important here is that the school boards are conducting an appropriate process of inviting input from parents, from the community, so that they can make an informed decision about their schools. That’s what is happening. I would encourage the member opposite to participate in that process and do what is in the best interests of our schools and the students. We have one of the best education systems and we’re going to continue to fund and support it.

Hydro rebates

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Acting Premier. According to the public accounts, the government spent nearly $12 million on consultants and advertising for the new Ontario Electricity Support Program. Two months ago, the Ontario Energy Board reported that only 25% of the estimated half million households that are eligible for the OESP had actually enrolled. So three out of four eligible low-income families endured a cold winter, paying the highest electricity rates in Canada, without receiving any help from the OESP.

After spending all the money on consultants and advertising, why was enrolment so low?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m very pleased to rise and talk about the OESP program. It’s a brand new program. It’s only 10 months old and we have 145,000 families already enrolled in this program but we want more. Like the member from the third party, we do agree that we need to have more people on this program because it is there to help folks who are having a hard time meeting their electricity bills on a monthly basis.

Let’s be clear, Mr. Speaker, that this program is run by the quasi-judicial OEB organization, and this comprehensive OESP ad buy that we’re talking about was done by the OEB and it consists of print, radio and bus shelter advertisements. We want to ensure that we continue to work with MPPs’ offices, with food banks—we’re looking at every way possible to ensure that we can get the message out that this program is there and this program is there to help.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Again, back to the Acting Premier: Not only is the OESP enrolment very low; the Ontario Energy Board also reported that despite assistance programs, families that are eligible for the OESP are still having trouble paying their bills. The number of OESP-eligible families that could not pay their bills jumped by 25% last year, and the average size of these unpaid bills was $650, a 70% increase from two years ago. Money is clearly making its way to consultants and advertisers but it is not making it to the people who are in need.

What will the Acting Premier do to increase the OESP enrolment and to increase the amount of assistance available to those families?

Hon. Glenn Thibeault: Once again, I’m very pleased to rise and discuss what we’re doing as a government to ensure that we’re helping families right across the province with their electricity bills.

First off, I know we’re going to be debating Bill 13 a little later, to ensure that families right across the province will see an 8% reduction on their bill. For 330,000 families that are in rural or remote parts of our province—even folks in the northern part of the province, where I’m from—they will see a 20% reduction.

This is on top of the OESP program, in which they can qualify for up to $45. It is a sliding scale. I encourage every MPP, I encourage everyone to talk about the OESP program to ensure that these families can get on it because we do have a great program. We have many programs in place.

He was talking about $650, in some cases—with difficulty with paying their bills. The LEAP program helps families, with a $600 emergency fund to help pay their bill.

We have many programs that help families right in this province.

Correctional services

Ms. Harinder Malhi: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Speaker, I was pleased to hear that yesterday the minister made an announcement on the use of segregation in our provincial jails. Segregation is a complex issue that nearly every jurisdiction is working to address, both within Canada and abroad.

Last year, our government set out to review the use of segregation in Ontario’s correctional facilities, with a view to improve the conditions in segregation units and to explore alternative options. I understand that through this process the ministry consulted with mental health professionals, correctional staff, the Ombudsman, the human rights commissioner, civil liberties groups and a number of other stakeholders and experts. This resulted in a number of immediate action items that the minister announced yesterday, in addition to the appointment of an external reviewer to further inform Ontario’s approach moving forward.

Can the minister please elaborate on the province’s plan for segregation reform?

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member from Brampton–Springdale for this important question.

After an internal review and extensive consultation with a wide range of experts on this issue, it’s becoming clearer to me and to our government that in order to truly reform segregation in Ontario, a more thorough and comprehensive review into our correctional system needs to be conducted. That’s why yesterday I announced that we’ll be appointing an independent, external reviewer to take what we’ve learned in our initial review and to build upon these findings.

This will include advice on reducing the number of people held in segregation and the length of time individuals spend in segregation; also, importantly, exploring alternatives to segregation, with a focus on vulnerable inmates, including those with acute mental health issues; as well as improving the conditions for those individuals who are held in segregation.

The reviewer will submit a final report, which will be made public and inform a provincial implementation plan as soon as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Harinder Malhi: Thank you to the minister for his response.

Reducing the use of segregation is a key part of a broader, system-wide transformation. To truly address this issue, we must continue to focus on addressing infrastructure and staffing challenges, providing greater health supports, and improving rehabilitative programming.

That’s why I’m pleased that in addition to the appointment of an external reviewer, important changes were announced to improve the conditions of those currently in segregation, but also to take a look at the broader issues facing our system. This includes an assessment of existing capital infrastructure across the province, a review of current data collection practices to ensure that data is collected efficiently and consistently across the system, and work being done with the Ministry of Health to further enhance supports for vulnerable inmates and those with mental health issues.

Can the minister expand on the initiatives announced yesterday as part of our government’s broader transformation of corrections?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, to the member from Brampton–Springdale, thank you for the supplementary.

Speaker, we’ve identified several changes that, effective immediately, will improve the living conditions of those in segregation. This includes establishing limits on its use, better managing individual cases, and improving the conditions in terms of when it’s used.

We’re also committed to a system-wide transformation of our correctional system. While the review is being conducted, we are taking action, Speaker. In fact, since 2013 we’ve hired over 1,100 new correctional officers. We’ve also hired 36 new mental health nurses. We’ve invested in body scanners that are being deployed in our institutions—$9 million there that is reducing contraband into our institutions—as well as recently opening in London the regional intermittent centre, a 112-bed facility that is reducing overcrowding in the London-area detention centre.

Speaker, we’re committed to making changes to segregation but also to overhauling the entire correctional system.

Hydro rebates

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the Minister of Energy. We’ve heard the minister claim that the government is responding to the hydro crisis, but it turns out that most rural Ontarians living in smaller towns do not qualify for the government’s new rural or remote rate protection program.

The residents in my riding of Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock are in desperate need of relief. Thousands of rural constituents have signed my petition calling on the government to reduce hydro prices, and yet most people in towns like Kinmount, Norland, Coboconk, Omemee, Bethany, Wilberforce, Gooderham, West Guilford, Woodville and Kirkfield will receive absolutely no relief from skyrocketing hydro bills.