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

April 14, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-14 (PDF)

L015 - Wed 14 Apr 2010 / Mer 14 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 14 April 2010 Mercredi 14 avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PENSION PLANS

PHARMACISTS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

RENEWABLE ENERGY

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

RETIREMENT HOMES

VOLUNTEERS

PHARMACISTS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

2010 ONTARIO BUDGET

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SOCIAL WORK AWARD

CATHOLIC WOMEN’S LEAGUE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

VOLUNTEERS

SIKH COMMUNITY

MAUREEN LINDSAY

PENSION PLANS

DISASTER RELIEF

TAXATION

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

(RESOURCES PROCESSED

IN ONTARIO), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

(RESSOURCES TRANSFORMÉES

EN ONTARIO)

PETITIONS

TAXATION

ARTIFICIAL TANNING EQUIPMENT

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

MINING INDUSTRY

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

WATER QUALITY

TAXATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CREATING THE FOUNDATION

FOR JOBS AND GROWTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 POSANT LES FONDATIONS

DE L’EMPLOI ET DE LA CROISSANCE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the non-denominational prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETIREMENT HOMES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 13, 2010 on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes / Projet de loi 21, Loi réglementant les maisons de retraite.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We have 27 minutes left. I had completed my presentation in regard to Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes, and with your indulgence I will share my time with my good friend and colleague John O’Toole, the member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased that the member from Cambridge has allowed me to share his time on this bill. Perhaps he and I are two of the people most qualified to comment on the process of aging and the accommodations that will be made in our Ontario society.

Now, people could quite easily be confused. Their retirement home is not the same as a long-term-care home. Long-term-care homes in that association, both private as well as not-for-profit long-term care, are regulated today by the government. They set standards and the government funds them, to the tune of—each bed costs around $40,000 a year. On the long-term-care side, I’m very familiar with it. I’m in a long-term-care home, at least one, every week, as I have power of attorney for my mother-in-law, Madge Hall, who’s in Centennial Place in Millbrook. Mr.

Leal, the member from Peterborough, knows quite well where that is and probably has been there as well. I know a lot of people there, because I’m there pretty well every week. It’s a stage in life that I don’t look forward to, to be quite honest.

They are very, very nicely run. In fact, when we were in government, in the terms of the day, we recognized, coming after 10 years of no investments in aging and long-term care to any great extent—we created 20,000 new long-term-care beds and modernized and renovated an additional, I think, 5,000 or 10,000 long-term-care beds. But you know—and Mr. Speaker, you would probably know this as well—there’s a long waiting list for people to get into long-term care. It’s a significant problem, because we have an aging population.

The demographics, with the baby boomers coming along—we know that we’ve got an aging population. We’ve got a problem stacking up how we will take care of these people in the latter stages of their life—and some of them live quite a bit longer than traditionally. I think people used to live to between 75 and 85, and now you’ll find many people who are 100 years of age in those facilities.

I’m surprised. I did a little survey in the long-term-care home that I’m familiar with. I went to a party for a 100th birthday. I had a little scroll to present, and I presented the scroll. There were probably 15 or 20 people in the room. Some of them were care providers: PSWs and nurses. So I said, “Mrs. So-and-So is turning 80 today. That’s quite a remarkable achievement.” She’s a very astute lady. She’s a former teacher, and quite articulate; in a wheelchair, but quite with it. I said, “Now, how many people in this room would be over 90?” Well, every hand in the room went up. They were all over 90.

I said, “How many would be”—I didn’t expect there to be many 100-year-olds. Everybody in the room was 100. Unbelievable. In fact, one lady was 103. Unbelievable. So the population is aging, and the point I’m really making here is that we are dealing with a profound surge in health care demand.

On this bill that we are dealing with, Bill 21, I think the member from Cambridge eloquently summarized our concerns—our support, but our concerns for the bill. But if you also look at the budget from a few weeks ago, the Premier said, and he said again in the media yesterday, that in the next 12 years, 70% of all the spending of the province of Ontario will be for health care. They’ve started a bit of a protracted debate on health care costs. The media covered a bit of that today.

The argument with the pharmaceutical companies is the first thrust in that confrontation of taking money away from the providers of health care. That’s basically what it’s about. We have two choices. We can restrict the amount of money, to avoid the 70% that goes into health care and to the stakeholders in health care—which would include pharmacists, doctors, nurses, lab technicians and hospital administrators. There’s been a lot in the media about how they’re going to take on the health care sector.

Well, it’s clear from the media that they’re going to, one by one, pick them off, and they’re starting with probably the weakest group, the pharmacists. They’re the weakest. They’re blaming it on the pharmacists, technically, while we’re finding that they should be really aiming at the big pharmaceutical companies, the large, multinational organizations that research and develop drugs. It’s hard to figure out just why drugs cost so much. In fact, drugs are the fastest-growing—a 15% increase per year in health care costs.

Getting back to the point here, the next big cost driver is the hospital: the stay in hospital, with all of the antibiotic-resistant things that are going on there, the new medications, the new technology, the new diagnostic equipment and the new intervention techniques of laparoscopic surgery. All these new techniques—MRI, CAT scan etc.—cost money. Technology in health care is growing rapidly.

What has that got to do with Bill 21? The real issue here is that what Bill 21 attempts to do, or gives the impression it is doing, is to provide more accommodation for aging persons. In fact, it is. But the subtle difference here is that the person who’s going to the retirement home is paying, not the province. That’s a huge deal. I can assure you that I am very familiar with the issue. I was in one of the more, I would say, opulent retirement homes in Peterborough—

Mr. Jeff Leal: They’re all there, John.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, there are a lot in Peterborough. I was looking there on behalf of another person I am helping as they age—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Jeff’s on the waiting list.

Mr. John O’Toole: What is it called? The gardens?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Canterbury Gardens.

Mr. John O’Toole: Canterbury Gardens in Peterborough—Ross Smith, of AON. He has about five or six of them, and they’re beautiful. In fact, Centennial Place is a Ross Smith AON development as well. Canterbury Gardens is $65,000 a year. Let’s put this in perspective—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: I need quiet and attention here to make my point.

Here’s the real deal: For a person who is retired—let’s say an 80-year-old, like the person I know who is looking at it and has a reserve on one of the rooms. To get $65,000 out of their RRIF, they have to take $100,000 out, because you have to pay the tax on it—it’s coming out of a trust or some kind of fund. So you take $100,000 out to pay the $65,000. If you’re going to live 10 years, like from 80 to 90, you’d better have $1 million—I’m serious. It’s unbelievable.

If you are 80 years of age and you’re being discharged from a hospital after breaking your hip or something like that, and you need convalescent care and there’s no room in long-term care, you may have to go to a retirement home. They’re not all going to be $60,000 or $65,000, but let’s say they’re modest places.

The place where my mother-in-law stayed was modest—she was a very modest person from Lakefield at the time. She went to a place—what the heck was it called? It was in Peterborough. Alzheimer’s is setting in on me, I suppose. It was about $40,000 a year.

Any nursing she needed—she did need to have some medication and other medical attention—was paid for on top of the rent. The place was Jackson Creek in Peterborough. You would know it very well, a very lovely spot and all the rest of it. She was there for three or four years, and in that period of time it was $3,000 a month or maybe a little over—that’s $36,000.

For her to get $36,000 as disposable cash, she had to cash in $50,000. In five years, that’s 250 grand gone. This is the real point, the subtle point. If a person is going into the long-term care and they’re elderly and frail and have no money, here’s the very important difference: For the retirement homes that this bill is about, there’s no government money at all—zero. To get into long-term care, which is what should be developing, they would take your OAS and your supplement and you would be in a common room—two beds in a room—and all it would cost you would be your old-age security.

You’re allowed a personal care allowance—I think it’s about $80 or something like that. Out of all the money you have coming in, you’re allowed a personal care allowance, which would cover chewing gum or getting your hair done or things like that. But the province subsidizes it by about $40,000.

So is Bill 21 actually doing anything? I think Premier McGuinty is introducing private nursing homes; that’s what he’s doing. It might be the right thing. I think we’ll have to debate the bill and hear from the stakeholders.

I don’t think there’s any flaws in the bill. I’m not qualified to say any more. There are nine sections that I’ve read; I’ve looked at the details in those sections only. Let me just comment here, and I’ll stick primarily to the bill.

That’s the difference: Bill 21 regulates retirement homes; retirement homes are like long-term-care homes but they are not long-term-care homes. If you’re in a retirement home and you want care, you pay for it. Get the wallet out because you’re paying the nurse or the physiotherapist, whatever, $50 or $100 to come and visit you—guaranteed. Aging in Ontario is going to become expensive, and if we think we’re going to allow all these people who have income problems to come here and take advantage of that—good luck. We have probably lots of bills facing us in the future.

I look at the young people that work here—staff, pages and others—and I’m saying, “Whoa, you’re going to be paying for all these old people? Good luck to you.” I hope they’re thankful—that’s all I can say.

I would say, though, that I think there are good parts, and that’s what’s most important about the bill that’s specific to the discussion here. If you look at

part IV, it sets out a residential bill of rights for retirement homes—very appropriate. Now, what is the status of this today? Retirement homes today range from personal homes where the operator may live there—they may be a nurse, for instance; the ones that I’m thinking of, one of the people there is a nurse. They are very qualified, caring people—that’s not the question. They have four or five beds. In fact, the whole house is turned into bedrooms, except the kitchen, basically. Even the garage has been converted into having walkers and appliances needed for the elderly: lifts and ramps and things like that.

It’s quite nice. I have been in two or three of them, and they are quite home-like. There’s not the institutional feel, if you will. Those people are paying out of their pocket, through their old age security, savings and whatever else.

But this bill of rights will be something, I’m sure. “A licensee of a retirement home is required to enter into a written agreement with every resident of the home before the resident commences residency in the home and to give every resident a package of information about the residents’ rights by that time. A licensee is also required to make that package of information, along with other information, available in the home. Residents of a retirement home are allowed to establish a residents’ council for the home.

The council has various powers, such as the power to inform residents of their rights and obligations under the act and to attempt to resolve disputes between the licensee and the residents.” There is a care council in long-term care as well. So there are a lot of things that have been copied out of the Long-Term Care Act, which I think is appropriate.

There is more: “Regulations made under the act can set out standards for care and safety in a retirement home, including standards with respect to fire, safety and public health requirements and emergency evacuation plans. A licensee of a retirement home is prohibited from preventing a resident of the home from applying for care services from an external care provider of the resident’s choosing.” This is very important because right now you might qualify on a discharge plan from a hospital.

That’s when you are in a state where you’ve been in a hospital, having had a serious orthopaedic accident of some sort—you break your hip, your knee or your shoulder, whatever—and there would be a nurse and a doctor who would say, “Okay, here’s the discharge plan.” That plan is a plan of care that would either take you into the community or into long-term care, or in this case a retirement home.

When that happens there’s another branch of the LHINs, the local health integration networks, called the CCACs, community care access centres; these CCACs would allocate a certain amount of time—that’s another problem, by the way; we’ll get into that too—for care in the community. That would be allowed, for them to go into a retirement home, which I agree with. It’s important that they’re entitled to those services, whether they’re in their home or in a retirement home, which in fact is their new home; it’s their permanent domicile. I think that’s a good provision as well.

I think the CCACs don’t go into long-term care because they have their own staff, and then you get into all the union issues about who does what in what location. It’s a lot of unionized bunk, actually. Care that is provided by qualified individuals is what is most important, and it is important, in this case, for elderly people.

This is very important, and this will be clarified, I’m sure, by the minister. It says here, “If the resident so requests, the licensee is required to make contacts for the resident with respect to those alternatives.” That is, the types of care. “When a resident commences residency in a retirement home, the licensee is required to ensure that the resident is assessed and that a plan of care is developed....” Here is the key: that a plan of care is developed. Who is qualified to do it? Not the person who runs the place, essentially.

The province has an assessment process itself—it used to be called the case mix index—to determine how much they paid them per resident per day, based on care. There is a new assessment tool they use, and I think this is really what’s important here: how much care is required and are they getting it.

Now it’s getting into a bit of the Premier McGuinty nanny-state attitude towards almost everything, really; it’s regulating it. Whether it’s sushi or what kind of dog you have or you name it, these guys think Father Knows Best has taken over the province, basically, unfortunately. This is a case where I believe there is a reasonable responsibility of the government to provide security and oversight, and this might be stepping right over the top. We’ll have to see at the end of the day.

If they were paying for it, it would be different. Really, the departing argument is this: If they recognize there’s a problem in the hospitals today with ALC beds—ALC is a common term for alternative level of care. These are often referred to in a very selfish way as bed blockers in the hospitals. That’s why people are still on stretchers in the emergency room: because they have people in chronic care in hospitals who should not be there. These alternative-level-of-care beds are basically people who should be in retirement homes, mostly, or in long-term care—more probably long-term care.

So where is the money for the long-term care? Where’s the money for the aging? Where’s the money for seniors? I think this bill is admitting they have no time for seniors.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, look. They have a lot of time for children, for the all-day kindergarten, which is off the rails too, because there’s no money in the budget for it, really. There’s no money for autistic children, and there’s no money for seniors. I think they’re only dealing with—I hate to say it; it sounds cruel and harsh—the ones who are vocal and vote; I really do.

I digress a little bit there, but I think I’m bringing it back to the point where I’m looking at the bill. There are some good sections in this. I’m not being critical of the bill, essentially; I’m being critical of the government’s shell game of actually not putting any money into seniors’ comfort in the waning years of their life. How selfish. Yet we’ve got hospital administrators making $700,000 a year. Half of them make over half a million. Almost all of them make $300,000 and more. What the heck is going on here? Yet seniors want a few dollars—even if they were to give them a care allowance.

I see in the Income Tax Act—I’ve looked into this, because I’m rapidly approaching this point in life where I need to know these things—that there is a provision where there will be, through the Income Tax Act, federally and provincially—this is very important, and I want the minister to pay attention; there are a couple of ministers here—the caregiver allowance.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, no. See, the member who is raising the taxes, the tax increase member, Wilkinson—he’s the HST king—is now chirping up. With all the money he’s collecting, why doesn’t he give some of it to seniors?

Let’s get back to the serious point here. I really feel there’s a caregiver allowance opportunity here, federally and provincially. Let’s look at the sandwich generation. That’s the generation between the grandparents and the children. The grandparents are living at 90, the parents are 70 and you’ve got the children. The intergenerational group, the sandwich generation, is taking care of both of them to the best of their ability while trying to maintain a lifestyle, educating children to university, having an adequate home, trips and all the things we all want today.

I feel that that generation should get this caregiver allowance. If they want to bring their mother, father or loved one into the home and provide appropriate care at the appropriate time in the appropriate place, I think there should be an allowance for modifying their home so the person can get along, or even to make or create a room on the main floor or something—whatever. I think those assistive devices and those kinds of programs should come first, and I think the love and care of a child or family is very important and part of the solution here. I think that is as important as the retirement homes we’re discussing in Bill 21.

So I put the caregiver allowance tax credit on the books for the minister to incorporate into this, because that retirement home is their home, and it’s going to cost them, as they age, for physiotherapy and even for counselling—counselling of the aging process and being properly cared for. Being cared for is being cared about. It’s not just getting your bandage changed or your medication delivered; it’s being cared about. Accommodating the family in all this is so important. It even ties into my remark on

section 4, dealing with the care plan.

This Thursday, tomorrow, I am doing Bill 3, which is on the Substitute Decisions Act, assigning a power of attorney. That’s another case where this should become part of that, because when a person is still in full control of their life and their faculties, they should make decisions about who is the decision-maker for their financial as well as their personal needs, going forward. I think that’s very important to avoid abuse of another sort: the abuse of neglect or of someone coming in and taking advantage of a frail person.

So I’d like to put in there as well that there should be some mechanism, perhaps through the doctor when they first notice it and prescribe an anti-dementia drug of some sort. They should be required to advise the family to take some measures to set up a power of attorney option—not mandatory, but an option.

My bill will be debated tomorrow, and I expect that members look forward to trying to eliminate opportunities for abuse in the circumstance of an aging population. I am working with the Durham Regional Police detective John Keating as well as Tammy Rankin from the elder abuse committee in Durham. So I am working on that as well, and I see a lot of this as being good.

In the next section, “a licensee of a retirement home is required to screen applicants” when hiring people as well as volunteers. This is very important, because it’s a special requirement, like teachers. I believe that teachers are special people who are gifted and focused on children, and I don’t think we need people who have a record of any sort with the legal system. The same thing goes here with a licensed retirement home.

I would also say that inspection is very important: “Part V allows the registrar to appoint inspectors who have certain powers to enter and inspect a retirement home both with and without a warrant....” Warrantless entry? Yes, I guess a person could, with cause, go to court or something and find out why the registrar is picking on them if they’ve had prior conflicts, if you will.

The other part: “Upon receiving a complaint about an alleged contravention of a requirement under this act with respect to a retirement home, the registrar is required to review the complaint and can exercise certain powers....

“Independently of receiving a complaint, if the registrar believes on reasonable grounds that a licensee has contravened a requirement under the act, the registrar has the power to make certain orders, such as an order to require the licensee to do something....”

I suspect it will be a good system of having a way of resolving disputes, but also due notice to the power of attorney should be appropriate in this bill, not implied. Often these things happen, and it’s less and less engagement of the family. The family needs supports to help their aging parents but they also need to be considered as part of the solution. Let’s not let Big Brother take over the whole business.

Part VII deals with general matters. There’s a provision here on the restriction of disclosure of personal information. This old eHealth—as we all know, the government spent billions of dollars on eHealth, federally and provincially, it turns out, on these Health Infoway administrators. Anyway, there’s more to say on this bill and I look forward to the comments on it.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to commend the member from Durham for his comments. It appears that he is concerned about his future and where he’s going, and he’s helping to pave the way for a better environment, I think.

I would have hoped that they would have gone a little more in-depth. When we present our position on this we’re going to go into a little more depth. We’ve done extensive research on this situation and we’d like to share it with the House.

I personally have seen some of the horror stories in old folks homes over the years but I must confess that my mother-in-law was in a facility in Hamilton that was actually quite good. Unfortunately, they were at times understaffed, stressed out and did face some financial problems that the community stepped up and helped out. So there are a lot of things that have to be done in this situation and a lot of things that we want to address.

We’re very concerned about this regulatory body that they’re forming. We feel it doesn’t go far enough. It’s almost self-regulating. It’s almost like getting the fox to guard the henhouse because it’s all industry-motivated and industry people involved in this regulatory body. It’s not a fair process. Public consultation will be at a bare minimum. We don’t like that either, and we’ll be addressing that in the upcoming comments.

The member from Welland will be doing a two-minute hit on this situation as well. I’m sure that with his expertise, his lawyer background and his exposure to people in his community, he will endeavour to enlighten us with some of his famous stories.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jim Brownell: I’m pleased to have a couple of minutes this morning to speak to the bill and certainly to make comments. I did listen intently to the member from Durham. He made a comment about how “the government has no time for seniors.” I challenge him to come to eastern Ontario and visit a lady who lives at 4 Gray Avenue in Long Sault—that lady being my mother. She told me last week, “You go back and you tell Premier McGuinty and the Minister of Health what supports I’m getting and how appreciative I am of the supports that I’m getting from the government that Mr. McGuinty leads.” I did that last Friday. And I can tell you she is aging at home; she is living in her own home.

Let’s get to this bill. You said, “Is there anything in this bill? Is it doing anything?” It certainly is. This bill is establishing mandatory care and safety standards; requiring emergency plans and infection controls and prevention programs; assessing the care needs and care planning for the seniors and whatnot.

You commented about visiting your mother-in-law. I have had many opportunities—I won’t anymore because Annie Webber, my grade 12 teacher, passed away on March 30. She was in a retirement home in Cornwall, Chateau Cornwall, an excellent retirement home that would have absolutely no problem with this bill, because they have set their standards high. Annie Webber lived there until the age of 101. I regularly visited with her, and she often commented about the wonderful standards that they had set and how comfortably she was living. But all across Ontario now, there will be residents’ rights.

They will know what to expect. This will give the families the comfort, knowledge and understanding that things are being operated properly in the retirement home. So I can speak from experience, and I say our aging at home—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. The member for Burlington.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I can’t agree more with my colleague from Durham that this is a sidestep to actually providing the kind of care that there are majorly long wait-lists for in Ontario, and that is long-term care. In my area alone, in the LHIN that Burlington belongs to, we have over 3,000 people waiting for long-term-care facilities. People would love to be able to live in their homes, be cared for in their homes and live that independent kind of life, but not all people can do that.

This, in my opinion, is a sidestep to dealing with the issue that’s really at hand, and that is how to create more long-term-care beds. All this is doing is putting some kind of little fix on alternative care patients being able to move into nursing homes now instead of staying in hospitals, where they’re costing us about $200 million a year for care.

This government doesn’t do the right thing. It patches things up. It weaves and bobs and tries to make it look like it’s addressing an issue, and it isn’t. Seniors are a huge, formidable, growing population in this province. This government has no idea of how to handle it. Their answer to it is to create regulations for nursing homes. Who can argue with that? That’s a great idea, but—

Mr. John O’Toole: Retirement homes.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Sorry, retirement homes; create regulations for retirement homes. But you know, what’s happening here is that this move is the first step in creating beds in retirement homes for people on long wait-lists for long-term-care facilities.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): The member for Welland.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’m grateful to the member from Durham for his contribution to this debate. I listened carefully to his commentary. I’m even more eager to hear from the NDP critic on seniors’ issues, Paul Miller, the member for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek. I know he’s frustrated because he’s going to get around 35 minutes of his one-hour lead in today. He was disappointed in the fact that the lead is only an hour, because he has so much to say after his analysis of this bill, and the bill is so flawed.

It’s Pharisaical, I tell you, for the government to talk about creating a charter of rights for seniors when there’s nobody to advocate for those rights. The seniors who are most at risk are the seniors who are frail, the seniors who, as we understand, have begun to suffer from dementia, full-blown dementia or Alzheimer’s; seniors who don’t have family or friends to support them in their senior years; seniors who are alone. And we ain’t seen nothing yet, because the first of the baby boomers are going to turn 65 next year, in 2011.

Whether it’s health care, whether it’s pharmaceuticals, whether it’s seniors’ care, we ain’t seen nothing yet, until 2011, when the first of those baby boomers, my generation, start to turn 65. For this government to suggest that somehow a charter of rights is going to solve issues of abuse and underservicing for seniors is beyond naive; as I say, it’s Pharisaical.

So I say as well that we’ve got to understand that what this bill does is provide the foundation, the groundwork, for a growing private, for-profit seniors’ care sector. This government is throwing in the towel on public services for seniors, and it’s prepared to abandon our seniors, now and in the future, to the profit-motivated private sector operators—not little mom-and-poppers; the big corporate operators coming out of the United States. Shame on Dalton McGuinty. Shame on him and his caucus.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Response? The member for Cambridge.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: On behalf of myself and my colleague the member for Durham, I’d like to thank the members for Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, Burlington and Welland.

I will be supporting this bill with a number of provisos. Regulation of retirement homes is long overdue; however, this is just another step by this government to privatize our health care system. Their lack of concern for seniors and long-term-care facilities—they don’t even give us the right information as to the number of long-term-care facilities built during their tenure. If you read one website of the government and another, they contradict each other. The fact is, they have basically frozen the building of new long-term-care facilities, and these seniors, over the next 10 years, will be flowing into retirement homes.

Let there be no misunderstandings. These privately owned retirement homes will be raising their rates as a result of this regulation. It will be more expensive for seniors, just like what’s going on with the drugstore wars with this government. The drugstores are going to get their profits somehow and they’re going to raise their prices in other fields, and seniors are going to be paying more for retirement homes. They’re going to be paying more at drugstores. We know that they’re going to be paying a lot more on their hydro, on their heat, and I’m not even covering the HST and its devastating effect on—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Mr. Paul Miller: New Democrats have long called for a regulatory system for retirement homes that protects the rights of vulnerable citizens, ensures adequate services and prevents the abuse of Ontarians living in a retirement home, and would prevent acutely ill patients from being placed in a home that is unable to properly care for them. This government has long told our party and Ontarians that legislation addressing these concerns was on its way and that we’d be happy once it was drafted. We sadly knew that this was not going to be the case—yet another promise not quite kept.

In 2007, the government held a public consultation process, and they’ve been patting themselves on the back ever since—a public consultation process that was deeply inadequate. Our concerns that this flawed process would be the basis for the act were well-founded. The consultation process, according to the much-respected legal aid clinic, Advocacy Centre for the Elderly, or ACE, would likely not assist greatly in developing public policy.

In their submission to the consultation process, they warned that this government was not getting it right in the questions you were asking, the

definitions you proposed and the regulatory models you were considering.

On May 22, 2007, ACE wrote to the then Minister of Health and minister responsible for seniors, saying, “I am writing to you to express our concerns in respect to the consultation on regulating the retirement home industry that has been conducted by Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat. Although we have long encouraged greater regulation of retirement homes, we do not believe that the present consultation and any proposal coming from this consultation will provide appropriate regulation of this industry or appropriate protections for the tenants who live in this type of accommodation.”

ACE actually cautioned this government about many provisions that we see in the act today. ACE sent your government a sobering warning, but we see today that your government chose to ignore ACE’s expertise. You ignored the expertise of one of the most pre-eminent legal clinics that specializes in these issues.

Again, I quote from the same ACE letter: “The right questions were not asked at this consultation. In particular the question of whether retirement homes are part of the continuum of housing or whether retirement homes should be a parallel system to long-term-care homes offering health services on a private-pay model was not discussed.”

The failure to actually have this discussion has led this government to introduce

an act that may well do more harm to Ontario’s seniors than any good. These failures are evident in Bill 21.

Stakeholders in the early consultation and stakeholders today are extremely concerned with the most fundamental of provisions proposed in this consultation: the regulatory body it proposes. The model they were proposing in the 2007 consultation and, sadly, what we see today is a totally unaccountable, third party regulatory system.

Also, fundamentally, we see that this government has failed to fix the incomprehensible problem of not making fire sprinklers mandatory in all buildings. In spite of the best advice of firefighters and coroners’ reports, this government has left the issue of sprinkler retrofits off the table. I will get into this issue in detail later in my remarks.

As I get into some of the details of this bill, I wonder if the government can tell me whether these situations could occur today. I think they could. These are all situations that the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly told the government about. They told you the following stories:

“ACE’s clients report concerns about the way medications are stored and distributed. Some of our clients have even reported that volunteers at the retirement home have access to medication cupboards and are responsible for distributing prescription medication despite the fact that they have no training or expertise.

“We have had clients who experience a health crisis and are taken to hospital, only to find that upon their discharge from hospital, the retirement home refuses to take them back, in effect evicting them with no legal cause under the governing landlord-tenant legislation.

“We have been told that what some retirement homes refer to as ‘quarterly nursing assessments’ are, in fact, opportunities for the retirement home to sell additional services to the tenants—services which they may or may not actually need.

“We have had clients who have been assaulted by other tenants in their retirement home, and the home’s administration does not respond appropriately or at all. One of our clients was sexually assaulted by another tenant in her retirement home, and the home’s administration did not call the police or otherwise follow up on protecting our client or the other tenants, because staff took the position that there is no ‘corporate policy’ on reporting such assaults.” Interesting: no corporate policy. Since when does corporate policy supersede the law of this province?

“We have had clients with mobility impairments who tell us that they are ‘not allowed’ to use the common dining room with the other tenants if they are using their wheelchair or walker, since these devices make other people feel ‘old’ or ‘disabled.’ Instead, tenants using wheelchairs or walkers are required to take their meals in their own unit, with an extra charge for ‘tray service.’ One of our clients, who used an electric wheelchair due to a severe mobility impairment, was told that she was not allowed to use her wheelchair in the hallways of the retirement home, and could only use it within her own unit.” I don’t know what use the chair would be, if that’s the case. “Aside from being a clear violation of human rights legislation, these reactions from retirement homes seem illogical given the clientele they purport to serve.”

Has your government introduced safeguards to make sure these situations could not happen after the bill passes? I don’t think so.

New Democrats and Ontarians have waited far too long for this bill, but we have waited in the hope that the McGuinty Liberal government would actually make some meaningful change for the vulnerable Ontarians who must live in this sector. For too long, seniors have been in retirement homes without adequate medical care and without safeguards in place to prevent abuse. We know that, tragically, Ontarians have lost their lives because of this government’s unwillingness to move on these important issues, from inappropriate transfers of high-needs patients to retirement homes, to sprinkler retrofits.

Ontario’s chief coroner released a report that talked about this in September 2009. He was looking at the death of an elderly woman transferred to a retirement home as an alternate-level-of-care patient with acute health care needs. The recommendations of the chief coroner include:

“

(30) Programs in private care or retirement homes in the province of Ontario providing care to frail elderly residents awaiting placement in a licensed long-term-care home should be held to the same standards for care and services as a licensed long-term-care home. Implicit in this recommendation is the need to ensure the same regulations and inspections with regular public reporting of findings that exists for licensed long-term-care homes.”

“

(31) Private care homes or retirement homes in the province of Ontario should be subject to regulations, oversight, and regular inspection by a public sector agency in order to ensure that care and safety needs are met. The guiding priority should be the care and safety needs of the frail elderly, and not the type of facility in which the placement occurs.”

Can the government tell me this: Have you implemented these suggestions? I don’t think so. Have you met the call of Ontario’s chief coroner? Sadly, while this government has dawdled, elderly Ontarians have been put at risk. In some cases, such as those noted above, some have tragically died. This should be the time that all of this changes. However, New Democrats are extremely frustrated that this is not the case.

The bill before us gives the illusion of regulation, but it will do nothing for Ontario’s vulnerable seniors. It introduces a toothless—I repeat, toothless—regulatory model. It does not deal with the reality of having health care services delivered in a facility that is not regulated by any appropriate standards.

This is what the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly had to say about the idea that retirement homes would offer the same level of care as long-term-care homes:

“Originally we assumed that the consultation would be in respect to retirement homes in a continuum, but after attending the consultation it would appear that the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat and the retirement industry want to promote a particular understanding of ‘aging in place,’ which we take to mean that retirement homes could offer the same level of care services as long-term-care homes, as long as the tenants were willing to pay privately for that care. If that is the case, that would mean, in our opinion, that the government intends to promote what is in effect two-tier medicine.”

Let’s be very clear about this: This legislation simply defines retirement homes as a residential facility that provides two or more care services. There is no cap on the care that retirement homes can offer. There’s nothing in this legislation that prevents retirement homes from offering the exact same level of care as a long-term-care facility.

Let’s be even more clear: This government and the NDP, of course, say they are in favour of a strong regulatory system for long-term-care homes. It is important to note that New Democrats are sadly disappointed by the long-term-care regulations that this government has recently finalized, but that is a different story. The point is that the government seems to agree that Ontarians deserve an ironclad system of regulations to protect vulnerable residents in long-term care. For some reason, when a senior with the same health care needs is put into a retirement home, they do not seem to need the same protection—puzzling, to say the least.

In Bill 21, there is no cap on the care residents can receive, so all of a sudden Ontarians can receive health care services in a retirement home without any real regulations governing the kind of care they are being provided. This is insanity. It defies common sense. It will leave Ontarians vulnerable to terrible situations. How can the government purport to be protecting vulnerable residents in long-term-care facilities and presumably in retirement homes when they are not dealing with the very, very basic issue?

New Democrats have many concerns about this legislation. We have long called for a strong regulatory system, and we see virtually nothing here to be happy with. This is a consumer protection bill, and while we support consumer protection, this bill is not what we’ve been calling for and will not fix the problems we have today in the retirement homes sector.

Informing residents of the services offered is important, but it does nothing—I repeat, nothing—to ensure adequate health care services, if that is what the home will be offering. In fact, we know that under the care homes act, residents were already supposed to be given a package of information of services that were available, so what is new about these regulations? This government seems to be living in a smoke-and-mirrors fantasy world.

If retirement homes were simply residential facilities, this would be an okay piece of legislation. But the reality is that, increasingly, Ontarians are living in these facilities when they have serious health care issues. That is why there are provisions for a secure unit, something which I will talk about in a bit, but clearly there is an acknowledgement that there are individuals with dementia, for example, living in these buildings.

But instead of looking at this reality and planning for the increasing demand on both our retirement homes and long-term-care homes, this government is acting as if the world of retirement homes is not changing and will not change. New Democrats are very concerned that the bill before us today is setting the stage for a second tier of long-term care, just like the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly cautioned you about almost three years ago.

We are concerned because we see no cap on the health care services that could be offered by retirement homes—a system designed for the wealthy who can afford to pay for all the services they need. Because of Bill 21, staffing requirements and hours have been ignored. Continuity of care is also off the table. We hear that a care plan has to be developed—but again, no teeth, no enforcement; no staffing or training requirements; no regulations when it comes to issues like bathing, nursing care, dispensing of medications and so on.

We are very concerned that this weak regulatory system that places few obligations on operators will lead to long-term-care homes deciding to re-designate as a retirement home to get around the regulations. There’s nothing preventing them from doing this and they only have a huge profit to gain from moving to the retirement home sector.

We are concerned that this government will start relying on the under-regulated private retirement home market to deliver the care that should be delivered in a long-term-care facility. This could easily be a slippery slope in a two-tiered system of long-term care. Why do we bother regulating long-term care so strictly if we have no strong mechanisms to regulate a retirement home? And they may be essentially delivering the same services.

Once again, as ACE says, “One of the reasons the public is so concerned about retirement home regulation is that some retirement homes have been running as ‘bootleg’ or underground long-term-care homes, in effect serving people with the same high health care needs as in long-term care but not subject to any of the oversight or rules associated with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Although retirement homes are essentially a ‘private’ relationship between the operator-as-landlord and the tenant, it is the health care aspect of the retirement home that gives it a ‘public’ character to many observers.”

But there is no action on this today, in spite of the fact that many stakeholders have told you the same thing: Ontario has long needed regulation of retirement homes because of the increasing health care issues. Yet this bill totally ignores the reality of health care in these facilities. It’s alarming.

Can this government say that Ontarians are happy with the care of elderly and vulnerable residents to be transferred to what will remain a totally unregulated health care environment? I don’t think so.

There are a number of serious omissions in this legislation, and I now want to talk about the regulatory model that this bill creates, because New Democrats think it is inherently flawed. We see no mechanism for ensuring adequate transparency or accountability. There is nothing preventing it from being an industry-dominated board that only answers to itself—once again, the fox guarding the henhouse. In fact, it seems designated to do exactly that. It is a regulatory body that will be setting its own regulations—interesting.

It will be hiring its own inspectors—very interesting—employees who will depend on the regulatory body for their paycheques. That’s interesting: “You answer to me, and I pay you.” Did you forget to look at something? I don’t know. It will be dealing with residents’ complaints. In fact, residents will have no other recourse if something goes wrong other than to go to this unaccountable, industry-dominated regulatory model. Whoa. That kind of cuts off your options, doesn’t it?

It is no surprise, then, that the system of inspection and compliance looks very weak. There are no teeth in this model. One would hope that the government has learned from its mistakes from models like the Technical Standards and Safety Authority. New Democrats warned that this would be a deadly model, that there was too much room for abuse and shortcuts. We knew the safety of Ontarians was threatened, and, sadly, we saw this become a reality with the explosion at Sunrise Propane in August 2008. It yet again emphasized the need for accountable, third party oversight.

Why has this government decided to bury its head in the sand and create a terrible opportunity for abuse and human suffering yet again?

As I was speaking about earlier, New Democrats want a regulatory system that ensures Ontarians in retirement homes who are receiving health care services are entitled to the same standards and regulation that they would find in another health care facility. The government has totally ignored these issues.

The issue of downloading the ALC patients to retirement homes is not dealt with. I was told that downloading of ALC patients to retirement homes is dealt with in the Long-Term Care Homes Act. This doesn’t make sense. There needs to be explicit provisions in the act that account for these kinds of transfers.

As I go through the act, I see many other concerns and oversights. For quite some time now, I’ve raised my concerns about mandatory sprinkler systems in every retirement home and every resident suite. A review of the newspaper stories about retirement home fires and the injuries to and the deaths of too many seniors have prompted not only family members but those emergency services personnel who worked those fires to call for mandatory sprinkler systems in retirement homes. These government members know that even the coroners’ inquests recommend mandatory sprinklers in retirement homes.

Despite knowing all of these well-investigated and well-thought-out recommendations, the McGuinty Liberals have not taken even a baby step toward implementing these life-saving recommendations.

There have been three coroners’ inquests: for the 1980 fire at Extendicare Mississauga, where 25 residents died; for the 1995 fire at Meadowcroft in Mississauga, where eight residents died; and for the 1997 fire at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre in the veterans’ wing, where three died. Each of these inquests called for retroactive installation of sprinkler systems in all retirement, nursing and long-term-care homes. It didn’t happen, and it still isn’t going on today.

Will this government be held responsible for the next tragedy that happens in our province for lack of regulations and lack of supporting safety and health that they claim they do all the time? Are they going to be responsible for the next set of seniors that unfortunately are exposed to these types of situations and meet with death or serious injury? What are they going to do? We’re bringing it to their attention now. We’re telling them to do something now to stop this from happening. I’ll be the first one to stand up if another senior dies because there’s no sprinkler system.

I’ll be the first to go after them, and I’ll remind them about this day, about this speech and about this request. Let’s hope it doesn’t fall on deaf ears as we continue.

I look at these statistics, these recommendations, and at Bill 21, and I can’t help but ask this question: Did those 36 seniors die in vain? Last week, in a response to my question in this House, I said, “How many more lives have to be sacrificed before this government does the right thing, steps up to the plate and legislates mandatory sprinkler systems in all retirement homes immediately?” The Minister of Community Safety responded this way: The Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association President Fred LeBlanc wrote to him, saying, “We are concerned that there will be too much emphasis on and faith placed in technology, resulting in a false sense of security.” The minister continued:

“They are not a magic bullet. They are only one of the many tools required to adequately protect the residents in the event of a structural fire.

“We agree with the professional firefighters that they’re an important tool, but they are only one tool in the arsenal to fight fires.”

That’s an interesting statement by the minister. Apparently, there appears to be a difference of opinion. I’d like to know why the minister has chosen to ignore the three coroners’ inquests and the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs? Both of them call for mandatory sprinkler systems in retirement homes. I would like the minister to explain, in the circumstances of these specific retirement home fires, what tools other than automatic sprinklers would have saved those 36 seniors? If it’s not so important, what would they have in place that would have prevented this?

Their own people are telling them—the Toronto and Mississauga fire departments are two of the largest staffed fire departments in Canada. The response times to these fires were well under industry standards, and the buildings complied with the existing codes. Yet 36 seniors died.

If the minister is really concerned that there will be too much emphasis on and faith placed in technology, resulting in a false sense of security, why did this government amend the Ontario building code to require the installation of sprinklers in all new residential buildings three storeys or higher? What’s good for the goose should be good for the gander, but it doesn’t appear that way.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, NFPA, there has never been a multi-fatal fire in a retirement home that has working sprinkler systems. I’m going to repeat that: According to the National Fire Protection Association, there has never been a multi-fatal fire in a retirement home that has working sprinkler systems—never. So I guess that tool is a very important tool. Those fire victims should have been able to depend on mandatory government legislation so that their lives might have been saved.

More recently, just two years ago, in April 2008, there was a Rowanwood retirement home fire in Huntsville. Thank heavens for the staff and two off-duty Hamilton police officers who were driving by and helped to evacuate the 56 residents without injury. Without the good fortune of those police officers driving by late at night and being able to help, what would the outcome have been? No one knows.

Just 14 months ago, the retirement home fire in Orillia where two residents died and 11 were sent to hospital—the firefighters who were on the scene at these horrific retirement home fires said that the retirement homes should have had sprinkler systems. The firefighters who were at the fire said they should have had sprinkler systems.

In the Toronto Star, on January 19, 2009, Fire Marshal Pat Burke is quoted as follows: “This is an extremely tragic fire because it occurred in one of Ontario’s most vulnerable occupancies.... This fire has been overwhelming to the fire service, the families and the community.... We want to look at ways to prevent this from ever happening again.” This is an opportunity to prevent this from ever happening again. This is the opportunity to amend Bill 21 and to include mandatory sprinkler systems in every retirement home in this province.

CBC news on January 21, 2009, referring to the Muskoka Heights retirement home fire, notes that “the fire has also raised the issue of sprinkler systems inside care facilities in Ontario.

“Under current legislation, only newly built facilities are required to install sprinklers. The Muskoka Heights retirement home was more than 50 years old and did not have a sprinkler system.

“John Galt, of the Fire Sprinkler Alliance, said the injuries and deaths in Orillia are ‘another needless tragedy that didn’t need to happen. These are lives that could have been saved with modern sprinkler technology.’”

Referring to the 1995 Meadowcroft inquest, once again the CBC reported that “in the wake of the fire, a coroner’s inquest recommended all new nursing homes should install sprinklers. But it also said all existing nursing homes should be retrofitted with them.”

The media gets it. The fire chiefs get it. Senior organizations get it. We get it. But they don’t get it. The government doesn’t get it or is ignoring it. I don’t know how much more proof they need. Let’s get on with it. Let’s protect our seniors. It’s just amazing. How many more lives are going to be lost before the McGuinty Liberals, the majority government, finally do the right thing and amend Bill 21, your act to regulate retirement homes, to make sprinkler systems mandatory in every retirement home in this province?

In addition to this terrible—I repeat, terrible—oversight, the government has not dealt with the contradictions among various pieces of legislation. For instance, can a person be detained in a secure unit—this is permitted in the act—although retirement homes continue to fall under the Residential Tenancies Act? Can a person be detained in their own home? I don’t see anything in the legislation that will ensure that the financial security of seniors is protected; nothing to prevent the abuse of seniors by homes who have taken over their financial matters. Again, no public oversight, no transparency and no accountability.

I think there’s also a serious issue when it comes to the resident councils that this act creates. It does not make sense that if a resident wants to pass on their seat to a family member or appoint a person to sit on their council on their behalf, they’re not allowed. Why is this? What reason can the McGuinty government provide for this? I don’t get it.

In general, this is a very weak bill that treats retirement home residents as nothing more than tenants with a few extra services on the side. The reality is that the population of Ontario is rapidly aging, and many of these homes are increasingly providing health care services. I look at this and it just boggles my mind that the oversight is terrible. They don’t deal with the issues that are extremely important. The government is ignoring the realities and is failing Ontario’s most vulnerable seniors.

All that New Democrats have long called for is the regulation of retirement homes. We’re not happy to have this less-than-adequate bill in front of us today. Instead of strong regulations and protections, we see more of the same from this government: evasion and lip service to life-and-death issues.

New Democrats will be working with groups like the Registered Nurses’ Association, the Service Employees International Union and the Advocacy Centre for the Elderly to make sure that this government gets this regulatory model right. We want to make sure that there are full public hearings on this legislation. We want to hear from all the seniors’ groups, the resident councils, the health care experts, the front-line workers, the legal aid clinics and so on about what this bill has failed to provide and how it can be fixed.

New Democrats sincerely hope that this government is willing to acknowledge their oversights in this bill and consider the amendments that we will be proposing. We are deeply concerned that Bill 21 is going to leave vulnerable Ontarians even worse off than before. That would be a huge tragedy to all in this province and in this country.

Hopefully, once again, we’ll be going to committee. Once again, it’ll be five Liberals, two Conservatives and one NDP, and I’m pretty sure that all our amendments will fall on deaf ears even if they’re good, even if they’re positive, even if they make a difference.

Once again, I’d like to say—I’ll reiterate—that when I came to this Legislature for the first time, in the first week I was here the Premier stood up in this House and said, “I welcome the new members to this House. We are here to serve the people of Ontario. We are here to work together to help the people of this province and improve the living conditions in this province.” Well, I must confess I’ve been extremely disillusioned since that statement, because everything we bring forward gets shot down unless it’s their idea—and you know what?

Amazingly, a few months later, our ideas show up and it’s the government’s brilliant idea that they came up with. Unbelievable. You know, he stated to me that we had to work together—no partisan politics; he wanted to work together. That’s a myth, sir; it’s a myth. It’s not that way. And the sooner the public realizes that, the better off this province will be.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8, this House is in recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Introduction of guests?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Speaker, just bear with me.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I could rule the honourable member out of order for using that BlackBerry to give those names.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to welcome to Queen’s Park today a couple of constituents who came down to have lunch with me, Mr. and Mrs. Upton.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask unanimous consent for all members of the chamber to wear the Save Transit City buttons today during this session.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? I heard a no.

The member from Mississauga South.

Mr. Charles Sousa: My colleague Mr. Dan Schiedel, owner of Advanced Battery Systems Inc., and an old schoolmate of mine from university, is here in the House. I’d just like to welcome him to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I believe the parents of the page for my riding are here in the Legislature, the parents of Khaleel Rajwani. There they are. Welcome to the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Legislature today Rod Hurd, who is the brother of our Clerk, Deb Deller, and also Gregor MacAuley, from Australia, visiting today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Seated in the Speaker’s gallery, from my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome Kory Preston and his colleagues from Wilfrid Laurier University who are visiting Queen’s Park today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to introduce a number of people in the members’ gallery who are here from the Save the Met Site Coalition. We have Ben Lefebvre, Denis Courvette, along with Gilles Nugent and Bill McGillis, and I forget—Brian? The other one, anyway. I’d like to welcome them, and I’m sure they are going to get themselves known by members around here. Thank you.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. The Ontario PC caucus has a plan that sets out straightforward and practical solutions to improve transparency in all corners of Ontario’s government. Our plan calls for freedom of information to apply to all provincial public bodies and for proactive posting of government expenses and contracts over $10,000.

My question is this: Why is Premier McGuinty ignoring our plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I had the opportunity as well to chat a little bit about it here in this venue just yesterday. We will take a close look at the plan. They just put it out yesterday. I think, in fairness, we deserve a bit of time to gain a better understanding of what they’re proposing.

But what I said yesterday, and I’ll repeat today, is that we find it passing strange, given that all of the measures that we have put in place that bring about heightened accountability and transparency have been rejected by the official opposition. Whether it was expanding the role of the auditor, expanding freedom-of-information requests, putting in place our Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act or preventing a party from ever hiding a deficit, again, those have all been rejected in the past by this opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Instead of adopting our plan, the Premier wants to play silly games with this. When asked about shining a light on contracts and expenses, he says he shines a light on class sizes and patient safety rates. Why is posting information on class sizes and patient safety rates a good thing, but posting government expenses and contracts over $10,000 not a good thing?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The fact of the matter is that we’re moving in both directions at the same time. With respect to freedom of information, we’ve expanded coverage to cover OPG, Hydro One, universities and cancer care. We think those are good, progressive initiatives, and it would be nice to have the support of the official opposition in that regard. We’ve expanded the role of the auditor so that he can now conduct value-for-money audits on our hospitals, our schools, our universities and our long-term-care homes. Again, I would invite the official opposition to lend support to those kinds of initiatives.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Ontario families have to wonder why the Premier is so strenuously resisting greater transparency about what the McGuinty Liberals are up to. Premier McGuinty was boasting about the merits of expanding freedom of information over OPG and Hydro One, but he doesn’t want to apply it to all provincial bodies. He boasts about rules for travel and hospitality expenses for 22 of over 600 agencies, but he doesn’t want to post the information so the public can police them. Why is Premier McGuinty okay with accountability some of the time and for some agencies, but afraid to let the public scrutinize what the McGuinty Liberals are up to across government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think our record speaks for itself. We’ve been making real progress when it comes to introducing further accountability and transparency.

One of the things that we’re working on of late, although it appears that the official opposition has not cottoned on to this yet, is accountability and transparency with respect to drug prices. We want to get drug prices down for our families. This is good news for the people of Ontario. Whether you’re paying through the public plan as a taxpayer, through a private plan as an employee, or if you’re paying out of pocket directly because you don’t benefit from any particular plan, this is good news. It would be great to know where the official opposition stands on this effort on our part to introduce transparency and accountability and get drug prices down for Ontario families

LOCAL HEALTH

INTEGRATION NETWORKS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. Yesterday in question period, Premier McGuinty said that his new rules for hospitality expenses applied to “our 22 biggest agencies and our LHINs.” But the Integrity Commissioner’s office told us that they do not review LHIN expenses. My question to you is, who do we believe: the Premier, or the Integrity Commissioner that we just reappointed yesterday?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I think it’s important for me to recap what our government has done in terms of improving accountability for the people of Ontario.

As a part of our commitment to greater transparency and accountability, we have expanded the powers of the Auditor General. We have also brought Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and Ontario universities under the freedom-of-information act. We have increased transparency for 22 agencies whose expenses will be reviewed by the Integrity Commissioner. That has already been done, and the processes are in place to make that happen.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The fact remains that Minister Takhar knows the LHINs are one of 600 public bodies that have no one monitoring their expenses. He knows that, and he didn’t answer the question. That means no one is looking at LHINs and seeing if they’re reimbursing limousine rides, like eHealth did for Sarah Kramer. No one is scrutinizing the LHIN expenses to catch claims of $75 cupcakes or a staff outing like the one at Cancer Care Ontario that cost us $10,000. No one knows if LHINs are reimbursing their boards, staff or consultants for GPS systems, like the WSIB did for Steve Mahoney.

My question, back to the minister: Why did the Premier say the Integrity Commissioner is scrutinizing LHIN expenses when she is not?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: My understanding is that the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care has already written to the LHINs, and they have agreed to post all their expenses online. In addition to that, the 22 agencies’ expenses will be sent to the Integrity Commissioner and she will be reviewing their expenses. If there are any expenses she is not satisfied with, those expenses will be reimbursed by those agencies. We have moved ahead to actually put a lot of controls in place to make sure that all these expenses are the right expenses and the right people are being reimbursed for those expenses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again, the Integrity Commissioner’s office told us that she is not reviewing the expenses of the LHINs. Records that the PC caucus has obtained through freedom of information reveal that the LHINs are following the same set of policies that got the CEOs at eHealth and OLG fired. The South West LHIN paid over $4,000 to Liberal-friendly consultants of Courtyard without any receipts. The North West LHIN reimbursed $19,000 to consultants without any documentation. If expenses were posted online, the public could enforce the rules. Premier McGuinty is not adopting our PC plan for greater oversight and accountability for these types of expenses.

My question back to the minister, and I hope he answers it: How will Minister Takhar enforce travel and accountability rules at the LHINs and the other 600 public—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Minister?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I have a letter that the minister wrote to the LHINs on February 4, and she wrote it to all the LHINs. It says that, “LHINs should take the proactive step of posting the expenses of their board and senior management online on a go-forward basis. This is similar to a requirement for 22 of Ontario’s largest agencies under the Public Sector Expenses Review Act.” They have agreed to do it.

In addition to that, I think the member made reference to the WSIB. The WSIB is among the top 22 agencies whose expenses for the top five officials will be sent to the Integrity Commissioner.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Toronto families are feeling betrayed after being told that the McGuinty government is backing away from its promised support for public transit projects in their city. My question is a simple one: Did the Premier consult with Toronto MPPs in his own caucus before he derailed the plans for Toronto’s new light rail system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague needs to understand—and I’ve said this a few times before, and I’m not sure how I can introduce further clarity to this. We remain absolutely committed to making the investments that we have spoken about in the past into public transit in the city of Toronto and beyond. What we have done is taken into account our financial circumstances. We’ve taken into account the consequences on our finances of a global recession. We’ve decided that we need to stretch out that investment over a longer period of time. I would implore, once again, my honourable colleague to understand that that is the appropriate and responsible thing to do in the circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Let’s be clear. What the Premier is saying is that Toronto families have to wait. They have to keep waiting at their stops, they have to keep missing dinner with their kids and they have to stay sitting in gridlock throughout the city. He thinks it’s more important to hand out another corporate tax cut and build a private diesel train to the airport, but the member from Eglinton–Lawrence vehemently disagrees with the Premier on this matter. On his website it says: “Build the Eglinton LRT now.” Did the Premier consult with this member, a former TTC commissioner, before he derailed the plans for the Toronto transit system?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure what more I can say, except that we plan to move ahead. We’re waiting now for the best advice from Metrolinx with respect to how we might

schedule that. There may be better news than my colleague is anticipating on that score, in terms of how quickly we can move ahead.

Let me tell you about what we have done as a sign of our commitment. We’ve invested, province-wide, $9.3 billion so far in public transit, which represents about $9.3 billion more than the previous government put in. With respect to the city of Toronto, we’ve also invested $3.5 billion. We’re also turning over a portion of the provincial gas tax, and that has provided Toronto with $688 million, over the first five years of the program, for them to in turn invest in public transit.

So I think, by any objective measure, we continue to be seen to be very supportive of public transit.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Toronto residents were counting on the Premier to keep his word to improve their lives and build their city.

I’ll quote one Toronto resident: “I know this new LRT will make a huge difference to the people living in my community, whether they’re commuting home in time to watch a daughter’s soccer game or looking for a better way to make a doctor’s appointment.”

That was the member for Don Valley East speaking about the Finch LRT. Did the Premier consult with him or the rest of his caucus of Toronto MPPs before breaking his promise on Transit City, or does he take his Toronto MPPs for granted the same way he takes Torontonians for granted?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, we remain absolutely committed, as a caucus and as a government, to moving ahead with public transit in the city of Toronto. I’ve listed some of our initiatives in that regard.

I’ll remind my honourable colleague that there is digging under way at present for a new subway extension that their party voted against. We’re talking about an $870-million investment to extend the TTC subway to York region. Two tunnelling machines have been purchased, the work is under way, and we look forward to doing more at the earliest possible opportunity.

PENSION PLANS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, as well. Yesterday at a major pension conference here in Toronto, Jim Leech, the CEO of the Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, delivered a very important speech. He said, “The truth is that” defined benefit “plans are far better vehicles for pension saving from both a security and a cost basis for both employees and sponsors.”

Ontario’s finance minister is in fact addressing that very conference this morning. Will he lead a spirited fight for secure, affordable pension plans in this province? Or will this government cave to the banks and insurance companies and endorse the very option that Mr. Leech warned us against yesterday in his speech?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is an issue we’ve been talking about for quite some time, at least two years now. It’s something that I’ve raised with my counterparts from across the country. It’s something that I’ve raised directly with the Prime Minister.

I think we can take a little bit of heart in the recent initiatives put forward by the federal Minister of Finance, who is now on a tour across the country—there are at least three venues he’s visiting—to speak to Canadians to get a better understanding of the consequences of the lack of adequacy when it comes to retirement incomes.

We look forward to being part of what I believe rightly should be a federal initiative, a national response to a national challenge. Again, we’ll continue to work with the federal government and our counterparts across the country.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: In his speech, Mr. Leech pointed out that the group RRSPs and defined contribution plans that are administered by banks and insurance companies carry very large administrative fees, fees that can reduce retirement savings by up to 30%.

There are only two sides to this historic pension debate: On one side we have the defenders of secure, public, cost-effective defined benefit plans; on the other, the expensive, private option being promoted by the banks and insurance companies. It’s time for the McGuinty government to get off the fence. Which side is the Premier on?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just think it’s a little early for us to try to pigeonhole the various options here. I’m not even sure if all the options are yet on the table. I think it’s a little early in that regard.

I think one thing that we need to be—and I encourage my colleague to do the same—is honest with Ontarians and Canadians. Whatever we do, there will be an additional cost to employees when it comes to setting some money aside. If there’s any consensus among economists out there, it’s that we are saving too little. We shouldn’t be captivated by some imaginary notion that that saving will be done by somebody else. We’ll have to set more money aside in some way, shape or fashion, and that’s part of the conversation we’re going to have with Canadians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: That honesty and clarity is exactly what I’m seeking from this Premier. In a few weeks, Canada’s finance ministers are in fact going to meet to decide on the future of retirement savings in this country, and he knows that. For the two thirds of working Ontarians who have no workplace pension, the outcome of this meeting is extremely important.

New Democrats have come down firmly on the side of public defined benefit pension plans. We support expanding the CPP and have also proposed a made-in-Ontario solution in the form of our own, very-well-received Ontario retirement plan.

We stand with the four million Ontarians without pensions. Does the Premier stand with them or with the banks and insurance companies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I stand for a thoughtful consultation and deliberative process so that we can get the best options before us and we can do what is in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

I know that my honourable colleague is concerned about costs for our families. We’ve embarked upon a very important initiative to reduce the cost of drugs for Ontario families. At one point or other in our lives, we’re going to need access to prescription medication. It would be great to know where the NDP stands on this very important issue. The initiative we put forward will save money for all our families, whether they’re paying for drugs directly out of pocket, through an employment plan of some kind or as a taxpayer through a public plan.

It’s in everybody’s interests that we find a way forward on this. It would be great to know whether the NDP is in fact on the side of families in this important initiative in getting their drug costs down.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. You are cutting almost a billion dollars in health care in the front-line services that pharmacists provide. That’s a billion-dollar cut. That’s what Premier McGuinty wasted on the Liberal-friendly consultants in the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. What front-line health care should Ontario patients expect Premier McGuinty to cut next?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very happy to have the opportunity to talk about the reforms we’re making in our drug plan in the province of Ontario.

Let’s be really clear: This is all about getting fair prices for drugs for the people of Ontario. It’s about getting lower prices and it’s about expanding the access to drugs for people in this province who need drugs to be healthy or to stay healthy. This is absolutely the right thing to do.

It’s also about cleaning up a system of payments that were paid from generic companies to pharmacy owners in exchange for stocking those drugs on their shelves. It cleans up that system. It allows us to pay directly for those front-line services that are so enormously valuable, services provided by those front-line pharmacists.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: We think it’s important for Ontario patients and families to know that, in actual fact, the McGuinty government is holding Ontario patients hostage in its PR war against pharmacists. The McGuinty Liberals are vilifying pharmacists, but most of these trusted health professionals operate in small operations and can’t afford the costs that you’re downloading onto them. Some will have to reduce the number of hours they’re able to open, but the fact of the matter is that others are going to be forced to close. Ontario patients are going to pay the price for this.

Why are you holding Ontario patients hostage in your fight to cut the front-line services that our pharmacists provide?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am frankly astonished that the Conservative Party has chosen to side with Big Pharmacy on this issue. I tell you, we are on the side of patients on this issue, and that is why, standing with us, we have CARP, the advocacy organization for seniors. We have the Canadian Cancer Society and the Heart and Stroke Foundation supporting this. We have organized labour—Sid Ryan stood with me as we announced these changes.

These are the right changes. It will allow us to offer more drugs for more people. It’s the right—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me describe—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew: You silenced, I sat, and then I heard you again.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me demonstrate what a difference this will make for people once these changes are implemented. A person diagnosed with depression on a drug called citalopram currently pays $346 a year. Under the new plan, they will pay $114 a year. That is a savings of $232 for a person who needs the drug to be healthy.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. On February 17, the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal ordered the government to increase special diet allowance rates for special assistance recipients with various medical conditions within three months. Instead of increasing those rates, the McGuinty government, through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is asking for a one-year extension so it can eliminate the special diet allowance and reduce the same benefits that were awarded.

Why won’t the government comply with the Ontario Human Rights Commission ruling and provide adequate special diet allowance payments as ordered?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: This is a very good question. The government will comply with the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal. We need more time to investigate and to see who qualifies for this new addition, to respect the decision of the human rights. That’s the only reason we will comply with the decision of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: That is not the case at all. The assistant deputy minister has filed an affidavit that set out exactly the opposite of what you have just said: that they are asking for the year in order to eliminate the program.

This minister is refusing to answer the question. She implies that the current special diet allowance is not medically based, and she has said that before. Of course it is. Recipients must have specific medical conditions in order to receive the allowance.

The tribunal decision clearly states that the special diet allowances are inadequate. This arrogant government responds by doing away with the allowance altogether and effectively cutting the special assistance rates up to 20%. This is nothing less than cruelty. Why does this government think it is above the decision of the Human Rights Tribunal?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: The question that was asked by my colleague was: Why have we asked for some time? First of all, you’re partly right. We will appeal part of the decision, but there is another part that we will comply with, so we’re asking for more time. Why are we asking for more time? It’s because we need to review all the applications for a part of the special diet, and we need more time. We’ll appeal one part, but the other part we will comply with, and we need more time to make the right decision and give those claimants what they deserve under the decision of the human rights.

PHARMACISTS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I’ve been hearing from my constituents a lot about the government’s proposed drug reforms, many of whom are supportive of lower generic drug prices. I’ve also heard from some pharmacies that are concerned about the proposed removal of professional allowances, the payments from generic drug companies to pharmacies for stocking their products. Some have said that they use this money to provide services and are concerned about how they will continue to provide those services.

In fact, just last night at an event I attended, I heard from a pharmacist who owns a couple of Shoppers Drug Mart franchises. He is concerned he will not be compensated for the counselling and educational services he provides to his clients.

I understand that the government’s plan includes new funding for professional services. Can the minister please provide more details about this funding?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to make it very clear that pharmacies will be fairly compensated for providing the patient care they provide. Lowering the cost of drugs puts us in a better position to fund these kinds of vital patient services in the future.

We know that pharmacists want to use their full range of skills. Pharmacists are highly trained health professionals and a vital part of our health care system. Through our reforms, we are ensuring that pharmacies are fairly compensated by helping patients, by increasing dispensing fees and by paying for additional services provided to patients. We’re committing $246 million for the following: $124 million to increase dispensing fees to pharmacists; $100 million in new investments to compensate pharmacists directly for services they provide, in addition to the $50 million already allocated—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m glad that I’ll be able to provide more details to my constituents and ensure them that we will be fairly compensating pharmacies for the important services that they provide.

Pharmacists are professionals who have the training and expertise to play a larger role as health care providers. I understand that, with the passage of legislation in December, medical professionals, including pharmacists, are poised to take on expanded scopes of practice. Fully utilizing the skills of our medical professionals is critical to providing the best health care for Ontarians.

With the new funding for pharmacists’ professional services, my constituents will want to know what services they can receive from their local pharmacists. Can the minister please tell this House about the changes to the scope of practice for pharmacists?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for her question. These changes, these reforms, build on Bill 179 that was passed last year to give Ontarians better access to health care and more choices in who provides it. The changes expand the scope of practice for pharmacists, enabling them to more fully utilize their skills for the benefit of Ontarians. For example, pharmacists will be allowed, under Bill 179, to prescribe certain drugs, to renew prescriptions—that would save people a visit to their doctors. This is the kind of change we envision for our health care system in the province.

We look forward to working with the college of pharmacists to implement the regulations that will make these changes a reality. These reforms are the right thing to do. We’re committed to harnessing the enormous ability of pharmacists to benefit the people of Ontario.

TAXATION

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Premier. Ontario families are just 78 days away from July 1 and the McGuinty Liberals greedy new HST tax grab being applied to everything.

In Brantford, Jim Todd says, “Being on ODSP, I’m barely able to make ends meet as it is. And now, I’ll have to add as much as 13%.”

The member for Brant won’t stand up for Jim Todd, so I will. Premier, will you scrap your greedy HST tax grab so Ontario families, like Jim Todd’s, can afford home heating fuel, gas and the items they need every day?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the new member for the question. I’m delighted to answer your question.

I think it’s important, particularly in your riding, that the good people of Leeds–Grenville know that the marginal effective tax rate on our side of the river is going to be half of what it is on the other side of the river, which is where we need the jobs: on this side of the river.

What we’re doing is ensuring that the people with the least benefit the most by our tax reform. You referenced people on ODSP. They receive the GST rebate from the federal government. They’ll continue to receive that, but now they’ll receive the HST rebate, up to another $260 for every adult and child in that family, whether in Leeds–Grenville or anywhere in the province of Ontario. That is something, unfortunately, your party voted against, but that is something that we are proud that we’re doing.

Interjection.

Hon. John Wilkinson: That’s why it’s important, despite the fact that your colleagues are a little caffeinated today, that we are making sure that we’re reforming our tax—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s not only in Brant where they’re looking for their provincial representative who stands up for their community.

In Sudbury, Leo Bisson is questioning how the McGuinty Liberals can say that the HST is good for everyone when it looks like the $25 million in bonuses for tax collectors is only good for tax collectors. He says, “Look into the HST and you will see it’s no good for Ontario. If the local MPP reads this, I hope he will do something for the first time in a long time.”

The member for Sudbury won’t ask, so I will: Will you scrap the greedy HST tax grab? Yes or no?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank Prime Minister Stephen Harper for the work that he has done in regard to reforming our taxes, working with our Premier. I want to thank the federal Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, who is known better by some than others in this House, and particularly our Minister of Finance, Dwight Duncan.

Particularly, I want to thank your predecessor, Senator Robert Runciman, whose job it is to deliver the HST in the Senate of this great country. I would say that Senator Runciman is showing tremendous leadership in his new role of shepherding the HST legislation through Canada’s Senate, and I know it’s a job that he agreed to take on when the Prime Minister gave him the privilege of serving in the Senate.

I say that we work together for the good of Ontario. You cannot have a strong Canada and a weak Ontario. That’s why—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Energy and Infrastructure. Minister, last Friday, a number of projects were announced under the FIT program. Specifically, there were two particular projects: one in Hearst that’s a biomass project that you would know about because we’ve met and we’ve discussed this particular project, as well as A&T Energy, who are putting forward a project on solar panel construction in the Val Rita area.

Can you tell me why two locally owned projects that are community based were bypassed in favour of an international project?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Ontario Power Authority makes the decisions as to how these projects move forward, and they make them based on a large number of criteria. But I’m sure the member joins me in celebrating the fact that what we announced last week is going to create 20,000 jobs in every corner of this province. What we announced last week is the equivalent of a $9-billion private sector investment in Ontario’s economy: 184 new green projects that are going to deliver 2,500 megawatts of clean, green power to the people of Ontario. It was a good day for green energy in Ontario last week when the Premier and I made these announcements.

There’s more to do and there will be more projects moving forward, but I think we’re off to a pretty good start. We’re leading the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, “a pretty good start” depends on where you stand. In the case of Hearst, you’ve got a locally owned project where they are going to basically clean up an area that has been polluted for a number of years. We’ve met on this issue before. It’s locally owned, locally operated and locally sourced. In the case of Val Rita, all local ownership—again, sourced all within the province of Ontario.

Tell me what the downside is for the Ontario government to say that we’re not going to favour those very projects that are community-based projects that come from Ontario in favour of projects that come from outside of this province.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is right: I’ve had an opportunity to meet with the mayor and himself on this particular project, and I’ll continue to work with them. I think there’s a lot of potential there.

At the same time, the Ontario Power Authority, when they make these decisions, make them on a number of criteria, one of which is shovel-readiness. I’m not going to speak for them in terms of the criteria and their judgment on this, but I think the project the member raises has potential, and we’re going to continue to work with them.

There is potential for expansion of green energy right across this province. There are lots of good opportunities out there. All I can say is that 184 projects were moved forward last week, a $9-billion investment when you include the mid-range projects we announced a month ago; 20,000 jobs—green jobs, new generation jobs—being produced across this province. That’s something that every member of this Legislature should be—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ABORIGINAL CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question for the Minister of Children and Youth Services. In the riding of Algoma–Manitoulin, in ridings across the north and, as a matter of fact, in ridings across the province, aboriginal communities face a number of unique challenges. Children and youth face particular challenges, including high levels of youth suicide and a high number of children in need of the protection of children’s aid societies.

In fact, this week, the ministry posted a report on the review of the Child and Family Services Act. In the review of the provisions related to the protection of aboriginal children and youth, feedback from the aboriginal community told us that there is much to be done to better support those facing these challenges.

What is the ministry doing to address these concerns about strengthening support for Ontario’s aboriginal youth?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I want to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his question and his advocacy for his community and others on this important issue. I’m very pleased to speak to this issue. As the member said, we have come to the conclusion of the Child and Family Services Act review, and we continue to make progress with respect to ensuring a better future for aboriginal children and youth across the province.

Just this morning, I attended Native Child and Family Services of Toronto with my colleagues the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the member for Toronto Centre, where we announced the appointment of Chief John Beaucage as the first advisor to the Minister of Children and Youth Services on aboriginal child welfare.

We know that there is much more work to do. We need the advice, the guidance and the facilitation of someone in the role of John Beaucage. We look forward to doing that work.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I know all members welcome the appointment of Chief John Beaucage. I know that the province is making improvements for aboriginal children and youth; however, these challenges are not new challenges. Youth in northern remote communities, youth in downtown Toronto, youth in Algoma–Manitoulin and from across the province have been facing difficult circumstances for far too long. What is being done now to address additional supports for these youth?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The member is quite correct. These issues are not new; they are issues that communities have been grappling with for a very long time. We know that the solutions are not simple and that we need a broad group of passionate people at the table. That is what Chief John Beaucage will do.

We can be proud of the work that we have done to date. I want to highlight a few of the key investments we have made in Ontario’s aboriginal youth, both on- and off-reserve: $8.5 million a year in Aboriginal Healthy Babies, Healthy Children, a program for aboriginal fetal alcohol spectrum disorder, in 180 communities, on- and off-reserve; $6.2 million to provide mental health and life skill supports for at-risk urban aboriginal youth; and $17 million a year in child care spaces for on- and off-reserve aboriginal children.

We have done a great deal, but there is much more to do. We look forward to working with experts, leaders, aboriginal leaders and those who can help us find the pathway for a better future for Ontario’s aboriginal children and youth.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Last Friday, the Premier delivered an astonishing rebuke of Ontario’s colleges and universities. The headline in the Globe and Mail says it all: “McGuinty Gives Ontario Colleges and Universities an F in New Spending.” In a startling admission, the Premier said, “I don’t have measurable improvement in my colleges and universities for the funding that I put in.”

Why is the Premier chastising our colleges and universities for his mismanagement?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In my next life, I want to come back as a headline writer because there’s so much fun to be had in that regard. They are unbridled.

We have had the great privilege of working with our colleges and universities and those people who deliver our apprenticeship training, as well, and we’ve got some really good news for them. The first bit is that we’re going to fund another 20,000 spaces in our colleges and universities this September. We’re doing that notwithstanding the fact that we have some real financial challenges on our hands.

Beyond that, we want to sit down with the sector and develop a new five-year plan to ensure that we can move from 62% to 70% of Ontario adults having post-secondary education. We very much look forward to working with the sector in this regard.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: I say to the Premier: I read the transcript, and I’d say the headline is bang-on.

When the Liberal government grossly underestimated enrolment growth, colleges and universities filled the void. When the government failed to deliver on the Premier’s promise to bring post-secondary per-student funding up to the national average, colleges and universities made do and didn’t complain. When this government implemented a sloppy Second Career program to deal with massive unemployment that created a quadruple cohort in the system, Ontario’s colleges came to the government’s rescue. This Premier has the audacity to call our colleges and universities failures and give them an F.

Will the Premier apologize to our colleges and universities?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to be very clear—and my honourable colleague knows this—there was never any reference to a grade of any kind, and I did not use the F-word, “failure,” in particular, just so we are clear on this count.

I do, again, sincerely, very much look forward to working with our colleges and universities. We’ve got this new ambition we’re setting before ourselves of taking ourselves from 62% of our adults having a post-secondary education up to 70%.

We want to go ahead with a new online institute to enable more Ontarians to access a quality Ontario university degree online. We also want to invite more international students to come and acquire a first-class post-secondary education that can only be obtained here in Ontario, Canada.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Labatt’s decision to close Lakeport Brewery in Hamilton is another big blow to my city and the 143 families, of course, who counted on those good jobs to pay their bills. But there is a glimmer of hope: At least three interested parties are looking at taking over the operation. My question to the Premier, therefore, is a simple one: What is his government prepared to do to ensure that brewing operations and good jobs remain at the Lakeport site?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I appreciate the opportunity to speak not just to the member opposite but to the people of Hamilton.

Members on this side of the House, of course—the member for Hamilton Mountain in particular is very concerned about the goings-on with the potential loss of jobs out of that Labatt’s facility.

I think we have to remember that if there is a role that the Ontario government can play to facilitate any discussion, any opportunities, with using that facility for others who could come in to make a viable business, the Ontario government will be there. We anticipate that we may well have that kind of role to play.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It’s true; Hamilton has been hit very hard by job losses. The 143 workers and their families are holding out hope, however, that jobs might be saved by a new operator at the Lakeport brewery. But Labatt’s says it is moving all the equipment—lock, stock and barrel—from the brewery, a move that industry experts say is going to make a takeover practically impossible. Given the Premier’s close connections to key Labatt executives, including the vice-president of corporate affairs, will he get on the phone to his friends at Labatt’s and make sure that the equipment is kept at the brewery?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I can’t comment on who is friends with whom, but I can tell you that we are very concerned any time we have a job loss or the potential of families who won’t have jobs. That is a huge concern to us. In southern Ontario, which has been the hardest-hit in the nation during the worst recession of our times in generations, we worry in particular about anything like this happening.

We are determined that if the Ontario government can play a role in facilitating discussion where there could be a takeover or that plant could become viable, we are prepared to do that role.

I can tell you that for Labatt’s, they certainly are their own corporation with their decisions to make. If there’s a way for us to be influential, we intend to play that role.

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Glen R. Murray: My question is for the Minister of Education. Minister, today marks International Day of Pink, or Pink Shirt Day, which is observed every year in commemoration of a group of students at a high school in Nova Scotia who wore pink in support of a fellow student who was bullied for simply wearing a pink shirt.

I want to acknowledge the young people in our schools who are showing real leadership in creating respectful classrooms and playgrounds.

Mr. Speaker, as you will note, many members of the Legislature today are commemorating this by wearing an

article of pink clothing. I think many are wearing boxer shorts.

Minister, can you outline what our government is doing to prevent acts of bullying in our schools?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Bullying in schools has been a very serious issue, and that is why our government did take action. That is why we amended the Education Act to include bullying as an infraction for which a student can be disciplined.

Our safe schools strategy will help protect students and ensure that there are serious consequences for those who would be involved in bullying activities.

The Keeping Our Kids Safe at School Act came into effect February 1, and it does require all board employees—if they witness

an act of bullying, that must be reported to the principal. Principals and staff have been trained to understand this.

I would also want to thank the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, who has recognized the value of our safe school action teams in her resolution that requires these teams to recognize and organize Bullying Awareness Week in November. All members of this House—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Glen R. Murray: Minister, I think the expression of support for this initiative is a great idea. I’m glad that so many members of all parties are showing their support for ending discrimination and for safer school environments.

Minister, Pink Shirt Day also represents a desire to end discriminatory behaviour and to ensure that all students, regardless of race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, feel included and are free of discrimination. Acts of discrimination and bullying based on these factors—and any other, for that matter—are entirely unacceptable. Homophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination do not belong in our schools at any time.

Would the minister tell us what her ministry is doing to ensure that students of all backgrounds are treated equally and feel included in their schools?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I know that parents in my riding have spoken to me on this very issue as well, and I’m happy to report in the Legislature today that in April 2009, we released Realizing the Promise of Diversity: Ontario’s Equity and Inclusive Education Strategy. It does aim to have inclusiveness as part of the understanding in our schools. This strategy provides a framework to help the education community identify and remove discriminatory biases in their classrooms and in their schools.

We started our work on the equity strategy; when we started, only 43 of 72 boards had a plan in place. However, by September of this year all boards in the province of Ontario will have plans in place. I think that this is very important and I know it’s something that parents would expect, and we can say in September of this year—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Attorney General. In 2007, Dalton McGuinty promised to create a disability rights secretariat. It is now 2010, and despite the legal requirement to do so, this secretariat does not exist. Ontarians with disabilities want to know: Why did you break yet another promise?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: To the minister responsible for disability issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: There’s still no secretariat. Many people with a disability face barriers when trying to exercise a constitutionally protected right to vote in elections. Members of the disability community say that your Bill 231 will not address a number of these obstacles. The Premier says he is open to new technologies to assist disabled voters, but your legislation forbids these technologies and goes so far as creating barriers to the use of cost-effective voting equipment used in England and the United States. The disability community demands action. This afternoon, we will consider motions to amend Bill 231.

I am very proud to say that this bill, if passed, will make Ontario the first among the federal and provincial governments in Canada to allow the Chief Electoral Officer to provide accessible voting machines in every returning office for advanced polls so that voters with disabilities can vote privately and independently—very proud.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for seniors’ issues. This morning, I spoke about Bill 21,

An Act to regulate retirement homes. I raised several questions, particularly about mandatory sprinkler systems in every retirement home in Ontario. Government members know that three—I repeat, three—coroner’s inquests have recommended mandatory sprinkler systems. Despite knowing of these well-investigated recommendations, the McGuinty Liberals have ignored this expertise and have taken no steps toward implementing these life-saving recommendations.

Can the minister explain why life-saving sprinkler systems in all retirement homes are not mandatory in Ontario?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I’ll take the first part. I may refer this to the minister responsible for the fire code.

Let me just say to the member that I share his interest in safety very much, and I think everybody here in the Legislature does.

I’d just say to the public: Recognize that for the first time in the history of the province we are moving to regulate, license and inspect retirement homes. That has never been done before. We will set safety standards and care standards—particularly safety standards. It’s the first time ever for retirement homes that there will be standards set, and we will inspect, we will license, and we will ensure that they’re carried out.

The advice I get—and I think the bill anticipates this—is that this will be a very substantial increase in safety in retirement homes. We take the advice very much of the fire marshal and the fire code. We intend that during our inspections—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The results of the three coroner’s inquests speak volumes about the absolute need for mandatory sprinkler systems in all Ontario retirement homes. The Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs has fully supported these recommendations of the coroners’ inquests. Thirty-six residents died in the 1980, 1995 and 1997 retirement home fires, which resulted in the coroners’ recommendations of retroactive mandatory sprinkler systems.

Can the minister explain, in the circumstances of those three specific retirement home fires, what tools other than the automatic sprinklers would have saved those 36 seniors’ lives?

Hon. Gerry Phillips: Again, I go back to the advice we get in terms of safety in retirement homes. Part of the bill anticipates the fire code being strictly enforced, all staff trained in fire prevention, regular inspections of the fire extinguishers in the building, regular training of the staff, posting of the emergency procedures, licensing of the homes to make sure they are following carefully the advice of the fire marshal.

I would say to the public that safety very much is anticipated as an integral part of the first-time-ever licensing and regulating of retirement homes. I believe we are making a dramatic step forward in retirement home safety, and very much following, I might say, the advice of the fire marshal as well.

VOLUNTEERS

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Minister, our province has a long and rich tradition of volunteerism. Each year, millions of Ontarians benefit from the contributions of almost five million volunteers helping 45,000 non-profit organizations.

As all members in this House know, one of the distinct pleasures of being an MPP is that we have the privilege to meet, interact with and support volunteers and the organizations that assist almost every day in the course of our duties. These are generous, passionate and dedicated individuals. These are good citizens. In particular, many young people in my riding of Ottawa Centre volunteer their time and their youthful energy to build a stronger and better community.

With National Volunteer Week coming up next week, can the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration tell us how we as legislators and public figures can encourage more youth to volunteer in our communities?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Volunteerism is citizenship in action and makes a positive difference in the lives of millions of Ontarians.

This government is proudly sponsoring the third annual ChangeTheWorld Ontario Youth Volunteer Challenge, working with the Ontario Volunteer Centre Network. This initiative will encourage more than 10,000 youth right across the province to volunteer for the next three weeks, from April 18 to May 8.

To support the ChangeTheWorld challenge, I’m announcing today the first annual MPP volunteer challenge, which calls on all MPPs to volunteer their time in the coming three weeks in their communities and across Ontario. If every member of this House participates in the MPP volunteer challenge, we can inspire our youth to volunteer and get involved in their communities.

My office will be sending all members more information on this exciting opportunity shortly. I strongly encourage all of you to take the—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I’m very excited to hear about the MPP volunteer challenge. I can tell my colleagues on both sides of the House that they’re going to have some stiff competition from the member from Ottawa Centre.

But in all seriousness, as elected representatives of Ontario, we have a special ability to encourage more of our youth to volunteer in their communities. Clearly, this can begin by setting an example for our young people to follow. There are thousands of charitable and not-for-profit organizations which need volunteers to support the good work they do each and every day, but getting out there and setting a good example as legislators is just one gesture to our volunteers that we support them.

Minister, please tell Ontarians what action our government is undertaking to support volunteers and the volunteer organizations that are working so hard to make our communities better across Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I trust that in this answer—and I’m going to use this as an opportunity to again remind members. This sounded very much like a ministerial statement. You made an announcement of a new initiative in the form of a question and answer in question period, which, in my opinion, would have been much more appropriate to have been made during routine proceedings or under ministerial statements.

Please proceed with the answer, but I do caution and remind all members that this is question period, which is to deal with urgent public business, and to not be making announcements.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The McGuinty government believes that the voluntary sector is a strong partner to all of us and one that shares the goal of building more vibrant and prosperous communities. The work of our volunteers and non-profits has been critical to Ontario’s success, particularly in this difficult time, and has helped our province confront and overcome the global economic downturn. To further their support, my ministry invests in non-profits to explore such issues as social enterprise and other new ideas that can ensure their sustainability.

Related to our volunteers, I was pleased to attend last night in Richmond Hill one of the 47 ceremonies in every corner of Ontario honouring our volunteers through the volunteer service awards. Our volunteers helped build this province and, in return, we support our volunteers.

PHARMACISTS

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Health. Sam Patel owns the independent Keswick Pharmacy in my riding. He delivers to seniors, holds clinics and makes up orders for nursing homes. Now, with your cuts to front-line medical care, he will have to cancel each of these special services.

Sam is not alone. Pharmacies across rural Ontario are in the same boat and many will be forced to close, depriving thousands of needed medical care and advice in their communities.

Why are you trying to cut access to the front-line care that pharmacists like Sam offer to my constituents?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity to talk about this. The first thing I want to say is that this is all about improving access to drugs for the people of Ontario at a fair and lower price. We are committed to supporting access in rural areas. We have put $24 million into our plan that we will invest in pharmacies that provide that vital access to pharmacy services in their communities.

The other thing I want to make very clear is that we are committed to paying pharmacists directly for services they provide to customers. We want to pay pharmacies for providing those vital services to pharmacists. That is also part of our plan.

I would urge you to speak to your constituent and urge that pharmacist to embrace the new way of doing pharmacy services in this province by enhancing the services they provide, and we will—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mrs. Julia Munro: On Monday, you told this House that we had to make a choice between pharmacies and patients. This is a false choice. Pharmacists like Sam Patel are front-line health care providers. They keep my constituents healthy and out of the hospital. You are more interested in spending health care money on your eHealth boondoggle and consultants and salaries at the LHINs instead of local health care. Then, when you are questioned, you attack pharmacies.

Will you explain to Sam Patel why he should have to cut services and possibly go out of business?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, we want him to provide more services. We also want to, on behalf of the people of Ontario, get fair lower prices.

Let me give you another example. There’s a drug called pantoprazole that’s used for acid reflux and peptic ulcers. Currently, a person would pay around $536 for that drug. Under our proposed changes, the person would pay $178 for that drug. That would be