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

March 7, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-07 (PDF)

L011 - Thu 7 Mar 2013 / Jeu 7 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 7 March 2013 Jeudi 7 mars 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

PROROGATION

HOME CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

CASINOS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

RURAL ONTARIO

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

WIND TURBINES

OBSTETRICAL CARE

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

STOMPIN’ TOM CONNORS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JIM ALEXANDER

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

STOMPIN’ TOM CONNORS

ISRAELI APARTHEID WEEK

STOMPIN’ TOM CONNORS

LEGOLAND DISCOVERY CENTRE

WIND FARMS

POLISH-CANADIAN WOMEN

MINING INDUSTRY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CLANDESTINE DRUG OPERATION

PREVENTION ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DES OPÉRATIONS

DE STUPÉFIANTS CLANDESTINES

SKIN CANCER PREVENTION

ACT (TANNING BEDS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA PRÉVENTION

DU CANCER DE LA PEAU

(LITS DE BRONZAGE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

PETITIONS

ELECTRICITY GENERATION

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

LANDFILL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WIND TURBINES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WIND TURBINES

LONG-TERM CARE

WIND TURBINES

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

GASOLINE TAX FAIRNESS

FOR ALL ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ POUR TOUS

À L’ÉGARD DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

RESPECT FOR MUNICIPALITIES ACT

(CITY OF TORONTO), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE RESPECT

DES MUNICIPALITÉS

(CITÉ DE TORONTO)

GASOLINE TAX FAIRNESS

FOR ALL ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ POUR TOUS

À L’ÉGARD DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

RESPECT FOR MUNICIPALITIES ACT

(CITY OF TORONTO), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE RESPECT

DES MUNICIPALITÉS

(CITÉ DE TORONTO)

GASOLINE TAX FAIRNESS

FOR ALL ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR L’ÉQUITÉ POUR TOUS

À L’ÉGARD DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 5, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services / Projet de loi 11, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ambulances en ce qui concerne les services d’ambulance aériens.

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

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président. I had the pleasure to start my lead last Tuesday, and I take it that I have 36 minutes left on the clock to complete this.

I spent the first part explaining how what the government has done is basically what I described as giving itself a bigger stick. That is, really, the bill goes through—and I will go through step by step—making sure that the government has every tool at their disposal if Ornge was ever to not follow a government order. But what is also clear is that the other part of the ledger—that is, to give people a say—has not been touched on.

So in the first part of the debate, I agree that this bill gives the government new power to bring Ornge in line. But what it fails to do, in part, is that it fails to give people a say into making sure that this agency complies with what is expected of it. The bigger picture of this bill is that nothing in there could lead us to believe that anything has been learned from Ornge. If anybody thinks that what happened at Ornge will happen again at Ornge—the chances of that are rather slim.

But the chance of what happened at Ornge happening in one of the thousands of transfer payment agencies of the Ministry of Health, maybe as we speak—that’s a far greater risk. That risk is there, I would say it is imminent, and unfortunately I wouldn’t be surprised if the series of failings from the government side, from the ministry that allowed Ornge to do what they did, that allowed the fiasco at Ornge—that series of failings could very well be happening as we speak.

But here we are, with Bill 11. The number has changed, but frankly the content is identical to what we had seen. For people who are not following Ornge as closely as I do, in March 2012 the Auditor General released a special report called Ornge Air Ambulance and Related Services. It was a scathing report. It showed that Dr. Mazza, the head of Ornge, was paid over $1 million a year for his services. It showed the use of taxpayers’ money in ways that cannot be imagined, to the point that the OPP were called in to do an investigation of fraud, corruption, wrongdoing and breaking the laws.

You can see it all when you look through what happened to all our money at Ornge. But the main thing that the Auditor General told us is that the government—more specifically the Ministry of Health—had failed in its duty of oversight. Had the existing measure of oversight been applied, Ornge would have never been able to follow that path.

What was the government’s response on the same day that the Auditor General came out with the scathing report? They released the air ambulance act. It was, in the lingo of this place, a way to change the channel, a way to say, “We know that things are bad, but here, we’re making them better.” At the time, I was a little bit lenient because they had put that together in haste and were trying to improve things. But that was a year ago, Mr. Speaker. For the last year, we’ve learned an awful lot. We’ve debated this bill in the House before and told them of the failings of this bill, but this bill did not change. It is identical, word for word, to when it was presented back in March 2012.

I will go through the bill and tell you some of the good, some of the bad and some of the downright ugly side of this bill before I conclude my remarks.

The first

part is that they are talking about being able to appoint people to the board of directors.

For thousands of transfer payment agencies of the government throughout, people, you and I, go through an election process at an annual general meeting and we select people who sit on the boards of those different agencies.

I was the executive director of a community health centre before I took this position. Once a year, we would send a public announcement and invite people to come and join our board. Then the members of the corporation, of the community health centre where I worked, would get together once a year and they would elect people to sit on the board. This is common practice. We see it throughout. So whether we talk about a women’s shelter, a community health centre, a hospital, this is what happens quite often.

Now the government has given itself extra power: They would supersede the wish of the community and appoint some of their own people directly. I would say, sure, it is a way to—what I describe as giving the minister a bigger stick. Is it necessary for Ornge right now? I would tell you, probably not. There is such a big spotlight that has been shone on this agency that they will tend to be squeaky clean going on. Is it harmful? Probably not that much, but it does set a precedent that in certain communities, the wish of the community would be superseded by the wish of the ministry.

I represent people in northern Ontario. The wish of a ministry based out of Toronto does not always line up with the wish of the multiple communities throughout Ontario. It seems like the further away from Toronto that community is, the further away the wishes are aligned.

So they’ve done this. Am I going to vote against the bill just for this? Probably not. Do I feel that it is necessary? Probably not. Will it ever be used at Ornge? Not much chance of that.

The government also has given itself the right to issue directives. So they would issue a directive to the air ambulance service—that’s what Ornge is; it’s an air ambulance service—and then those directives would need to be followed. Here again we’re building a bigger stick to direct them.

Rather than providing good oversight, we’re bringing in accountability measures where you take over the existing mechanism, which is that the governance is done by the board of directors, the administration of the place is done by the executive director or the chief executive officer, no matter the title, and then the work is carried out by the workers.

So rather than make sure that you supervise and you oversee that process that exists throughout Ontario, that has served Ontario well for decades and decades and decades, we are now taking it for granted that the wish of the ministry will be better, that the will of the ministry will be better. It is a dangerous slope, but, in and of itself, the government feels that it needs a bigger stick to deal with Ornge, although Ornge wouldn’t say “Boo” right now without asking for ministry permission.

They also are giving themselves the right to assign a special investigator or to assign a supervisor. This is something that we have seen in other parts of the health care system. It has sometimes been useful, especially in—it has been used mainly with hospitals. In the hospital act, you find powers that are pretty much equivalent to this.

On the wish of the minister to give herself or himself—as times will change; it’s “hers” right now—those powers, what happened at Ornge was quite horrific, and having the power to have an investigator or supervisor has been shown to bring positive results in other parts of the health care system. This is also in the bill so that if the ministry is not happy, they can dismiss the board, put in a supervisor who basically takes over, put in a special investigator who basically takes over.

When a supervisor comes in, depending on their mandate, they can take over the job of the board so the governance is no longer made by the community for the community; it is made by the supervisor. The job of the CEO is no longer his job; it is taken over. When a supervisor goes in, the ministry decides how broad the power of that supervisor will be.

Do I really think that we will ever need a supervisor at Ornge? Not likely. They’ve gone through some pretty tough times. As you go through, you have this feeling that you’ve shut the barn door once the horse has already ran out. The damage at Ornge is done. We should look at a bill that rebuilds trust, that rebuilds confidence, but that’s not what we have at all. We have a bill that gives a ton of power to the ministry if something ever goes astray with this agency again.

The bill goes through quite a bit of detail as to how a supervisor would be appointed, what happens if there’s no quorum of the board, the delays for appointing, the terms of office, the powers of the supervisors. All of this you can find in that bill, including the right of access to the premises etc.

But I will point, and I will continue to point, that all of those measures are made—whether it’s an investigator or whether it’s a supervisor, those people will report back either to the ministry or to the minister. That means that you and I, Mr. Speaker, don’t get to see what’s happening. We may or may not get whatever information they feel can be shared with us, but there is nothing in this bill that says that if something goes wrong, if people ring the alarm bell like they did the last time at Ornge—for months and years people rang the alarm bell and said, “Things are wrong.

You guys have to go and look in there. Look at what they are doing.” But yet, nobody will hear back. It doesn’t matter if they do this again. If things go bad and people ring the alarm bell, whatever report comes back, we will be excluded from this entire equation. It will be ministry-driven, if she decides to so act, and this report will go back simply to her and to her ministry. We are excluded from this.

Then there is the whistle-blowing protection. I told you that at the beginning when it was first introduced—it was introduced the day the scathing report from the Auditor General came out. The whistle-blower protection was—you know when you do a cut-and-paste on your computer? They did one of those. They took the whistle-blower protection that exists in the Long-Term Care Homes Act and copied it into the Ambulance Act.

In the Long-Term Care Homes Act, the whistle-blower protection makes sense, because you go into any of the 750 long-term-care facilities that exist in Ontario and everybody who works there knows who the inspectors are. They know how to get a hold of them, because there’s a 1-800 number posted everywhere in the home. It’s the law. They have to be. So everybody knows who the inspector is and everybody knows how to get a hold of the inspector.

So it makes a lot of sense to say to a whistle-blower in a long-term care home, “You will disclose to an inspector, an investigator or a special investigator,” because they know who the inspectors are, and the system works. But when you copy something that comes from the Long-Term Care Homes Act and put it in the Ambulance Act, it doesn’t work so well.

You can go and ask any of the people on the base in Moosonee or Sudbury or anywhere in the north, because this is where air ambulance is most needed, in northern Ontario. Because of the distance, because of the lack of medical facilities where we are, we are the biggest beneficiary of air ambulance. Don’t get me wrong; they do lots of work in southern Ontario with accidents and roadside assistance. But where I live, for a lot of communities that I serve, we have no ambulance service except Ornge.

So ask any of the people who work and say, “Okay, you have whistle-blowing protection. All you have to do is disclose to an inspector, an investigator or a special investigator,” and they look at you as if you’re from Mars. “Who the heck is this? How do I get a hold of those people? The inspector? Is that the guy who comes for the special brakes on the airplanes, or is this the guy who comes to see—who is the inspector?” In long-term care it’s clear. It’s posted on the board; it has a 1-800 number. In air ambulance services, it needs a bit of work.

The cut-and-paste could kind of be forgiven in March 2012. In March 2013, when we had four months of prorogation to basically give us time, when we had already given them feedback about their bills, they come back with things like this? Who are we kidding here?

Anybody who has followed Ornge can tell you that there are some people, whistle-blowers, who have gone through a lot of personal hardship because they blew the whistle. Those people lost their jobs. Some of them are still without a job because they tried to tell us what was wrong at Ornge. Not only did nobody believe them, not only did nobody listen to them and nobody acted; they were punished for it. They lost their livelihood.

In this, you can show those men and women who have lost their jobs because they worked at Ornge and blew the whistle because they knew what was going on was wrong and they wanted to do good because they cared about the services they provide. Will this help you in any way, shape or form? No.

They would have still lost their jobs. They would have still been stuck trying to hire a lawyer to represent them when they don’t have an income, and this is what this bill is all about. Sure, they’re not allowed to do this. And if by magic you find the right inspector to call at the Ministry of Health after you’ve—I don’t know—spent a couple of months trying the thousands of numbers that lead you to the Ministry of Health and find the right person to talk to—sure, now you’re supposed to be protected. But the protection is pretty weak.

They’re not supposed to lay you off, but if they do lay you off, well, all you have to do is find the money someplace to hire a lawyer to represent you so that you can fight to have your job back. Who, first of all, would have the means to defend themself in court for cases that go for months on end when they don’t have an income anymore? Ask the secretary at Ornge—sorry, the executive assistant at Ornge who lost her job because she blew the whistle if she would have been able to do that.

This bill needs some work, Mr. Speaker. It’s easy to say, “We’ve added whistle-blower protection.” Yes, the words are there, “whistle-blower protection,” it’s in there in the bill, but the copy-and-paste method from long-term care to Ornge doesn’t work. We’ve had many months to do the changes, but nothing was done. So in theory the whistle-blower cannot be dismissed, cannot be disciplined, cannot have a penalty, cannot be intimidated, coerced or harassed because they’ve blown the whistle to people they don’t know.

And if they ever, God forbid, dial the right number and find somebody who will listen, even if they do get dismissed, they’re on their own to fight for their job back, because there’s nothing in the whistle-blowing protection that will support them or help them. So you can say that we have whistle-blower protection; it is a pretty thin protection.

All right, then we continue. There was this great big thing made of—because remember, as this was going through, the Minister of Health changed her story a number of times. So the story of the week one week was that they could not do their oversight of Ornge because Ornge was incorporated at the federal level. Well, we have yet to find anyone who can tell us how a federal incorporation changes anything. The bill says that Ornge, which is incorporated federally, will now have to change their incorporation to be incorporated at the provincial level. Okay, I’ll give the benefit of the doubt.

But if it’s true that a transfer payment agency of the Ministry of Health is incorporated at the federal level, it means that government cannot do oversight, then why is it that we let Pembroke Regional Hospital incorporate? They are incorporated at the federal level. Are we asking them to change their incorporation? Because apparently if you’re incorporated at the federal level, the government cannot do oversight.

Are we asking Hotel Dieu in St. Catharines to change their incorporation from the federal level to the provincial level? Because the minister would have us believe that if you’re incorporated at the federal level, then she cannot do her job of oversight. How about Collingwood General hospital? Are we going to ask them to change their incorporation? Should I continue with that list? I take it that you got the idea of where I’m going with this?

There are many agencies that report directly to the Ministry of Health that are incorporated at the federal level, and it has never been an issue. The government has been able to do their oversight. Those are stellar organizations. There is nothing wrong with them. They do their oversight. They do what the ministry asks them to do. They follow their accountability agreements, and they’re incorporated at the federal level. This is one of the many problems with the bill, you see?

It says that it finds the problem, and it pretends that it has the solutions, but then it fails to tie the two. If federal incorporation was as big an issue as they made it to be—because for a week there, it was the top of the news. “The reason why the government could not do oversight of Ornge was because it was incorporated, but have no fear. We have found a solution.

We’re passing this new bill that will mandate Ornge to be incorporated at the provincial level so that we can”—if any of that was accurate, wouldn’t they want all of the other transfer payment agencies—some of them I’ve named, but I could continue with that game if you want, because there are many, many, that are incorporated at the federal level. Wouldn’t they want all of them to switch to the provincial level? None of them have been approached.

Actually, there are some new transfer payment agencies being formed right now, and they know that they have to incorporate, and the ministry doesn’t even issue a blink of an eye if they decide to incorporate at the federal level or provincial level. It is left up to the community to decide.

So how can you, in one part, tell us that we have to pass the Ambulance Amendment Act for air ambulance, that we have to put in this act that “the federal level of incorporation was a major problem and we are so proud to be correcting it and taking decisive action”—there’s nothing that they can’t say. But yet, it’s not being applied anywhere else outside of Ornge.

Interjection: It’s window dressing.

M me France Gélinas: It looks very much like window dressing. It looks very much like this whole charade of this bill did not come about because of sound policy; it came about because Ornge hit the front page of the paper.

When Ornge was on the front page of the paper, any issues that were picked up in the media, you can find in here. Whether they are based on a shred of evidence or not makes no difference, Mr. Speaker. If the media talked about it, the minister responded in her bill. But if the good people of Ontario tried, nobody listened to them. If the whistle-blowers put their jobs on the line to try to get through that things were wrong, nobody listened to them. They listened to the media, and this is a bill that, if the media has made a headline out of it, it is in this bill. What for? Beats me.

What will changing the incorporation from the federal to the provincial level change? I have no idea. We’ve asked this question many times, from many witnesses. I’ve actually asked it from a number of lawyers, because there were lots of lawyers in this investigation. Of the 67 people that came, a high percentage of them were lawyers, and you can ask all of them if the incorporation was any different.

Let me see if I can find this. I have Mrs. Golding, who is one of the lawyers who worked for Ornge. One of the questions I asked at the time—I’m quoting myself; I feel self-important this morning, Mr. Speaker. “In layman’s terms, whether you incorporate at the federal level or at the provincial level, like many hospitals do, it changes in nothing the responsibility or the oversight of the government of Ontario, more specifically the Ministry of Health.” I am asking this of Mrs. Lynne Golding.

Mrs. Golding’s answer: “That is correct. There are at least half a dozen hospitals incorporated federally. I think they would all take the view that they are subject to the laws of Ontario and the dictates of the Ministry of Health.”

I could keep on quoting, but I think I’ve beat that one to death, so I will move on, as I only have nine minutes left, and there are some other major failings in this bill.

Yes, it made the headlines. They included it in the bill. I think it will do nothing. The proof that it will do nothing is that we find it elsewhere in the health care system, and the ministry is quite happy to let it continue the way it is.

Then comes what I call the ugly part of the bill because we now see the government—the Ministry of Health—giving itself powers that I have never seen anywhere else. That, to me, is not a good precedent to set. If anybody is following in the bill, we’re in subsection 22(1). It talks about the ministry giving itself power to change the bylaws and to change the articles of the letters patent.

Là, j’ai un projet de loi devant moi qui me dit que le ministère de la Santé va se donner le pouvoir unilatéral d’ignorer complètement ce que la communauté a travaillé à bâtir et de changer tes lettres patentes et tes statuts et règlements. Pour les centaines de milliers de Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes qui se sont battus pour SOS Montfort, une clause comme ça dans un projet de loi veut dire qu’on aurait perdu Montfort.

Pour les centaines de milliers de Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes qui se sont battus à Penetang, à Sudbury et un peu partout où on a eu d’autres SOS, tout ce que le ministère aurait eu besoin de faire, c’est de changer nos lettres patentes et nos statuts et règlements, et les arguments de la cour ne tiendraient plus la route.

Quand je vois un projet de loi qui donne à la ministre de la Santé des pouvoirs comme ça, je peux voir qu’en ce moment les gens sont très nerveux par rapport à Ornge. Les gens veulent de la protection pour ne plus que ça se passe à Ornge, mais franchement, ce ne sera pas à Ornge que ça va se passer, un scandale comme on vient de voir; ça va être dans une autre agence de transfert de paiement. Mais une fois que tu as ouvert la porte—vous vous souvenez, je vous ai dit qu’ils ont fait du copier-coller. Ils ont pris la protection pour les « whistle-blowers » dans un projet de loi et l’ont copiée dans un autre.

Qu’est-ce qui empêcherait, une fois que tu as un projet de loi comme ça, de la mettre dans la loi qui régit hôpitaux, dans la loi qui régit les RLISS, dans la loi qui régit les maisons de soins de longue durée ou dans n’importe quel autre projet de loi du ministère de la Santé? On vient d’ouvrir un précédent qui, à mon avis, n’apportera rien de bien pour Ornge. Ornge n’a pas besoin de ça. Ornge suit à la lettre les directives du ministère. Ornge a un « spotlight » sur eux autres qui n’en finit pas; ils n’ont pas besoin de clauses comme ça.

Mais passer dans un projet de loi des clauses comme on est en train de regarder en ce moment ouvre une porte qui est beaucoup trop dangereuse et que je ne suis pas prête à ouvrir du tout.

Comme je vous ai dit, en mars 2012, oui, j’avais beaucoup plus de patience et de tolérance. Ils avaient agi à la hâte pour répondre, vraiment, aux médias, mais en même temps pour répondre au vérificateur général. La patience, un an plus tard, est moins disponible. Ça fait un an que ce projet de loi est là. Ça fait un an qu’on dit qu’il y a des grosses failles dans le projet de loi, et aujourd’hui, ce matin, j’ai essayé de vous montrer certaines de ces failles.

So for a year now, we’ve had the exact same bill in front of us—the exact same bill that, when I got up the first time and when the PCs got up the first time, showed to the minister had serious holes through it. I even made a little joke that you could drive a helicopter through some of the holes in that bill. Well, it looks like the joke is still there, because you can drive a helicopter through some of the holes in that bill.

That bill has not taken into account the series of failings that allowed for the fiasco at Ornge. If there are weaknesses in an agreement that does not allow the ministry to do their work of oversight, why don’t we talk about that in the bill? If it is true that the ministry needs changes from federal incorporations to provincial incorporations, then why don’t you extend it to the entire health care system? Why just at Ornge? It’s either a danger for every transfer payment agency, or it is not one.

But the biggest failing of all, Mr. Speaker, is that everything that is in this bill gives the government more of a say; it does not give the people of Ontario more of a say. When things go wrong—and I can rhyme you a list of coroner’s inquests from people in my riding, from the man who died in Capreol to what happened to those two teens in Gogama, but I know that it’s painful to some of the people in my riding, so I won’t name them—you know who they call? They call the Ombudsman because they know that he will be on their side and they know that he will help them. But even if they call the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman says, “I’m sorry. I can’t help you. I don’t have jurisdiction over Ornge.”

Give the people a sense that they will be listened to. Give them Ombudsman oversight. Give us, in the Legislature, the right to bring Ornge to committee so that we can hold them to account. It doesn’t cost anything. It’s a small step, but they won’t give us that at all. The bill is one-sided to the ministry, to the damn of the rest of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Oak Ridges–Markham.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you will not be surprised that I disagree with a great deal of what the member from Nickel Belt has said. Since I only have two minutes, I’m going to concentrate on something that she talked about on Tuesday, when she implied that the previous air ambulance system here in Ontario was somehow incredibly superior. This is absolutely not the case.

In fact, the Auditor General’s report of 2005 delineated what were the problems when we had a contracted-out system here in Ontario. He said that Ontario’s air ambulance system was fractured, with disjointed services and multiple structures in the system that made it difficult to align resources. A shortage of critical care paramedics meant that air ambulance flights were frequently down-staffed, especially in northern Ontario. There was no centralized way to track the air ambulance system’s performance, nor were there performance measures used in operating the system.

The system was confusing and difficult for patients to navigate. The system lacked transparency and accountability. And there was poor structure for patient privacy protection. Several coroners’ investigations prior to 2005 found that the air ambulance system, as structured, contributed to the deaths of Ontarians.

Now, as we all know, the decision to create Ornge was very much guided by that Auditor General’s report in 2005. What we saw subsequent to that was a rogue agency where the board of directors ignored their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, and where there was a CEO who was driven by greed to take personal advantage of the situation of that lack of oversight by the board of directors.

So, moving forward, we are determined to ensure this never happens again. Bill 11, in fact, is a huge step forward. I know my colleague from Ottawa–Orléans in his next remarks will outline yet again all the very positive steps in this bill. This is a good step forward for air ambulance in Ontario, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Yes, a good

summary from the member from Nickel Belt. The member, as with myself and others from all three parties, sits on public accounts, dealing with the Ornge air ambulance issue.

Yesterday, at 9 a.m., the committee reconvened after a four-month prorogation. Yesterday, at 9 a.m., an Ornge helicopter arrived just outside my town of Port Dover. There was a horrendous crash: a cement truck rolled over on a car. I know this because my daughter witnessed this; she was the only witness. She phoned 911. It just happened that a land ambulance came along right after her car, on a delivery, and put my daughter in the back to look after this young patient. He was okay. They ran down into the ditch and immediately phoned an air ambulance. Two fellows came along; they work for the county.

They ran down into the ditch to try and help out. Volunteer firefighters were there within minutes. The Simcoe Reformer, our local paper, was there within minutes.

My point: Air ambulance is very important for all of us, particularly in the rural south, in addition to the north.

When I think of yesterday’s accident—the volunteers, the good Samaritans, the professionals who ran down there: They don’t make millions of dollars off the taxpayer. They don’t get speedboats courtesy of the taxpayer. They do not get Harley-Davidson choppers courtesy of the taxpayer. What has gone on with Ornge is an insult to the volunteers, the professionals, the pilots and the paramedics who do an excellent job.

The operative words here are “oversight,” “transparency,” “control” and “accountability”—all have been lacking.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s an honour to follow my colleague from Nickel Belt, who truly has a vast understanding of this issue. It has been in her past life of health care, and she brought up some very good points.

I’d like to bring the memory of the Legislature back to when a person came to testify at the committee, a person from my riding: Trevor Kidd. He sat in this members’ gallery after that, and members from all three parties applauded him because he came to testify. But Trevor blew the whistle for three years. The whistle-blowing wasn’t the problem; the problem was that no one was listening.

To me, there’s nothing in this bill that really proves that the government is really listening. Oh, sure, they want to slam the door shut on the Ornge fiasco. That’s plain. Slam the door shut. But are they really creating legislation that’s actually going to shed light on where there might be other Ornges or other problems? Because let’s face it, the health ministry and all ministries are big things, and bad things are going to happen regardless of who’s running the show.

How you learn from things and how you make things better is to actually look at what went wrong and say, “Okay, could this be happening anywhere else?” Because there are other Trevor Kidds out there, you know. With this bill, even in Ornge, those people like Trevor still can’t go to the Ombudsman; it doesn’t cover it. They can’t really go to the Legislature, because they don’t cover it. If someone like Trevor can’t find the inspector or doesn’t know who the inspector is, going to the Minister of Health doesn’t necessarily help, because it didn’t work last time.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: Let me say from the outset that I have great respect and admiration for the member from Nickel Belt. She has a long and distinguished career in the health profession in both Sudbury and the Nickel Belt area, and I think she made a very positive contribution to the discussion this morning.

Bill 11 being in second reading, at some future point in time, of course, this bill will make its way to committee for review, an opportunity to go through it on a line-by-line basis, and certainly, with a minority government, an opportunity for both the official opposition and the third party to look at some concrete amendments, which inevitably will happen when this bill gets to committee.

I was also struck, of course, listening to the translation of the member from Nickel Belt, in terms of potential impact on the francophone community, which is always crucial. We were here yesterday with the francophone association of Ontario at Queen’s Park, something that we all take as very important. Many, many years ago, of course, we had the passing of the French Languages Services Act in the province of Ontario, which was brought about by the government of Premier David Peterson.

But when you look at what has happened over the last little while with Ornge, there is a new

chapter at Ornge: the hiring of Dr. Andrew McCallum as president and chief executive officer, who has an outstanding record as a public servant; the appointment of a quality care committee under Dr. Barry McLellan; the appointment of a new board of director chair, Ian Delaney, who had an extensive career with Sherritt International.

Ornge has now submitted its first quality improvement plan. We’re also suggesting that Ornge retroactively be subject to freedom-of-information requests, in keeping with our commitment to transparency across the broader public service.

I look forward to this bill going to committee and amendments that will inevitably happen there.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Nickel Belt: two minutes for response.

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to thank the members from Oak Ridges–Markham, Haldimand–Norfolk, my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane and the Minister of Rural Affairs for their comments.

I think we’re kind of all singing the same song, that we want transparency, we want oversight, we want better control, and we want accountability—but not just for Ornge. We want it for every program and service of the Ministry of Health. We want to make sure that, when a whistle-blower puts their job on the line, they are protected.

But we can’t ignore the facts. When we have a lawyer come in front of public accounts and tell us, “The government was thoroughly, painstakingly and, in all cases, truthfully briefed in advance of Ornge taking any of these actions,” when we have a lawyer under oath telling us that the ministry knew everything, when we have good people like Trevor Kidd telling us that for three years he blew the whistle and nobody listened—if everybody points at the ministry as the one not having done their job, then a bill says, “Yes, we need a bigger stick; we need more ways to control Ornge”—but we’re looking at a ministry that refused to use the controls that they had.

Have no fear, Mr. Speaker: If the government doesn’t sign off on your budget, the end of the year is coming on March 31, and it’s now March-something and the ministry hasn’t signed off, believe you me, you will do anything that the ministry asks you to do, whether you have to, because your board of directors is going to look and say, “You need to make this work.” The government never said boo, and that’s why we had Ornge.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m pleased to speak in support of our government’s proposed amendments to the Ambulance Act.

These amendments are key to ensuring that Ontario’s air and critical care land ambulance service is focused on its core mission of providing life-saving care for Ontarians. I hope to see every member in the House support the proposed amendments, which would entrench accountability and transparency in Ontario’s air ambulance service; ensure that Ontario patients and families are getting the highest-possible quality of patient care; ensure that Ontario taxpayers receive the best value for their taxpayer dollars—Ontario taxpayers have every right to know how health care dollars are spent; and continue to restore public confidence in an organization that provides life-saving emergency medicine.

Our government has committed to implementing the Auditor General’s recommendations, and these amendments will allow us to do so.

Ontario’s air ambulance program was established in 1977 by the Ministry of Health with a single aircraft based in Toronto. The service had three main elements: funding, dispatch and the oversight provided by the ministry, with a base hospital system at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. They oversaw the practice of paramedicine and air ambulance services that were contracted out.

In June 2005, the government consolidated the air ambulance program to the Ontario Air Ambulances Services Co., known as OAA. In November 2005, our government finalized the long-term performance agreement with the OAA, which governed all aspects of air ambulance services. This agreement outlined responsibilities and expectations in the services to be delivered by Ornge.

In September 2006, the newly renamed Ornge corporation took over the management of the air ambulance dispatch. In 2007, Ornge signed an agreement for expanded critical care fixed-wing air ambulance services and in 2008, Ornge took over responsibility to provide critical care land ambulance services. That same year, Ornge grew its fleet with the purchase of high-performance medically equipped helicopters and high-performance medically equipped aircraft.

In 2009, Ornge Air purchased four hangar locations, located in Ottawa, Moosonee, Kenora and London. In 2010, Ornge transported its 100,000th patient.

Over the past year, Ornge has made significant progress. We have seen a change in leadership and a shift toward transparency and accountability. Dr. Andrew Mc-Callum is now the president and CEO. Dr. McCallum was trained as a military flight surgeon and is a former chief coroner of Ontario. He’s held senior posts at hospitals in Toronto and Hamilton, and is well equipped to assist with improving oversight and accountability at Ornge. Former Skyservice president Rob Giguere is now the chief operating officer. There’s a newly appointed board of directors led by Ian W. Delaney, chairman of Sherritt International. Board members at Ornge now serve as volunteers.

Ornge has also appointed a quality of care committee under the direction of Dr. Barry McLellan, president and CEO of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and executive expenses and salary ranges are now posted online.

Members of this House, and more importantly residents of our province, all have the highest expectations of our health care leaders—expectations which must be met. We must work to ensure not only excellent patient care, but as well, a responsible management of public money. We must have leaders in health care that will stay true and ensure that their service—not only to patients but to taxpayers—is the core of their operations.

Speaker, I’m confident that this new leadership team, led by Dr. McCallum, will fulfill their commitment to Ornge’s core mission, and to the patients and taxpayers of Ontario, day in and day out.

As part of its patient-centred focus, Ornge has introduced a new patient relations process, making it easier for a patient or family member to express complaints or concerns or to ask a question or give feedback. The new process also includes a more accessible patient relations

section on the Ornge website.

Ornge now has a patient advocate, Denise Polgar, who acts as a liaison with patients and families, works to resolve their concerns about patient care and who can also suggest operational improvements based on what is learned from the patient relations process. Speaker, already this new team has taken significant steps with Ornge to improve transparency and accountability.

A new performance agreement will provide greater accountability and oversight over Ornge. The amended performance agreement raises the level of oversight far above that which is normally required of organizations receiving public funds.

Under the former agreement, the past leadership was able to avoid accountability. In the past, our government did not have the power to regularly access financial information and monitor operations at Ornge. In the past, the performance agreement did not require ministry approval to create for-profit entities. In the past, Ornge had no restrictions on assuming debt, and the old performance agreement gave our government no say in major acquisitions.

Under the amended performance agreement, ministry approval is required for any changes to Ornge’s corporate structure, including sale of assets. It requires detailed financial planning, monitoring, control and reporting obligations to increase accountability. It ensures compliance with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act and the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It increases audit and inspection powers by the ministry and introduces debt control provisions to prevent debt increases without ministry approval. Finally, it introduces quality improvement provisions based on the Excellent Care for All Act.

This includes linking executive compensation to performance, improving targets and an annual quality improvement plan.

In fact, Ornge has already submitted a first quality improvement plan outlining successes I would like to acknowledge here today. From October to December 2012, Ornge confirmed its ability to respond to a call for on-scene service within 10 minutes of the start of a call 90% of the time. And 96% of the time, Ornge was able to meet their target of verifying their ability to service a call for an inter-facility transfer within 20 minutes.

Success in recruiting new helicopter and airplane pilots means that from October to December 2012, Ornge was able to staff their aircraft at the Ontario air ambulance standard of two pilots at all times, 97% of the time. During the same time period, there was a 97.3% base aircraft availability. Finally, in September 2012, Ornge scored 90% on the quality-of-care metric, an indicator that reviews care against industry standards in eight key clinical care areas.

The amended performance agreement raises the level of oversight with the following measures and obligations:

—tougher funding conditions based on key performance indicators;

—increased audit and inspection powers by the ministry;

—more detailed financial planning, monitoring, control and reporting obligations;

—a committee to advise the board on quality improvement initiatives;

—a new patient advocate and complaints process to ensure patient safety, like the one used in Ontario hospitals;

—mandatory public reporting of expenses and restrictions on meals, travel and hospitality;

—quality improvement provisions that link executive compensation to performance improvement targets in an annual quality plan; and

—mandatory approval by the minister for any changes to Ornge’s corporate structure, or the sale of assets by Ornge.

The amended performance agreement places a much greater emphasis on performance standards, and it requires increased reporting of dispatch information, including cancelled and declined air and land ambulance calls. The performance agreement is closely aligned with the Excellent Care for All Act, which guides the province’s hospitals.

The new agreement also ensures compliance with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act and Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It increases audit and inspection—those powers by the ministry—and introduces debt control provisions to prevent debt increases that do not have ministry approval.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the performance agreement also provides for tougher funding conditions based on key performance indicators and a committee to advise the board on quality improvement initiatives. We are pleased that an amended performance agreement is in place. It represents a critical step towards an improved air ambulance system. Yet for all the strengthened provisions it now contains, we need to go even further.

I’m familiar with the Auditor General’s report on Ornge, having sat on the public accounts committee. His advice has guided many of the actions that are now being taken to improve operations and restore confidence in Ornge. I’m pleased that the Auditor General acknowledged that we have taken substantive action to address many of the issues raised in his report. We are certainly striving to move even further.

I want to highlight the improvements that have been made to address these concerns. After extensive consultation with front-line staff, new, improved interim medical interiors have been installed in the fleet of AW139 helicopters. Transport Canada approval for the interim interior for the AW139 aircraft has also been acquired. Steps have been taken to introduce a third line of paramedics at the Thunder Bay base to help ensure seamless 24-hour seven-day-a-week service for northern Ontario.

Dedicated flight service for the Sault-Ste.-Marie-to-Sudbury corridor has been created, increasing patient access to out-of-town treatment. A pilot project in Ottawa on the use of critical-care land vehicles in place of a helicopter has been launched for certain calls when deemed appropriate for patient care. Three operations divisions have been consolidated under one chief operating officer. All operational scheduling functions have now been combined into one team for improved coverage and service effectiveness. Certification material for the operations control centre has been developed and implemented.

Speaker, it is important to note here the contribution of paramedics, pilots and front-line staff. These improvements were a direct result of their dedication and input.

I have outlined for this House the history of Ornge and the changes in leadership and improvements to accountability and operations that have been made in recent months. I would now like to speak to the proposed amendments introduced by Minister Matthews that will help Ornge focus on their core mission, which is providing life-saving care to patients, now and in the future.

Minister Matthews’ proposed legislative amendments to the Ambulance Act ensure greater oversight of Ontario’s air ambulance service, ensure the best value for taxpayers’ dollars, and above all provide the highest possible quality of patient care. These amendments will also prevent future abuses of power at Ontario’s air ambulance service.

If passed, these amendments would:

—give cabinet the power, upon the recommendation of the minister, to appoint one or more provincial representatives to the board of an air ambulance service provider;

—give the minister the power to issue directives to an air ambulance service provider;

—give the government the ability to include provisions in an agreement between Ontario and an air ambulance service provider;

—provide cabinet with the power to appoint a special investigator to investigate and report on certain activities of an air ambulance service provider;

—prohibit individuals from obstructing a special investigator or from withholding any information required by the special investigator;

—require a special investigator to provide a report to the minister upon completion of their investigation;

—provide cabinet with the power, upon recommendation of the minister, to appoint a supervisor to exercise the powers of the board, officers and members, and other corporate powers of an air ambulance service provider; and

—provide a supervisor with the same rights as the board of an air ambulance service provider; the supervisor would report to the minister.

This one is one that has been spoken about a great deal; it’s a whistle-blower protection. There’s a large

section in this act that relates to this: prohibit retaliation against a person who has disclosed information that relates to an air ambulance service provider to an inspector, investigator or special investigator. Air ambulance service providers and other persons would also be prohibited from doing anything to discourage the making of such disclosure.

And it would allow the continuance of a provider of air ambulance services that is incorporated under the laws of any jurisdiction other than Ontario as a corporation under the Corporations Act.

We know that it is extremely important that employees do not feel intimidated when raising any concerns, and our proposed amendments to legislation would protect whistle-blowers at Ornge.

In addition to this legislation, our government is proposing to make Ornge subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act through regulation. This would allow for freedom-of-information requests to be made of Ornge retroactive to the organization’s foundation. This step is consistent with our government’s commitment to increasing transparency across the broader public sector, including the health care sector.

For example, we expanded freedom-of-information provisions to cover Ontario Power Generation, to cover Hydro One, to cover universities and to cover Cancer Care Ontario; local public utilities were brought back under freedom of information in 2004—all during the term of this government. We made hospitals subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, effective January 1, 2012.

I’d like to conclude today by thanking the paramedics, pilots and front-line staff at Ornge. They work tirelessly each and every day to provide lifesaving care to Ontarians across the province, and they must be acknowledged and thanked. This has been a difficult time for front-line staff at Ornge and yet they continue their work and never lose sight of their responsibilities to the patients. The amendments that our government is proposing will truly restore the public’s confidence in our air ambulance services. These proposed amendments will ensure the highest quality of care and the best use of taxpayers’ dollars.

I’m confident in the advice of the Auditor General and the advice of the front-line workers at Ornge who have helped to inform the proposed amendments before you today. I urge every member of this House to support these amendments.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few remarks concerning the comments made by several of the Liberal members, most recently by the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Before I go into that, I too would like to thank the front-line workers who provide the air ambulance service in the province of Ontario, from the pilots to the paramedics to all of the people who work in the service who have done so over these last few months—in fact, over a year now—under very, very trying circumstances. They are to be commended for their professionalism and dedication.

But the situation that they’ve been labouring under has been more than troubling for this past year or so, given the fact that there have been some egregious activities that have taken place under the nose of the Minister of Health without any action having been taken. Quite frankly, Bill 11 falls far short of taking the steps that are necessary to restore the public’s confidence in our air ambulance service here in Ontario.

We have seen situations where there have been monies wasted in the millions of dollars with nothing to show for it, where people who have tried to come forward as whistle-blowers have been not only not listened to; they’ve actually been suspended. There was a pilot from Thunder Bay who came forward in the public accounts committee last summer to talk about some of the problems that he had been experiencing along with his colleagues, and for his efforts he was suspended for a period of time.

This isn’t what we want to see, and I should stress that this is under the new regime. This wasn’t under the old regime. This was under the new regime with people who were handpicked by the Minister of Health, who were tasked with reforming this situation. We need far more accountability in this organization. We need far more oversight. What’s been proposed as an internal investigator falls far short of what we need. We need the Ombudsman to be able to get in there to provide that independent oversight to make sure that this situation never happens again.

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: I’m pleased to stand here and speak to this bill. I think that members across the gallery have expressed their concern that when it comes to accountability and transparency, we need that throughout agencies in Ontario and not just here.

We know that Ornge in the future will have oversight. Everyone will be watching this agency. It’s my concern that we have a close eye on agencies across the province and that we have a framework moving forward that actually restores confidence in our public institutions.

I’m concerned that this government, as well as the PC government, have a love affair with privatization, with handing things off away from a place where they can be under public scrutiny. Without addressing this ideological difference about how we best govern, we’re at risk of doing these things over and over again, Speaker.

I want us to actually ensure—whether it’s Metrolinx or it’s a decision around casinos in this province or it’s agencies like Ornge—that we commit to a public delivery system that has actual oversight, that has actual accountability, that will restore the confidence of the people of this province in our ability to govern and in our ability to deliver for all of them. Until I see that, I think that this is just a small piece of the puzzle and that it still leaves us wide open to the kind of things that we’ve seen in Ornge.

Speaker, thank you very much. I’ll pass for now.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I had the opportunity to listen to the, I thought, very insightful remarks this morning by my colleague the member from Ottawa–Orléans. He went to a great degree to talk about some of the new things that we’re contemplating for Ornge: the new performance agreement, which strengthens government oversight and improves patient care; significant improvement of accountability and transparency by posting executive expenses and salary ranges online, something I think we can all support; and introducing new policies and procedures on conflict of interest and whistle-blower protection, performance management and executive compensation.

Bill 11 contemplates the appointment of an independent ethics officer to receive, investigate and track employee disclosures as part of a new whistle-blower protection policy, something I think all of us on all sides of the House can support.

In terms of patient care, which is the bottom line—patient care should always be the bottom line—we’ve hired or will be hiring a new patient advocate to work with patients and their families to address concerns and advocate for operational improvements.

We’ve installed new and improved interim medical interiors in the fleet of AW139 helicopters, which I’m sure are great. After extensive consultation with front-line staff—very important—we’ve obtained Transport Canada approval for the interior for the AW139 aircraft. I should take a moment in the not-too-distant future to do an inspection of one of the AW139 helicopters.

We took steps to introduce a third line of paramedics at the Thunder Bay base to help ensure 24/7 service for northern Ontario—very important. The Minister of Northern Development and Mines was a very strong advocate of that initiative.

We have created a dedicated flight service for the Sault-Ste.-Marie-to-Sudbury corridor, increasing patient access for out-of-town treatment. We have—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’m sorry. I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened to the member from Ottawa–Orléans, and I just want to leave something on the record here. Let’s look at what has happened. What I’ve always learned, Mr. Speaker, is that past performance is the best predictor of future performance.

I’ve heard this morning, listening very carefully, the member from Nickel Belt. The Nickel Belt member is highly regarded in this place. She said what I think, which is, this just doesn’t get it done.

A good example would be the member from Peterborough just talking about the patient advocate. In fact, really, what would be the most independent, qualified oversight would be the Ombudsman oversight. If you really want accountability and the patient first, we don’t want any political manipulations going on here, which is what I suspect is happening here. It’s again a matter of trust.

When I come down to it—the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, Mr. Barrett, this morning spoke about his daughter witnessing an accident, and all of the volunteers who showed up.

This industry, the Ornge industry, ever since it was taken over by McGuinty, now Wynne, is the largest bureaucracy, the most expensive bureaucracy. Chris Mazza was in the paper last week about taking payments over and above the one-point-something million dollars he made, and yet he didn’t even know how to spell “helicopter,” let alone how they operate.

I honestly put to you that this bill—it replaces Bill 50—Bill 11, I think, simply doesn’t get it done. Mr. Speaker, this is important: It comes down to trust. At the end of the day, I can’t trust that this bill is fixing a problem. It’s just simply putting a coat of paint over a very rotten, substantive organization governance model that this government—they can’t step it aside. They put it in place. It simply doesn’t do it for me.

I look forward to our critic, Christine Elliott, from Whitby–Oshawa—she’ll tell you what the truth is. You should listen up because I think she’s the next speaker on this bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Ottawa–Orléans, you have two minutes for a reply.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’d like to thank the members for Whitby–Oshawa and Davenport, the Minister of Rural Affairs and the member from Durham for their comments.

One of the issues that I would like to speak about is that privatization, in many cases, has worked well. In this case, it went horribly wrong—the wrong people, who were very lacking in the standards that we have.

But we now have Dr. Andrew McCallum as the president of the board. He’s a trained military flight surgeon and a former chief coroner of Ontario. I think that’s the new standard in Ornge, and it’s certainly needed.

Sitting through those many hours of having people come into the public accounts committee to answer questions—certainly, much was needed in changing Ornge. We never get away from that.

I’d just like to say that the whistle-blowing protection is something that’s very well set out in the act: “No person shall retaliate against another person, whether by action or omission, or threaten to do so,” because of many reasons. “Retaliate” includes dismissing a staff member; disciplining or suspending a staff member; imposing a penalty upon any person; and intimidating, coercing or harassing any person.

The whistle-blowing part of this legislation is extremely important. We have all these good people on the front line for us, saving patients every day. An Ornge employee can phone the independent ethics officer, Grant Thornton LLP, to get information about the process. All disclosures will be made in writing—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

M. Gilles Bisson: J’aimerais reconnaître les élèves des secondaires qui viennent de Hearst, de Kap, de Moonbeam et de Timmins. Ils font

partie de ce parlement. Hier soir on a eu l’honneur d’être ici dans l’Assemblée, puis expliquer ce qui se passe. On veut leur dire bienvenue et beaux travaux cet après-midi.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Charlie Violin is our page captain today. Family and friends have come to see him: his mother, Susan; his brother, Jack; his sister, Grace; and their friend, Amisha Agrawal. Congratulations, and welcome.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, we are all used to Speaker Dave, but this morning I’d like to introduce Actor Dave, who made his television debut in a little guest spot on Murdoch Mysteries this week solving a murder right here in Queen’s Park in 1901. You looked really good, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope I’m not considered a visitor.

Member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I would like to introduce in the west members’ gallery today Charlie Bossy, who hails from my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and is currently a student at Ryerson University. Welcome, Charlie.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome Camilia Hanna, who is a constituent of mine and the president of the International Women’s Association of Toronto, to Queen’s Park today. Welcome.

M. Michael Mantha: J’aimerais vous introduire à un jeune homme de l’É.S.C. Trillium de Chapleau, M. Robert Tessier, qui est ici avec ses collègues, avec les étudiants francophones.

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to introduce a guest from the heavenly Legislature. I rise today to acknowledge that Canadians lost a great patron yesterday, Stompin’ Tom Connors. As many of you will know, the name Stompin’ Tom was first used in Peterborough when he was introduced by Boyd MacDonald—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Ce n’est pas souvent que j’ai de la visite deux fois dans la même semaine. J’ai Zacharie Gagné du Collège Notre-Dame, Tina-Marie Gagné de l’école catholique Champlain, et Krystelle Larrivée, qui, elle aussi, est de l’école catholique Champlain, dans le cadre du Parlement jeunesse francophone. Bienvenue à Queen’s Park.

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: J’aimerais souhaiter la bienvenue aux élèves de l’école Samuel-Genest dans la circonscription d’Ottawa–Vanier.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m pleased to introduce Maddy Stieva and Mey Fung, who are in the members’ west gallery today. They are members of the Ontario PC Youth Association—

Applause.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: We start ’em young. Welcome.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature today Ajax page Jessica Kostuch’s mother, Christine Kostuch; father, Jim Kostuch; and twin sister, Kristen Kostuch. They are sitting in the public gallery. I know that Jessica is honoured to have her mother, father and twin sister here this morning showing their support on her last day at the Legislature and one on which she is page captain. I welcome you to Queen’s Park.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I’m pleased to introduce in the Legislature today Beth Elder, a very capable OLIP intern. She’s working in our office. I want to welcome to Queen’s Park her dad, Phil Elder, who’s visiting from Calgary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery, we have Gilles Morin from Carleton East in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th—also, Steve Peters, Elgin–Middlesex–London, 37th, 38th and 39th, and Speaker of the House.

Also in our gallery is Peter Milliken, former House of Commons—the Speaker—from Kingston and the Islands, from 1998 to 2011. Was anyone not born on that date? Sorry.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: It’s 1988.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): Speaker, 1988.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nineteen eighty-eight.

Anyway, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Premier.

Good morning, Premier. I wonder, when you first heard of Project Vapour, if you ever asked anyone what the actual cost of cancelling the Oakville gas plant would be, and I wonder if you blindly went along with whatever the Liberal talking points were that were handed out, or if you actually wanted to know the real cost of cancelling.

Let me share some of those facts, Premier. The documents we have show that TransCanada was offered a $712-million compensation package, but they turned it down. They turned down $712 million. Now you and your energy minister insist that they settled for $40 million. So tell me, Premier: Did they really settle for $40 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the Minister of Energy and the government House leader are going to want to weigh in on the supplementary questions.

I just want to say that I’m very pleased that the justice committee is now under way, that the justice committee is calling people to come and appear before it and are going to be able to ask all of the questions that the committee members deem appropriate. I have said that I agree that I will appear before the committee, and I’ll be happy to respond. But, Mr. Speaker, I think what’s really significant is that that committee has the scope now to be able to ask questions about tendering, planning, commissioning, cancellation, relocation.

I’m really glad that the justice committee has that broader scope and will be able to explore the issues that the member opposite is interested in hearing about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, we have here the year-end financial report from TransCanada. That’s the company that was contracted to build the cancelled Oakville gas plant. In their year-end report, it shows that the company has so far received $250 million in compensation from the provincial government. This is printed in their annual report—$250 million, so far.

Even the head of the Ontario Power Authority would not stand by your figures on Oakville or Mississauga at his recent news conference.

So, Premier, I’ll ask you again: Will you stick with your story that they settled for $40 million?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, not only has the committee been charged with looking into this issue, but the Auditor General is also examining this issue. I think we should wait for his report, and we should also let the committee do its work.

I’d remind members that the reason why the committee is able to look at the issue of costing is because this House passed a motion unanimously to expand it. But what’s very strange, Mr. Speaker, is that the offer was made to the opposition and it took them a week of considering whether they wanted to expand it, which has been part of their strange behaviour all along. First they opposed the gas plant during the election, and then when we did exactly what they promised, they stood up and said it was the worst scandal that had ever befallen us.

Then, the member from Cambridge spoke about a public inquiry and said it was too expensive, and the member from Nipissing held a press conference calling for a public inquiry. Then we offered them a select committee—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I appreciate that.

Let’s get this down to the facts here. You believe that this is a $40-million hit to the taxpayer when TransCanada so far has shown payments of $250 million in their financial reports, and the documents that were turned over in one of the document dumps show a contract—an offer—of $712 million that was turned down because they believe they’re entitled to more. So you’re at $40 million; they turned down $712 million.

We asked you yesterday to apologize to this House for not telling us what we need to know; we asked all of your members. It appears that being a Liberal means never having to say you’re sorry.

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Milloy: To the Minister of Energy, Speaker.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member says that we should deal with the facts. I agree with him 100%. We should deal with the facts—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Member from Lambton, second time. Let’s make it clear. Member from Lambton, you are now warned.

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the member says we should deal with the facts and, I agree with him 100%. We should deal with all of the facts.

On that particular cost assessment, the province did, in fact, pay for very expensive equipment on behalf of the vendor, on behalf of the developer. But what he didn’t say is that that extra cost above the $40 million was 100% set off by a reduction in the price of the energy, and it ends up with a net cost of $40 million, the number that the OPA has fully determined.

Not only that, Mr. Speaker: The chief executive officer of TransCanada confirmed that that’s what the deal was.

POWER PLANTS

Mrs. Jane McKenna: My question is for the Premier. On September 25, 2012, the Premier, in her former role as a senior minister in Dalton McGuinty’s cabinet, stood in this House and quoted an

article written by Dalton McGuinty. And I quote from Hansard: “This week, our government announced we are relocating a gas plant from Oakville to eastern Ontario. The total cost of the relocation is $40 million. This follows another settlement to move a natural gas plant from Mississauga to Sarnia. The cost of that relocation was $190 million.”

Since Premier Wynne was in cabinet when the decision was made, and since she read it into the record, my question is simple: Does she stand by those numbers?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the government House leader, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, there is a committee of the Legislature—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Who’s next?

Hon. John Milloy: There’s a committee of the Legislature which is currently looking into this issue, as well as the Auditor General.

In fact, the committee heard this morning from a very esteemed witness, the former Speaker of the House of Commons and noted parliamentary expert, the Honourable Peter Milliken, whom you recognized a little bit earlier.

And it’s interesting, Mr. Speaker, when you look at Mr. Milliken’s testimony. For example, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville asked, “Let’s start with one question. Minister Bentley ultimately complied. Shouldn’t that end the matter?” This is what former Speaker Milliken had to say: “If he complied with the demand for the production of the documents, I would have thought he would have”—yes, “if” he complied—“I don’t know why there would have been a breach. I don’t understand that.” Again, showing the fact that what started out as an attempt by this government—

Interjections.

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

That’s better.

Supplementary?

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Again, Mr. Speaker, it is a simple question. The Premier herself stood in this Legislature and read that statement into the record. It is a legitimate question.

Let me read it again. Kathleen Wynne, September 25, 2012, and I quote from Hansard: “This week, our government announced we are relocating a gas plant from Oakville to eastern Ontario. The ... cost of the relocation is $40 million. This follows another settlement to move a natural gas plant from Mississauga to Sarnia. The cost of that relocation was $190 million.”

A simple yes or no will do. Do you stand by those numbers? Is what the government announced true—yes or no?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, the behaviour of the Progressive Conservative Party over the past little while has been strangely erratic. First, they promised to cancel the Mississauga power plant, and then when we followed through on their promise, they said that it was a scandal. Then the member from Cambridge spoke about the high cost of a public inquiry, that we didn’t need one. Then the member from Nipissing had a press conference saying he wanted one. Then we offered—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: —a special committee of this Legislature that would look at the very issues that the member just raised, and they said they didn’t want it. They wanted to go on a witch hunt over a former member of the Legislature. Then we came forward with a proposal to broaden the scope of the committee again to look into the issues that she has asked. It took them a week to get back. Then we offered them every government document, and they voted against it.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Government House leader, thank God we all have five minutes of truth every day.

Again, the Premier is as tired of us asking these questions as we are of hearing her avoiding the answers. Again, on September 25, 2012, Premier Wynne stood in the Legislature and cited a price tag for the cancellation and move of an Oakville gas plant: “The total cost of the relocation is $40 million.” Documents show that the government offered TransCanada Energy $712 million to settle the contract-breaking liability on the Oakville plant. TCE rejected that offer; they wanted $900 million.

Premier, I have to ask, because I’ve honestly never seen the Liberals bargain someone down before: What did the government put up on the table to convince TCE to suddenly settle for $40 million?

Hon. John Milloy: If there is anyone who is avoiding answers, it’s the Progressive Conservative Party. We have come forward over and over again to offer them the opportunity to discuss these very issues at committee. They rejected the idea of a special committee. It took them a week to agree to broaden the scope of the committee. And then, when we offered them every single document—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from Simcoe–Grey, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: When we offered them every single government document, to my astonishment, and I think the astonishment of everyone watching the parliamentary channel, they voted no. It is worth looking at this clip. The motion is made that the government will produce all documents far beyond the scope of any other request, and the three PCs proudly put up their hands to vote against it. If there’s anyone who doesn’t want to get to the bottom of this, it’s that party over there.

PROROGATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the member for Kitchener–Waterloo asked a question that the Premier didn’t quite answer. I’d like to do it again. I’d like to ask that question again. Does the Premier agree that the cynical decision to shut down the Legislature last fall was a mistake that should not be repeated?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say what I said before, and that is that I believe that the Premier, my predecessor, made the decision that he needed to make in order for us to have a leadership race and in order for us to be able to negotiate some contracts, and we did that.

I’ve also said that I look forward to the debate on prorogation that is being precipitated by the private member’s bill. There are no procedures and there are no protocols that can’t be looked at and that we can’t have a discussion about. I think it’s important to talk about those traditions, and I think that the debate this afternoon will allow us an opportunity to do that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While the doors of the Legislature were locked, I talked to a lot of people all over Ontario, and they were pretty clear: They are tired of cynical, self-serving politics—the Premier just admitted to it herself, in fact—and they want to see change that puts them first for a change. The Premier can start today by admitting that her government’s crass abuse of prorogation last fall was a mistake. Will she do that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Two things on this: First of all, during the prorogation, we continued to work. I made the point that there were a lot of negotiations that went on. We were able to settle with AMAPCEO—10,000 Ontario public service employees with a contract because of that negotiation. We worked with the OMA—25,000 doctors with a contract because of that. We worked with OPSEU—two-year collective agreements with those public servants.

What I said is that I was going to bring the House back as soon as possible. I said that at the first possible date—and that was February 19—I was going to bring the House back. We did that. We are here, Mr. Speaker, and I am so pleased that we are doing the work of the people of Ontario and that we’ll have an opportunity to talk about this issue later today.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s disappointing that the government and the Premier of Ontario believe that the accountability and scrutiny that our democracy is fundamentally based upon are not important in her books.

Speaker, people are hoping for a change, but when they look to this government, they’re seeing a lot of the same old status quo: cuts and layoffs in hospitals and schools, dismissed with an “A-okay” by ministers; backroom lobbying to build casinos; killing rural jobs without giving people a voice; and a government that seems unwilling or unable to admit when they’ve made a mistake.

New Democrats think Ontarians deserve better. Why doesn’t the Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the party opposite does not have the corner on intellectual curiosity. The notion that somehow we’re not interested in having a discussion about prorogation and about its uses is just wrong. It’s just not true.

Every single party in this Legislature has used prorogation, Mr. Speaker. The PCs used it five times under Harris and Eves. The NDP used it three times when they were in government, Mr. Speaker. So the question is not whether—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The question is not whether prorogation is or is not a good thing. The question is: Is it working? Are the rules around it what they should be? Has it been used appropriately?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek is not helping.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m open to that conversation. I’m looking forward to the debate this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. It’s entirely appropriate that we would ask those questions.

HOME CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. I think it’s not just about asking questions, though; I think it’s about providing answers to the people of the province.

Now I want to ask about the sort of change that people want to see in our health care system, Speaker. Throughout the last week, my colleagues and I have asked the Premier to make a firm commitment to a five-day home care guarantee. Will she do that today?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is going to speak to that issue. I would say that we have said very clearly that we are committed to improving home care in the province. We referenced it in the throne speech, and we know that there is more to be done.

Mr. Speaker, we are making changes in the health care system, and the Minister of Health made an announcement today in conjunction with a member of the party opposite around preventing cancer and making sure that our young people are not exposed to tanning beds. That’s an issue that was taken from the lexicon of the third party. I hope that the leader of the third party understands that we are very interested in finding ways to provide better health care to all of the people of Ontario, seniors and otherwise.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, later today the government will introduce a bill based on a bill from our health critic, France Gélinas. She put it in this place for five years now. For five years, our health critic has been trying to get this passed. Finally, the Liberals have seen the light, but that bill was killed when the government prorogued the Legislature last fall. It’s a no-brainer of a bill, as is capping salaries for CEOs of hospitals and providing the 6,000 people currently waiting on a home care wait-list the home care that they need.

Will the Premier commit to real changes like this, or are we going to see more of the same old status quo from the Liberals?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very happy to rise again to talk about how important it is that we continue to invest more in home care. But, Speaker, this is not something new for our party. In 2003, there were 348,000 clients served in the community through home care. That number is now almost 620,000. We have gone so far when it comes to home care, but we are redoubling our efforts, because we know that there are still people in hospital who could be cared for at home if they had appropriate home care supports.

So, Speaker, there are changes in our health care system. We hear about them here every day. But everything we’re doing is focused on getting more people the care they need in the most appropriate place, and that very often is at home.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: New Democrats think that we should invest our precious health care dollars in getting seniors into home care within five days of being approved, but the government seems content with the status quo, where CEO salaries stay high and nurses lose their jobs.

Will the Premier explain to Ontarians why they should wait 262 days for home care while the CEO of a hospital can make more in bonuses than most families make in a year?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I’ve said here before, when someone needs that home care immediately, if they’re being discharged from the hospital, for example, the wait time is zero; there is no wait time.

We are bringing wait times down, though. We’ve gone from 13 days to nine days, and we are investing more, and as we invest more in home care, we will see those wait times come down.

Again, we have such strong common ground on this; we both want the same thing. It’s wonderful to see at least two parties in the Legislature agreeing that the focus on home care is the right focus.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. Since 2007, the emergency health services branch has reported some 24 cases to the coroner of Ontario in which operational issues at Ornge may have contributed to the death of a patient.

On August 15 of last year, the chief coroner, Dr. Andrew McCallum, announced the establishment of an expert panel to review those deaths. That report was to have been filed by the end of this past year. But instead, on December 19, the new Ornge board announced that the same Dr. Andrew McCallum, the chief coroner of Ontario, had been hired as the new CEO and president of Ornge.

I want to ask the minister this: First, where is that report? And, second, at what point in the course of the coroner’s investigation of those deaths did Ornge begin to make an offer of employment to the coroner?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I find the suggestion embedded in that question to be a very offensive suggestion, frankly. Dr. Andrew McCallum is a very, very highly regarded person. He is extremely well qualified to be the CEO at Ornge, and the suggestion that he would not do his job as coroner is extraordinarily offensive. I reject it wholeheartedly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The first question was, where’s the report? The second question is, at what point in the investigation that the coroner was undertaking did Ornge or the government begin negotiating an employment contract with the same coroner who was investigating the organization?

So my question—I’ll put it again, in a different way—whose judgment should we be calling into question: the government’s and Ornge’s for entering into negotiations for an employment contract with the coroner of Ontario who was investigating them, or is it Dr. McCallum’s judgment that we call into question for even entertaining such an offer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite, I think, owes some people an apology for that question, but let me answer it nonetheless.

Speaker, Dr. Dan Cass is heading the investigation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Now, my editorial: Don’t start up.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, Dr. Don Cass is heading up the investigation of those incidents related to Ornge. I think it’s important that the coroner did take this on as a special project. Dr. Cass, from the beginning, was heading that investigation.

I welcome that report. We are determined to do anything we can do to make it better, to improve patient safety, Speaker. That report, that investigation, is under way. The member opposite knows that that is happening, and he’s being nothing but mischievous today.

CASINOS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier.

Yesterday the government shrugged off concerns that the Liberal-appointed chair of Metrolinx is also a paid lobbyist for MGM Resorts, an organization that wants to put a casino in downtown Toronto. Today we learned that another Metrolinx board member is also a paid lobbyist for the Nevada-based company.

Considering that MGM’s casino plans will have substantial impact on transit and traffic in this city, how does the Premier not see significant conflict of interest with two Metrolinx board members—the very government agency responsible for transit—also being paid lobbyists for MGM Resorts?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: There are very, very clear and strict rules governing all of these bodies. All of these bodies, by their very nature, invite very significant business leaders on to them. Mr. Turnbull has an incredible reputation with TD Bank and TD Securities, one of our most reputable financial institutions. Mr. Prichard has been president of our most significant university and a senior executive with our daily newspaper. This is a man of incredible ethical renown, Mr. Speaker. They have followed the rules very carefully.

All of the routes have been planned, and both these gentlemen are following those rules and excluding themselves fully from any conversations relating to this particular piece of property or any piece of property that would involve any clients they have.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, Torontonians are not keen to have a Las Vegas-style casino in this city, yet this government would rather ignore their concerns and stand by while Liberal appointees to Metrolinx are being paid by MGM to lobby provincial officials for a casino in Toronto.

Can the Premier explain why she’s choosing to listen to Liberal insiders who stand to gain from a casino in Toronto instead of the very residents whose community will be affected?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, the air of irony coming from the party that brought gambling and casinos to Ontario verges on satire. I never, ever thought I would live to see the day to see such chutzpah in this House from the parties opposite, who downloaded onto municipalities like crazy, talking to us, who introduced the City of Toronto Act respecting the integrity of the city council, quite frankly, where the members of that party almost have a majority.

I think we can trust the New Democratic members of city council and others to have that kind of authority with the responsibility—what their party has always asked us to have. We’re the party that has been uploading from municipalities.

Mr. Speaker, this is just bordering on precious. I cannot believe the member actually had the chutzpah to ask that question.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Speaker, I have serious concerns about the changes that could take place at the Scarborough Hospital, located in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt. Our hospital has been undertaking a process to balance their budget, and we need to make sure any service change protects the patients. I, along with my community, am concerned about potential changes to the hospital services.

Yesterday, along with the member from Scarborough–Rouge River, we released a statement calling for more public consultation to take place before any decisions are made about proposed changes at the hospital. Local residents need to have a real voice at the table and real, meaningful consultation so that they can move forward together.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: Will you support further review of the hospital’s proposed changes?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to thank the members for Scarborough–Agincourt and Scarborough–Rouge River for their advocacy on this matter. I have met with them; we have discussed the issue. They have been talking to me, expressing concerns they are hearing from their constituents about proposed changes at Scarborough Hospital.

Speaker, it is vitally important that any changes hospitals make take into account the needs of patients, of course, but also physicians and health professionals who provide care in that organization.

I know Scarborough Hospital has been engaging members of the community; however, I agree with the members from Scarborough–Rouge River and Scarborough–Agincourt that further review is required. I support their call for further review on the hospital’s proposed changes.

Hospitals belong to their communities, Speaker. It is vitally important that communities be engaged and have an opportunity to be engaged to make changes in hospitals.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I just want to recognize the health professionals at the hospital who continue to provide care for our loved ones day in, day out with patience, dedication and compassion. They are truly the heart of this hospital and our local community.

Scarborough Hospital faces a difficult challenge, and they are currently facing a deficit they need to resolve. People in my riding understand that the status quo is not acceptable and that the hospital needs to be innovative in order to provide sustainable health care.

An important component of this is more care being provided at home or at specialized clinics in the community. However, it is incredibly important that the community be part of the process in a transparent, open and accountable manner.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: How can we be assured that the residents of north Scarborough’s concerns will be addressed?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member is absolutely right. The status quo is not an option. We know we can do better when it comes to delivering health care services. That is why we are expanding home care, and that is why we are expanding services in the community.

We have recognized from the beginning that this transformation in health care will be a challenge, but the health care sector recognizes that we do have to make important changes in how we deliver health care. I have the utmost confidence that they are ready to take on this challenge.

Part of the transformation is our work with hospitals to change how we fund hospitals. We’re moving from a lump-sum funding allocation toward a patient-centred model, where funding is based on the services provided and the number of patients served. Hospitals will be paid for increasing services—where appropriate—delivering them more efficiently and serving more patients. Once hospitals adapt to this new approach, we will all see better value for money and better quality care.

RURAL ONTARIO

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, after nine and a half years of neglecting their needs, during the recent Liberal leadership race, you promised new respect for rural Ontario. In fact, your new Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment promised a share of the gas tax revenues for rural municipalities for infrastructure projects. Your new Minister of Rural Affairs promised at a meeting of Eastern Ontario Wardens’ Caucus that you would be bringing forth gas tax sharing for rural municipalities.

Speaker, today the rubber meets the road. Will you support my gas tax bill that will be debated this afternoon in the Legislature that we’ll share gas tax revenue with all municipalities? Will you instruct your caucus to finally show some real respect for rural Ontario to support that gas tax bill?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Transportation is going to want to weigh in on this, but I’m—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Oh, we don’t want to hear from him.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, you’re going to hear from me first, to the member opposite.

Once again, I think that private members’ time is a really important opportunity for questions to be raised, for issues to be discussed across all parties, Mr. Speaker. I think that there are a number of issues. This is one of them. I know prorogation is another discussion that’s going to happen this afternoon. The OMB, I believe, is going to be discussed this afternoon. There are a number of issues that it’s very important that people across the parties have the opportunity to weigh in on. So I’m very pleased that the member opposite has raised this question and that there will be a debate on it this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary? The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is also for the Premier. Premier, can you explain why you voted against Mr. Yakabuski’s PMB in the past—seven times, I believe? Yet today you expect the people of Ontario to believe you are sincere when you say this needs to be a priority.

Will you finally put action behind your words, and will you commit today to providing a percentage of the gas tax to rural and northern Ontario municipalities?

Premier, will you show respect for rural and northern Ontario, vote later today to support the motion being introduced by my colleague Mr. Yakabuski, and provide rural Ontario with their fair share of the gas tax revenue?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: You know, today must be the international day of chutzpah.

Mr. Speaker, we have taken funding—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Attorney General is not helping.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We have taken the infrastructure budgets in this province from a pathetic $3 billion to $4 billion, to $12.9 billion this year. We are twinning highways in the north.

Mr. Speaker, not only do we put the gas tax into transit to take congestion off roads in communities like Orillia—there are over 90 communities small and large that get it—we also introduced MIII, which is a $90-million program that repairs bridges and roads, exactly what this gentleman is talking about.

More than that; this government is committed to going—

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

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Premier. Agriculture and food processing create over 700,000 jobs in Ontario and have an economic impact of over $50 billion, and we all know that farmers are the cornerstone of this economic engine.

Farm commodity groups, like green farmers of Ontario, worked tirelessly to push the government to create the Risk Management Program—which you did.

Farmers need to feel confident that the funds available to help them out in times of need will be sufficient for the viability of the sector. The cap on the program has shaken farmers’ confidence in the government’s true commitment to agriculture.

As Premier and Minister of Agriculture and Food, are you prepared to take action on this issue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite noted that we have worked with commodity groups. We have worked very hard to make sure that the program was in place and that it worked for the groups. That’s why my predecessor brought groups in, had a conversation with them and made sure that, as the program was designed, it was designed according to the parameters that they thought were important.

My response is that we will continue to work with those groups, and if there are changes that need to be made, we will make those changes in consultation with the people who are using the program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, to the Premier: Ontario farmers grow the food on which the processing sector depends, but growing food is a risky venture. The Risk Management Program not only protects farmers; it protects the processing sector and the consumers who want to buy Ontario food, yet this government chose to cap the Risk Management Program, which, in fact, leaves farmers grossly underinsured. If farmers are at risk, so is the entire sector and all the jobs it creates.

Will your government act to help farmers so that they are fully insured to drive the economic engine of this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The redesigned program that my predecessor worked on with the sector includes some things like an industry-managed premium fund, so they’re managing the fund themselves. I know that the member opposite knows that that was a very popular and a very good move, and I’ve certainly had feedback from farmers that that was a good thing.

But then there are some specific things that we’ve done to demonstrate our commitment to making sure that farming is sustainable—$104 million for farmers in drought this year—responding to needs that are relevant in a particular year or particular season. We’ll continue to do those things, respond in a timely way, and we’ll continue to work with the farmers as we develop programs that respond to their needs on an annual basis.

M. Phil McNeely: Cette question est pour la ministre déléguée aux Affaires francophones.

Notre province, l’Ontario, compte maintenant plus de 600 000 francophones. Lorsque je rencontre des commettants francophones, j’ai toujours constaté à quel point notre gouvernement a offert, au cours des 10 dernières années, un soutien constant pour la communauté francophone de l’Ontario.

Alors que nous venons de renouveler notre gouvernement, j’aimerais savoir, quels sont les nouveaux engagements pour la communauté francophone de l’Ontario?

L’hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier le député d’Ottawa–Orléans pour son appui constant dans la francophonie. Je voudrais aussi souhaiter la bienvenue à nos étudiants qui sont ici du Parlement jeunesse.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary question?

M. Phil McNeely: Je suis heureux de voir que notre engagement demeure infaillible. Hier, j’étais au Parlement jeunesse, ici même à Queen’s Park. Celui-ci donne l’occasion à des élèves francophones du secondaire de toute la province de se rendre à Toronto pour en apprendre plus sur l’Assemblée législative.

Je remercie la première ministre d’appuyer la communauté francophone pour les études postsecondaires.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. Premier, during your campaign for the Liberal leadership, you visited my riding and you were briefed on the ridiculousness of a German company’s proposal to build eight 500-foot-tall wind turbines on a flight path of the Collingwood Regional Airport. The turbines being proposed are almost as tall as the TD tower down the street here in Toronto.

At the time, you told my constituents that, if you were successful in your leadership bid, you would bring the Collingwood proposal to the direct attention of the Minister of Energy. You also said, “If there’s a safety issue ... an economic issue ... we need to understand how that happened…. To have that airport shut down (because of turbines) doesn’t make sense to me.”

Premier, can you confirm today that you kept your word and tell us what you’ve done to stop this dangerous proposal from going ahead?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m glad there will be two opportunities, and I’ll have an opportunity to answer his supplementary.

What I want to say to the member and to the opposition is that we understand that you do not approve of green energy policies or initiatives. That’s number one.

We also acknowledge that they don’t—

Interjections.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: At the appropriate time, we’ll have an opportunity once again to have that debate with the electors across the province of Ontario; the same as we will on full-day kindergarten, which you don’t approve of; the same as on uploading to municipalities. You’ve downloaded; you want to keep the expenses down with the municipalities. There’s a whole series of issues where we have to agree to disagree. That should—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. The member from Chatham, the member from Huron–Bruce—and about four others, but I’ll get to you later—come to order. And I honestly think I heard somebody try to sneak by a swear word.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Righteous indignation aside, I would ask all members to be honourable in this place.

Supplementary, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious issue about safety and the rights of people in rural Ontario, which you don’t give a damn about. That’s for sure.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Premier, I’d appreciate an answer from you. You’re the one who made the commitment when you visited Collingwood.

On February 20, I introduced legislation that amends the Planning Act by reversing the amendments made by the Liberals’ Green Energy Act that exempted renewable energy projects from the municipal process. My bill restores municipal planning powers and allows local leaders to make decisions over renewable energy projects like the one being proposed on the flight path of Collingwood Regional Airport.

Premier, when you visited my riding, you said you support more municipal autonomy and a better process for siting these projects. Will you show Ontarians that you can actually stay true to your word? Will you commit today to supporting my legislation and restore municipal control over renewable energy projects that are being built in vast areas of the province against the people’s wishes?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Energy.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is honouring her commitment. The Minister of Rural Affairs, the Minister of Energy and the Minister of Municipal Affairs are working now together to look at the types of solutions that the Premier committed to enlisting for the province of Ontario.

We are extremely serious about giving more control to the municipalities, about dealing with Planning Act issues and about dealing with the level of control that particularly rural municipalities will have over wind and solar in their communities. We are absolutely committed, and we will be back to you very soon with alternatives and solutions that we believe will be satisfactory to the rural communities across the province of Ontario.

OBSTETRICAL CARE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Pregnant moms in Windsor are worried. As cuts mount to front-line care workers, hospital beds and children’s mental health care, Windsor mothers are left wondering if their neonatal intensive care unit is next. The Windsor NICU is already operating at reduced levels because this government refuses to guarantee funding for a level 3 facility.

Will the Premier protect Windsor’s most vulnerable babies and clear up any doubt about the future of neonatal care in Windsor?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s wonderful to see the new focus on Windsor and London that we are seeing from the leader of the third party. It’s fantastic to see that.

I can tell you, Speaker, that we are doing everything we can to protect patient care. This is an issue that has been raised in the past. I know that the people of Windsor are advocating for this. I can tell you that the interests of those babies, the interests of those mothers will always be paramount. We will do what we need to do to make sure that babies born get the very, very best possible care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, somebody’s got to be standing up for the people of Windsor and London. New Democrats are proud to do it.

The Windsor neonatal intensive care unit will change the lives of hundreds of moms and babies this year. Without access to a fully functioning NICU, pregnant moms, in a fragile condition, will be sent down the highway for care. The last time New Democrats brought concerns about the Windsor NICU to this Legislature, the Minister of Health said this: “We will always make decisions based on what’s best for those babies.” But, recently, she also said she’s okay with cuts to front-line health care services in Windsor.

What does the Premier have to say to Windsor mothers who are worried that that city’s neonatal intensive care unit is next on the chopping block?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there has been no change in the designation of the NICU at Windsor Regional Hospital.

We have invested enormously in Windsor Regional Hospital; in fact, their funding has increased by $100 million. That’s an 83% increase in funding at Windsor Regional Hospital. The hospital is continuing to make improvements. The neonatal unit is a very important part of Windsor Regional Hospital.

We will continue to improve care, and I will always say, whatever is best for those little babies who are born with high health care needs will always guide my decision-making.

TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

I know that continued economic growth and job creation are key priorities for our government, and that our ongoing investments in crucial public infrastructure have helped our economic recovery a great deal.

In my own riding of Vaughan, there are plans to extend Highway 427 from its current end at Zenway Boulevard to Major Mackenzie Drive. This roughly seven-kilometre extension will help my community unlock tremendous economic development potential in the Vaughan enterprise zone, an area of hundreds and hundreds of acres that has the potential to generate tens of thousands of jobs when fully built out. However, the potential of the Vaughan enterprise zone cannot be fully realized until Highway 427 is extended.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister please update the House as to the progress being made regarding the extension of Highway 427?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank my friend the member for Vaughan for his unrelenting advocacy for Highway 427—and when I say “unrelenting,” I mean just about daily, Mr. Speaker.

Highway 427 is an important priority for us. We’re very proud of our partnerships with Mayor Bevilacqua—and the mayors of Vaughan and Caledon, who have been working very hard with their economic development agency, which has seen a significant expansion of employment lands, major new investments by Canadian Tire and Canadian Pacific Railway. This is becoming one of the most successful and dynamic areas of our province.

We have invested over $300 million in that area. We will continue to do that, and there is an additional $620 million in transit funding that will relieve some of the car pressures on that highway.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Thank you very much to the minister for that update. My constituents in Vaughan will be very happy to hear of the progress that’s being made on this important issue.

In addition to the tremendous possibilities that exist in terms of job creation, the extension of Highway 427 will help to alleviate some of the gridlock that is currently depriving the residents of my community, particularly those living in Kleinburg and in west Woodbridge, of time with their families. In fact, I spent time last evening in Kleinburg at a town hall meeting and I heard about this issue directly from my residents.

Can the minister please inform the House of the measures being taken by our government to ensure that progress continues to be made on this issue and other transit-related issues in my area?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we have about a $13-billion infrastructure commitment this year alone. That is the biggest, I think, in the modern history of our province, and up from about $3 billion when the parties opposite were in power. In Vaughan, this has resulted in $1.4 billion over 10 years for the vivaNext rapid transit system, a $670-million investment to extend the Spadina subway to Vaughan, and this 8.6-kilometre extension of the 427 is the next critical and priority piece of infrastructure. We are serving rural folks with our new MIII program, which extends that to small bridges.

We will not do what the party opposite—which is, compete between the suburbs, rural and urban Ontario for scarce dollars. We are going to build new revenue tools, under our Premier’s leadership, to ensure that every Ontarian has access to great infrastructure.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Premier. During the 2011 election, you were Minister of Transportation. At a campaign stop in Burlington, you promised—promised—that the controversial Niagara-to-GTA highway route through north Burlington was cancelled. On February 19 of this year, the MTO held its final public information session in Ancaster on the progress of the environmental assessment for the north Burlington route of the highway. It wasn’t cancelled; it’s continuing.

Premier, during an election and for political advantage, are my constituents in north Burlington correct in saying that they were misled?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Withdraw.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Withdraw.

Premier, what conclusions should my constituents in north Burlington draw from the promise you made during the campaign?

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, first, the advice I give them is that whatever you do, don’t vote Conservative, because you’d be voting for a government that has never committed more than $3 billion or $4 billion to infrastructure, and all of these projects would be a pipe dream.

Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister?

Interjection: What’s your leader’s position?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: My position and that of the previous two Ministers of Transportation is that we would do everything else and look at it in that context.

We have done the road studies. They are tabled; they are public documents. I would suggest the member opposite look at them. He should talk to his friend the critic, because he and I have been meeting and we’ve had a very fulsome conversation about that. Or maybe he wants to talk to the member for Burlington, who wrote a letter to us just a year ago, asking us not to build the mid-Niagara—

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I am always open to the many opinions that—

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: This isn’t about the highway between Hamilton airport and the Niagara frontier. This is about a promise that you made during an election. Premier, you made a promise to the voters of north Burlington, not the current minister. Premier, you told them the highway was cancelled across the north Burlington area, not this current minister. Premier, you caused the current angst by failing to fulfil your promise, if you ever intended to do so.

Premier, do the right thing: Fulfil your promise. Or was it just a smoke-and-mirrors announcement to win a few votes in a typical Liberal way? Premier, fulfil your promise and stop lying to my constituents.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Reluctantly withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I do know this part of my job. The member please withdraw.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question—sorry; answer.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to take this opportunity to respond to the member opposite, because I remember the meeting that I was at in the Burlington area. I remember having that conversation very clearly, Mr. Speaker. And what I said was that I acknowledged that there was a lot of concern about the corridor that was being identified for that road.

What I promised was that we were going to do everything possible to make sure that we had an integrated transportation plan for that region, because unlike the party opposite, I recognize that we need to have roads and corridors built in the province, but we also need to focus on transit. We need to focus on using the corridors and the roads that are already there. How can we maximize the use of the roads that are already there and how can we make sure that public transportation is part of any plan going forward? That’s what I said to the people of Burlington, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I have heard from thousands of people across south Niagara who are worried about health care services. Nearly 20,000 residents have signed a petition calling on the government to stop the move of important services from the Welland and Niagara Falls hospital sites to the new St. Catharines hospital. For many residents, that move means driving over an hour to access essential and sometimes urgent services. And if you’re travelling on public transit, which is—

Interjection: Non-existent.

Ms. Cindy Forster: —non-existent in many of the municipalities in my riding, the trip could take as long as four hours each way. Will the minister commit to preserving existing health care services in south Niagara?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that health care in Niagara has been a topic of much discussion in that area, and I certainly hear from the member of St. Catharines about what we must do to improve health care in the Niagara region, and from the member from Niagara Falls.

What I can tell you is, things are a lot better at Niagara Health System than they were a short time ago. I want to say thank you to Dr. Kevin Smith, who was appointed supervisor of NHS some time ago. The supervisor was appointed because the community had concerns about care at Niagara Health System.

NHS is moving forward. It is implementing the necessary measures to improve patient care. We know there’s more to do, but I do think that we are absolutely on the right track when it comes to Niagara.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: People are worried that the ribbons that are being cut today at the new St. Catharines hospital will mean out-of-business signs for south Niagara. Residents know that re-establishing the services close to home, which is part of the long-term-care plan for hospitals, is years away at best. This gap in services is unacceptable. Many residents worry that those services will never return to south Niagara.

Experts in my riding like Dr. Andrei Arvinte, president of the Niagara Health System Medical Staff Association, are concerned that once these services like obstetrics and pediatrics are moved out of the area, other health care services will follow, and the expertise, the staff and the money will leave south Niagara hospital services.

Will the minister listen to the residents of south Niagara and preserve these important services for the residents of south Niagara?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I can assure you that those voices are being heard loud and clear, and I know that Dr. Smith has spent a considerable amount of time travelling in the south Niagara area listening to the concerns, and he has come forth with some recommendations on how we can improve care in south Niagara.

I do want to take the opportunity to celebrate the opening of the new hospital in St. Catharines, which will provide service to the people of south Niagara as well. One big advantage is that people will be able to receive cancer treatment in Niagara. They would have previously had to travel to Hamilton. They will now be able to get it much closer to home.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to correct my record. In answer to a question about risk management, I said that farmers received $104 million. In fact, it was $106 million, on top of $41 million through the Growing Forward programs for fa