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

March 28, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-28 (PDF)

L019 - Thu 28 Mar 2013 / Jeu 28 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 March 2013 Jeudi 28 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

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

TUITION

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

GAMING POLICY

GO TRANSIT

TAXATION

TUITION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

AUTISM

SOLAR ENERGY

PRIX CIVIQUES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

JAMES HINCHCLIFFE

MENTAL HEALTH

GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PUBLIC SECTOR CAPACITY

TO PAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA CAPACITÉ

DE PAYER DU SECTEUR PUBLIC

CONSTITUTION DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DE LA CONSTITUTION

SAFE ROUNDABOUTS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA SÉCURITÉ

DES CARREFOURS GIRATOIRES

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NATIONAL ABORIGINAL

LANGUAGES DAY

PETITIONS

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

ANIMAL PROTECTION

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

CANCER TREATMENT

LAND USE PLANNING

LONG-TERM CARE

WIND TURBINES

PROVINCIAL PARKS

TIRE DISPOSAL

REGULATION OF HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

TAXATION

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES

HELPING ONTARIANS ENTER

THE SKILLED TRADES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT

À FACILITER L’ACCÈS AUX MÉTIERS

SPÉCIALISÉS EN ONTARIO

GAMING POLICY

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES

HELPING ONTARIANS ENTER

THE SKILLED TRADES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT

À FACILITER L’ACCÈS AUX MÉTIERS

SPÉCIALISÉS EN ONTARIO

GAMING POLICY

TAXPAYER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DES CONTRIBUABLES

HELPING ONTARIANS ENTER

THE SKILLED TRADES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT

À FACILITER L’ACCÈS AUX MÉTIERS

SPÉCIALISÉS EN ONTARIO

GAMING POLICY

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 26, 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?

Mr. John Vanthof: As always, it’s an honour to stand in this House and speak on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane, and most of the time I say it’s also a pleasure. But on this bill, it’s not a pleasure. It’s a duty, because the air ambulance act is being portrayed as something that’s going to fix the problems at Ornge. It’s also a bellwether, if things are going to be fixed across not only the health care sector but across a lot of government agencies.

I’d like to really start this morning by saluting—thanking—the front-line workers at Ornge, the front-line workers across our whole health care spectrum, the people who actually save lives and the people who have to work in incredibly tough conditions and hard conditions. Some of those conditions were actually created by the people who ran systems like Ornge. The front-line workers are, in an odd sort of way, being side-swiped by the scandal that is Ornge.

I’d also like to spend a minute thanking, once again, the people who for years have actually been trying to wave the red flag about Ornge, the people who for years have been trying to blow the whistle; people like Trevor Kidd, whose family lives in my riding, who sat in this House in the members’ gallery, who testified and who was widely praised for standing up and telling what he believed. But no one listened to Trevor Kidd for years.

If they had listened to people like Trevor, we could have stopped the waste of this money—or the government could have stopped the waste of this money—years before and could have redirected that.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order, the member from Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I don’t believe we have quorum in the House.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can we check for quorum?

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane.

Mr. John Vanthof: For someone like Trevor Kidd, who banged the warning bells years ago, and if people had listened, if the government side had listened, we could have saved—would have saved themselves a lot of hassle and scandal, too—millions of dollars, and redirected that to home care or saving more people’s lives or making people’s lives better.

The problem, unfortunately—and again, once again, I’m going to go back to my riding a little bit. Trevor Kidd blew the whistle, and Trevor Kidd was persecuted for it. That, unfortunately—despite the government’s assertions with G11, the Ambulance Act—that’s not changing because, in my riding, as we speak, there are members of the community in a town called Iroquois Falls who are once again blowing the whistle. They want to make the health care system better, and what’s happening? These people are raising their arms and saying, “There’s something going on.

We’d like it looked at.” What’s happening is, these people are being sued by the hospital board, funded through the LHIN and controlled under the Ministry of Health.

Has anything changed in regard to whistle-blower protection really? Because if you’re sitting back and you know—because there are, and there will always be, regardless of who was running the show—the government is a big organization. There will always be problems. You’re always going to have to keep your finger on the pulse of how things are working.

If you know something is going wrong and you’re seeing that other people, when they say, “Okay, wait. There’s something wrong here,” and they’re getting sued by public funds, is that an incentive to come forward and say, “Well, I think there’s something wrong”?

An even bigger problem with this bill is if someone takes it upon themselves and takes the risk of being sued with public funds, who do they go to, because with the air ambulance act, you go to a government inspector. Well, from northern Ontario, first you’d have to go on a major search to find what you would call a government inspector. They’re not in the blue pages.

M me France Gélinas: Or the yellow ones.

Mr. John Vanthof: Or the yellow ones. So first, you have to break the confidence barrier that, okay, you know what? You might get sued. If you go to the press, you might get sued by public funds. So that’s not really an option. So then your next option is to find, Speaker, a government inspector, so I guess Internet search, for those of us who have high-speed Internet in northern Ontario.

M me France Gélinas: Not in my riding.

Interjection: Mine too.

Mr. John Vanthof: You can make a joke about it, but it’s serious stuff. There is one name and one number that everyone trusts and that everyone can find. The one title that people identify with fairness, with objectivity, with impartiality—there’s one name, regardless of what party you’re from, regardless of where you’re from, regardless of what your faith is, what your race is, how old you are, Speaker, and that is the Office of the Ombudsman.

How many times: “I don’t know where to go. I’m going to call the Ombudsman, because you know what? It’s his job to be fair, and it’s his job to look into the issues.” And you know what? He’s not going to look into every issue, because not every issue is a scandal. Not everyone is happy with the system, and that’s the way the world works. But you need to be able to call the Ombudsman.

What’s so glaring in G11, the Ambulance Amendment Act, is that the government, for whatever reason, has decided not to have Ombudsman oversight. Some things just defy common sense. Why wouldn’t you? It’s the one office everybody identifies with, even in northern Ontario. When I go home to Iroquois Falls or to New Liskeard, Kirkland Lake, Cochrane, I can walk down the street—walk down Railway Street in Cochrane—and ask people how many government investigators they know, how many they can find. A few of them will mention the MNR, that used to be around—that used to be around.

M me France Gélinas: They’re going.

Mr. John Vanthof: Yes—but no one else. But they will know—not everyone on Railway Street in Cochrane will know the Office of the Ombudsman, but a lot of them will. That’s why it’s such a travesty that, for whatever reason, the government didn’t take a common-sense approach and say, “You know what? There have been bad things happen at Ornge. People were persecuted at Ornge for actually bringing their views forward. How can we actually learn from this?” You know what? In my personal business, the way I got better is that when I made a mistake, I thought, “Gee, how come that happened?

We’re going to try to make sure that doesn’t happen again somewhere else.” The best way to do that in this case—not the only way, but the simplest way from the client side, which is the people using the health care system—is the Ombudsman.

On the New Democratic side, we’re going to push, when this bill goes to committee, that it actually does something and that they include the common-sense thing, the thing that is right for Ontarians: that they include going to the Ombudsman, not just G11 but throughout the health care system. Thank you, Speaker.

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: It’s a pleasure to rise in response to the comments from my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane.

I would like to remind the member that as soon as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care heard about the issues at Ornge from the Auditor General, she immediately took action. She took strong action. She called in the Ontario Provincial Police; their investigation is continuing.

There has been acknowledgement on this side of the House of the problems at Ornge, but apart from the strong action that the minister took, of course, we first had Bill 50 and now Bill 11, which is before this House as we speak. Bill 11, as we heard yesterday at public accounts, does include many provisions that are extremely important and necessary to ensure that what happened at Ornge previously will never, ever happen again.

We have a very strong performance agreement. Pursuant to that performance agreement is the quality improvement plan. The new chief operating officer, Mr. Giguere, yesterday went through that quality improvement plan with us, setting out very clear targets for performance and his priorities of patient safety. He wants to see an effective system, with aircraft availability, paramedic availability at all times, at all bases, on call and available. He wants to see efficiency. He wants to see cost savings. He wants to see the Ontario taxpayer get maximum value for their investment in air ambulance.

Bill 11 contains many other important provisions, as we heard: the whistle-blower protection; the patient advocate. These are all important measures enshrined in this bill. I urge all members of this House to support it. Let us get it to committee to discuss it further.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As I recall, we were raising problems at Ornge for two years before the government did anything. The minister did not take direct action; she took no action whatsoever. This bill has some serious flaws. This is a bill that closes the barn door firmly after the horses have left. In fact, the horses left so long ago that they now have offspring. Those offspring are coming to the track this spring, and I don’t think they’re going to do very well because they weren’t very well bred.

This bill has some very difficult clauses in it. One clause gives the government the ability to alter contracts—signed, negotiated contracts. The government can alter those contracts, and that gives me great pause, whenever the government gives itself that kind of power. It gives itself the power to take over certain aspects, regardless of signed contracts. Sometimes a takeover is necessary. The conditions that that takes over will be outlined in regulation. Those regulations can be very, very strong or they can be very fair.

I would encourage this government to be very fair when they’re writing those regulations—fair to the people of Ontario; fair to the contracts that they signed. If you sign a contract that you don’t know anything about and it’s a wrong contract, shame on you; don’t make that mistake.

The other problem is the protection that they give whistle-blowers. Again, some of that protection will be reflected in regulation. If there’s not someone to report to—this bill doesn’t specifically say who they can report to, other than an inspector appointed after the problem is created—then the whole bill is a sham.

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

M me France Gélinas: I was really interested in what my colleague had to say. Basically, what happened at Ornge was 100% preventable. The ministry had had many whistle-blowers come to it and explain in great detail that the salaries they were paying themselves didn’t make sense, that they had created a whole bunch of for-profits for the sole reason of shielding themselves from the ministry, that what was going on—there were kickbacks coming from deals that had been signed to buy new helicopters. Whistle-blowers told them that, years before it hit the front page of the Toronto Star. Step by step, whistle-blowers went to the ministry. But the ministry did not act.

Now they say, “We’re going to give whistle-blowers protection.” That is not worth the paper it’s written on. Have no fear; Ornge has developed whistle-blower protection now, because they see the value. They saw what happened to their co-workers who are now out of a job because they blew the whistle on a real scandal, and what happened? Nothing happened at the level of the ministry, but those people paid the price. Those people lost their jobs, they lost their livelihood, and oftentimes their good names were thrown in the mud because they were telling the truth.

What we have in front of us, this bill, the whistle-blower protection that is in it, kind of makes sense in long-term care. It is part of the Long-Term Care Act. They copied it from the Long-Term Care Act and put it into the Ambulance Act, where it makes no sense whatsoever. I expect better than this from this government.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I think the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane provided some very valuable input this morning on Bill 11, the air ambulance act. I know he’s always out consulting with his constituents, perhaps in the Tri-Town area of Cobalt, Haileybury and New Liskeard. I know he takes that opportunity frequently and chats with them about what’s going on in the riding and things down here.

I was just recently rereading Ted Sorensen’s book about John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Edward R. Murrow, who was the great media leader in the United States in the 1950s and 1960s, provided President Kennedy with great advice after the Bay of Pigs fiasco in 1961 when he said, “An error does not become a mistake unless you don’t correct it.”

So Bill 11 is an opportunity to correct what we all recognize: some very serious deficiencies in the operation of Ornge. We’ll have the opportunity, through the committee process—and that was highlighted to us, something that we were reminded of during the period of prorogation: that committees weren’t operating. There’s an opportunity now to get Bill 11 to committee, an opportunity for witnesses and presenters to come forward, to provide input where changes should be made, and amend the legislation before it ultimately comes back to the House.

There are, in this bill, some new provisions: the new performance agreement; the new policies and procedures on conflict of interest; whistle-blower protection. We do know that we now have a new chief executive officer and a new chair of the board.

But I think the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane made some great points today, and I’m sure he—an opportunity to present them, debate them, when this bill goes to committee.

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

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): My apologies.

The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. John Vanthof: Thank you, Speaker. I’d like to thank the members from Oak Ridges–Markham, from Halton, my colleague from Nickel Belt and the Minister of Rural Affairs for their comments.

The member from Oak Ridges–Markham: The question isn’t that the government stepped in when the Auditor General said something; the problem is, they didn’t step in years before, when people on the front lines were saying something. That’s the problem.

That’s also the whistle-blower problem. There’s only so long that people can blow the whistle, at risk of their jobs, at risk of their reputation. In the case of what’s happening in Iroquois Falls, these people are just community members who are being sued by the hospital board because they said, “Excuse me; I think something’s wrong here.” They’re being sued by the hospital board with funds from the LHINs, controlled by the Ministry of Health. And we’re sitting here talking about how we’ve improved whistle-blower protection? I’m sorry; I have a big problem with that.

Something else I have a big problem with: We’ve debated this whole thing before. And then the government was prorogued and it comes back, and all the things that we said should be put in that would make it better—they’re not in here. So when the government was prorogued, they maybe could have sat down and think, “You know, let’s improve these things so when we come back, we might actually get them fixed.” But again, they didn’t take that opportunity.

So yes, we want this bill to go to committee and we want it fixed so people like my constituents in Iroquois Falls don’t have to go to bed at night living in fear because they’re being sued by the government because they are saying, “Excuse me; something here is going wrong.”

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

Ms. Sylvia Jones: The member from Timiskaming–Cochrane raises a very common theme which I’ll continue in my 10 minutes. It’s an honour to rise in behalf of the residents of Dufferin–Caledon to discuss the government bill before us this morning.

Today, we are here debating Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance service, also known by its

short title as the Ambulance Amendment Act. Bill 11 is, of course, the Liberal government’s response to the situation at Ontario’s deeply troubled air ambulance service, Ornge. If enacted, the bill would amend current legislation and install new powers that the government claims will better equip the ministry to deal with situations like what occurred at Ornge. For example, Bill 11 would allow providers of air ambulance services to be designated as designated air ambulance service providers.

Cabinet would then be given the power to appoint provincial representatives to sit on the boards of these newly designated air ambulance service providers—can you say “LHINs”? The bill also empowers the minister to issue directives to these designated air ambulance service providers.

Bill 11 creates other new positions and ministerial powers which I will touch on shortly. However, first I would like to point out something that I think is quite startling and disturbing. When I sat down to prepare my remarks for this morning’s debate, at first I thought I was mistakenly picking up Bill 50 from the last legislative session. I’m not kidding, Speaker. I began reading it and thought, “I’ve got the wrong bill here. This is Bill 50.” I mean, it is virtually the same bill. As a matter of fact, every single word in the explanatory note of Bill 50 and Bill 11 is identical—not a single change.

Now, to be honest, if you would have asked me in January if the Minister of Health would reintroduce a bill on this important topic almost a full year later with little or no changes in it, I would have told you it’s highly unlikely. I would have said then, Speaker, that given everything we’ve heard in committee since Bill 50 was introduced, it only seems logical to alter the bill to reflect all that we have learned over the past year.

It’s actually kind of shocking if you think about it. Bill 50 was introduced for first reading in the last session on March 12, 2012. The bill we’re debating here today, Bill 11, was introduced for first reading on February 26, 2013. So here we are, almost a full year later, and, much to my astonishment—and I’m sure many of my colleagues would agree—the Minister of Health introduces legislation almost identical to that which was introduced back in March.

Speaker, I’m not making this up. Actually, I’m quite shocked by it. Frankly, I’m almost at a loss for words. To think that the public accounts committee has spent hundreds of hours questioning dozens and dozens of people over the last year—and continues to do so, I might add—and yet, after all that, all the meetings, all the questions, the thousands of documents submitted to committee, the minister introduces the same bill a year later? You know, for a party that spends so much time promoting respectful conversations and working together, they sure don’t listen very well.

I’d say maybe the Minister of Health is blessed with the gift of impeccable foresight, but then again, the whole Ornge debacle took place under her watch, so I suppose I shouldn’t.

But what is the impression we get? Mainly, it’s that Bill 50 was so perfect, so well-written, so flawless that it doesn’t matter what all the witnesses, all the members in this chamber and all the experts have said about Ornge in the past year. This bill should simply be reintroduced, just about word for word.

Speaker, the fact that the minister who presided over the Ornge fiasco would have the audacity to disregard everything the opposition has had to say and everything that was presented in committee, and instead stands in this House and presents nothing new on this bill, is shameful. But then again, I suppose, what does the minister have to worry about? Despite the terrible mismanagement and shameful waste of taxpayers’ money that occurred under her watch, the new Premier saw fit to promote the minister to Deputy Premier.

So here we are, almost a year after Bill 50 was introduced, and we have a carbon copy, Bill 11, before us to debate—although now that I think about it, I suppose the minister was preoccupied during prorogation in her role as co-campaign chair for the Premier’s Liberal leadership race, so maybe that’s why we didn’t see any changes to the bill. She wasn’t really focused on her ministry responsibilities.

The real shame is that Bill 11 fails to take any substantive action to prevent the problems which plagued Ornge from happening again. One of the reasons I am glad I got the opportunity to speak on Bill 11 today is because I think Bill 11 serves as yet another example as to why we need a change of government here in Ontario. Actually, that being said, there’s a lot about this whole Ornge file that demonstrates why we need a change of government here in Ontario.

Let’s consider the Liberal government’s reaction to the problems at Ornge. True to Liberal form, their remedy is more bureaucracy, more convoluted lines of responsibility, and in the process we get less accountability. I say this because what we’ve opted to do with Bill 11 is allow cabinet to appoint new special investigators and give the minister the ability to appoint new supervisors to oversee operations. In addition to these measures in Bill 11, there is currently a new patient advocate position at Ornge that the government claims will add oversight.

Speaker, we already have a special investigator to provide oversight. You might know him? His name is André Marin—you know, the Ombudsman of Ontario? And we already have a supervisor to oversee operations at the air ambulance service. They’re known as the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Article 15 of the original Ornge performance agreement gave the minister powers of investigation. She never used them. The minister also had the power to intervene under the Independent Health Facilities Act. She never used it.

So you see my point: Rather than listen to the members in the PC caucus, rather than listen to the members in the third party, rather than listen to the Ombudsman himself when he wrote to the minister on this subject, this Liberal government was content to simply recycle this year-old eight-page bill that provides no real change and is really just positioning on the part of the Minister of Health. If the minister was serious about providing substantial, meaningful reforms, she would have added Ombudsman oversight to her bill before reintroducing it in this session.

The Ombudsman is an independent officer of the Legislature, and as such, reports only to this legislative chamber and the people’s representatives who serve within it—not the Minister of Health; not the Premier; we as legislators. The minister, however, thinks oversight duties are better handled by individuals who would be employees of Ornge itself and would report to Ornge management. As the Ombudsman outlines in his letter to the minister, which my colleague read into the record a few weeks ago, the new patient advocate position reports to an Ornge vice-president. Really? That’s your idea of independence?

Was it not the total lack of government oversight that allowed things to get so bad at Ornge in the first place? Speaker, this is a totally dysfunctional model. It’s so outrageous it would almost be humorous if this service wasn’t in place to save people’s lives.

Dozens of brave whistle-blowers have come forward with the shocking and depressing details of the abuse that took place at Ornge, and they often did it in secret for fear of retaliation against them. It is because of these whistle-blowers’ bravery that people like my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora were able to pressure the Liberal government into finally confronting this terrible scandal. Yet the minister’s idea of protecting whistle-blowers is make them take their concerns to an individual who reports to Ornge management.

Speaker, with reforms like this it’s no wonder Ornge was allowed to spiral out of control, because clearly the minister has absolutely no understanding of proper oversight mechanisms. Why else would the ministry expect people who have issues with the way an agency is being run to report their concerns to the very people who run the agency?

In the job description that was posted publicly, the responsibilities of the newly crafted office of the patient advocate states that the position will “investigate, resolve, document and report organization-specific patient and visitor compliments” and complaints. It’s a little late for that, Speaker. We need to have Ombudsman oversight included in this bill for it to have any teeth at all.

With that, I will await the comments of the opposition.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I’m happy to comment on this bill, the ambulance bill, because I keep referring back to the Auditor General’s report, where he quoted in February 2006 that the Ministry of Health committed to set standards to monitor performance. When you make a commitment, you don’t abandon that commitment. She stated she is committed to standards and monitoring. This bill doesn’t reflect that commitment that she made in 2006. So here we are, how many years later, and we are now in a problem that has been created by her noncommittal of oversight to this ministry.

The member opposite who just spoke now—she’s saying Ombudsman oversight is the way that the public will regain confidence and, in some small portion, some small way, will also reaffirm this minister’s commitment to the public so that they can have the confidence in this service that we’re supposed to be delivering as a government agency.

People shouldn’t be questioning how a government agency operates so that they feel that perhaps that service isn’t going to be delivered to them. All the fiascos, all the scandals that happened in management, were completely unacceptable and a disgrace to this ministry and a disgrace to me as a member here, having to discuss this bill and not having the minister listen to us expressing how important the Ombudsman is and how that’s going to make things better for oversight.

When you make a mistake, as the member from Timiskaming–Cochrane says, you learn from those mistakes and you put in best practices so that those mistakes won’t reoccur. When we’re talking about life and death, Minister, it’s crucial that those mistakes don’t happen again.

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

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m happy to speak again on this important piece of legislation. I’ve listened carefully to the comments from the opposition—both parties.

I just want to reiterate what I’ve talked about before, and why we have reintroduced this piece of legislation: It is to respond to the concerns that I’m hearing. It is to provide substantial oversight in government.

This legislation appoints special investigators or a supervisor when it’s in the public interest to do so. It appoints members to Ornge’s board of directors. It prescribes terms of the performance agreement between the government and Ornge in regulation. It provides whistle-blowing protection for staff who disclose information to an inspector, investigator, supervisor or the ministry. Ornge will be subject to retroactive freedom-of-information requests, a change that we are undertaking through regulation.

I want to set the record straight, Speaker. The official opposition, the PC Party, voted against Bill 50. They voted against the kinds of things they’re talking about today that are important: oversight, transparency, whistle-blower protection, improvements that will help pilots and paramedics. So I say to both opposition parties: Let’s get this to committee, as the Minister of Rural Affairs said, work on changes and amendments, hear from witnesses and move it forward.

I think we’re all really wanting the same kinds of things, and we’re starting to debate this a bit ad nauseam, quite frankly. I think it’s time to get this bill to committee, work on it and respond to the concerns that are being raised, and implement the very strong oversight and governance provisions that are articulated here in this bill. It’s an important piece of legislation, so let’s work together and move this forward to committee.

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to join in the debate. I certainly found the remarks made by my colleague the member for Dufferin–Caledon to be ones that were clear in the process and clear in the condemnation of the government’s lack of action.

When you think back to the early days when the brown envelopes started coming, when the phone calls and things that demonstrated the fact that there were some fundamental issues that were not being addressed by Ornge and by the government’s response to those, when I think about aircraft that were ordered and provided that were too heavy, that didn’t have the ability to fly as far as they should—they had interiors that prevented the appropriate response to patients. You don’t get more fundamental than this.

It’s shocking, not only that it was done, but the fact that there had been an air ambulance service in this province that worked behind the scenes to support people throughout the province and had been doing it for generations. All of a sudden, the government gives a virtual monopoly to a company that can’t even figure out what the plane should look like. This is shocking in itself. But it’s the treatment of those who came forward—further shocking and irresponsible on the part of the government.

Finally, when you look at the piece of legislation that we’re looking at today, what does it do? It creates more bureaucracy, more regulation. What that does is it demonstrates to me—and the references have been made to other examples and pieces of legislation where the same thing is the process—is the inability of this government to recognize that you cannot legislate either morality or good judgment.

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: It’s my pleasure to stand and actually add my comments to this debate. I really want to commend my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane. He’s really highlighting a very, very big part of the puzzle that is missing out of this, which is whistle-blower protection.

During my comments that I made last week, I tried to suggest one suggestion through my 20-minute comments that I was making, to really look at Ombudsman oversight and the importance of it.

But I want to touch on what my colleague had been talking about here this morning: whistle-blower protection. Him standing in this House and being so passionate about what’s going on in his riding back home to his constituents and the failure of this government to listen to those views—and I heard from one of the members across the way that we want the same things. Well, if you want the same things, you have to be listening to the message in order to accomplish those. The message here is, we’re missing substantial oversight out of this budget. We’re missing Ombudsman oversight and we’re missing transparency.

Everything that you’ve created through this bill is exactly what we had been talking about and is not in this bill.

So I stand and I commend my colleague by highlighting the issues that he has challenged, because maybe, just maybe, if we talk about it long enough, you’re going to actually recognize that this is missing out of this bill, and maybe someone from the other side of the House will actually say, “Hey, you’re right. You have a point. We have not looked at this. Maybe we should be looking at Ombudsman oversight.”

The bigger question for me sitting here is, why not? Why isn’t the Ombudsman looking at this? He’s our gold standard of all this, of what’s going on. So why haven’t we been doing this? That’s what I’m concerned about, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Dufferin–Caledon, you have two minutes for a response.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Ultimately, there is nothing of substance that is going to change and improve what happened at Ornge to occur again.

What’s that line from Albert Einstein? The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. You introduced Bill 50. You didn’t listen to the changes that were being suggested. You’ve introduced Bill 11. It’s identical. It is not going to improve the situation.

What we need is effective, responsible and independent oversight. We don’t have it with this piece of legislation. You had an opportunity, actually, with the prorogation. You had almost a year to review the testimony within the committee. You had an opportunity in that year to review all of the comments that many of us already made on Bill 50, and you still ignored it. You still introduced the same old same old. This is another indication that there are no new ideas and there are no new changes happening on the other side of the House.

We need actual change. Bill 11 doesn’t do it and the new front bench doesn’t do it. I’m just really disappointed that we couldn’t have offered something more substantive that would actually improve the lives of Ontario residents, the people in Dufferin–Caledon and ultimately, most importantly, the individuals who have to rely on that air ambulance service at their most important and critical time. Thank you, Speaker.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: As I rise in the Legislature this morning to speak to Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services, I am mindful of the concerns of my constituents in Wellington–Halton Hills first and foremost. I also consider Bill 11 in the context of the high personal regard that I have for the Minister of Health and Deputy Premier.

From speaking with two former Ministers of Health in the province of Ontario who are my friends, I know that being the Minister of Health is one of the most challenging jobs in government at any level. I believe it is more challenging even than being Premier. The complexity of the issues, the sheer volume of the work itself, and the need to ensure political accountability for the whole health care system are staggering. I do not envy the minister her responsibilities.

For my part, I’m glad to have what I consider to be an excellent working relationship with this Minister of Health. I appreciate the interest she has shown in Wellington–Halton Hills. She visited our riding just before the election, in August 2011, to announce up to $2.6 million for the Georgetown Hospital’s ambitious renovations, including an emergency room addition and a diagnostic image renovation project. Yes, we applauded the minister when she visited our riding to make that announcement. This project is now well under way. I drop by the hospital frequently to view its progress.

I know that the hospital foundation is continuing to raise funds. I hope that the minister will be able to visit us again when the Georgetown Hospital celebrates the official opening of the new ER and CT scanner suite.

The minister was kind enough to visit Centre Wellington last December 6 to reaffirm the government’s commitment to building a new Groves Memorial Community Hospital. We welcomed the minister and together unveiled a sign where the new hospital is planned to be built later on in this decade.

Mr. Speaker, I have always been willing to reach across the partisan divide in this House and work with members from other parties in the interests of my constituents. I’ve been here for 22 and a half years, and only eight of those years in government, so I guess my experience in many respects has been serving in opposition. You work with the government of the day to advance the issues that are of concern to your constituents. I believe that as members of provincial Parliament, we should demonstrate respect for each other and our mutual roles, as our constituents would expect.

Personal considerations aside, there are real political differences between our respective parties on many issues. In opposition, it is our responsibility to hold the government of the day to account, to point out the flaws and drawbacks of its policies, to recommend constructive alternatives and to hold the government responsible for its actions. This we must do on Bill 11.

This government must believe in recycling; they have recycled themselves. Theoretically, there’s a new provincial government, but the list of similarities between the McGuinty government and the Wynne government is long; the list of differences is hard to yet determine. In fact, the new Premier said that the reason she ran to be Premier was that she was so proud of the record of the McGuinty government. I was astonished to hear her make that statement on CBC Radio just after she was elected leader of the Liberal Party. Does she now regret making it? Perhaps, as she proceeds to attempt to turn the page and put her own stamp on the government’s policy agenda.

I have said that the government appears to be in denial and oblivious to the significant economic challenges that the province faces today. Whether it’s the jobs challenge—565,000 Ontarians are unemployed; the deficit challenge—the most recent estimate is $11.9 billion; the rising provincial debt—$258 billion; or the responsibility for cancelling the gas plants to save marginal Liberal seats that cost hundreds of millions of dollars, the provincial government carries on as if these problems don’t even exist.

But they do believe in recycling, as I said earlier. In this House, they are recycling many of the government bills that were introduced last year by the McGuinty government but died on the order paper when the House was prorogued on October 15. Bill 11 is the recycled Bill 50. The government would have us believe that Bill 11 is the legislative solution to the Ornge air ambulance scandal. The minister wants us to believe that she has taken appropriate action to fix the problems in our air ambulance services.

We all know the sordid details. It is a shocking story of wasteful spending, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, and inadequate oversight. Every week, there seem to be more revelations coming out of the public accounts committee that command our attention and prolong the infamous saga. We also know that there is an ongoing police investigation. Bill 11, we’re told by the government, is the solution. They say this even though the committee investigation continues and many questions remain unanswered.

Here are some of our caucus’s main concerns. We say that there is little of substance in this legislation. This bill is simply a means of providing political cover for the government’s failure to provide important leadership. Its biggest single weakness is that it perpetuates the existing structure of the air ambulance service rather than recognize that the structure is flawed and requires direct oversight by the Minister of Health. The bill plays lip service to whistle-blower protection but limits the scope of that protection. It fails to provide across-the-board protection for whistle-blowers.

It imposes limits on which individuals are protected and who they can approach with that information.

Instead, we say the legislation ought to provide for a formal process through the Ombudsman, which would ensure proper protection and follow-up. We say that the bill is an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the minister has had the power to hold Ornge and its board accountable from the very beginning for the Ornge saga. The minister had the power to intervene at Ornge under

article 15 of the original Ornge performance agreement, as well as the Independent Health Facilities Act. The government has never adequately refuted these facts, and these are some of the reasons we speak against Bill 11 in its present form.

My colleague the member for Newmarket–Aurora has been absolutely tenacious in holding the government to account for the problems at Ornge air ambulance. He deserves enormous credit for the work he has done to bring these issues to light.

Our Ontario PC health critic and deputy leader, the member for Whitby–Oshawa, is a respected voice in this House, and she has also offered a principled critique of the government’s actions in this regard. On Monday of this week, she spoke at length to Bill 11 and in her remarks indicated that the Ornge air ambulance scandal has cost Ontario taxpayers at least $300 million.

Health care spending scandals seem to be a specialty of this Liberal government. We are reminded of the eHealth debacle, where a billion dollars was spent with very little to show for it, as the Auditor General confirmed, other than Liberal-friendly consulting firms billing the government for questionable fees. Because of these repeated scandals and the stories that drag on and on, over and over again, I’m afraid to say that some have almost become inured to health spending scandals. We’ve become hardened; they don’t faze us anymore, yet faze us they should.

Every dollar wasted on eHealth or the Ornge air ambulance service is a dollar that should have and could have gone to front-line care for patients in Ontario.

Who in this House could not furnish, on short notice, a list of health care priorities that need funding in their ridings? I suspect that every single member could easily bring the Minister of Health a long list of funding priorities in their ridings which would present a noticeable improvement in health services for their constituents. We can all identify needed improvements in health care.

Let me tell you about one of those health issues which was recently brought to my attention. Madison Phipps is a 17-year-old girl from Georgetown. She has cystic fibrosis. Since she was born, she has spent more than 250 days in the hospital. Since becoming the MPP for Halton Hills in 2007, I have come to know Maddie’s parents, Dr. Nigel Phipps and Shelley Phipps, through their community leadership and the numerous organizations which they support in Georgetown.

I won’t go into the details of Maddie’s treatment through the years, but suffice to say that she has courageously endured it all, and at the same time, she has maintained a sense of hope for the future. That hope has not been misplaced. A new medication called Kalydeco has recently been approved by Health Canada. For some with cystic fibrosis, it promises to be almost a miracle cure. Cystic Fibrosis Canada says that Kalydeco is the first therapy that targets the underlying cause of CF.

It helps to improve the function of the defective protein, leading to better lung function, weight gain and lower sweat chloride levels. For some CF patients, access to Kalydeco could lead to a longer, healthier life. Kalydeco shows the greatest promise for CF patients who have cystic fibrosis with something called the G551D mutation.

Kalydeco, at present, is prohibitively expensive. It is estimated that the drug would cost $294,000 a year. No family could afford that, but isn’t that why we have a public health care system? Just before Christmas, I emailed the minister’s office to ask for her help on this. Her staff got back to me and informed me that the drug’s manufacturer, Vertex Pharmaceuticals, had made a submission, which was before the Canadian Drug Expert Committee. This committee is responsible for making recommendations to provincial and territorial drug plans.

When the House resumed sitting on February 20, I spoke to the minister personally, informing her of this issue and asking for her help. I followed up again last week, on March 20, reminding her of Madison Phipps and the need to expedite consideration of funding for Kalydeco.

We learned just this week that the Canadian Drug Expert Committee has recommended Kalydeco to be listed on the formulary listing of publicly funded drug plans for the treatment of cystic fibrosis in patients age six and older who have the G551D mutation. Now it’s up to the minister to act and make Kalydeco accessible to CF patients. I urge her to do so without delay so that patients like Maddie can have access to this life-saving drug.

Going forward, if the government gives greater attention to eliminating wasteful spending through better oversight and more effective accountability, then precious health dollars can go to life-saving patient care instead of being wasted on what the Ombudsman calls the “maladministration horrors that have plagued Ornge.”

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, it’s an honour to stand here and speak on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming–Cochrane and comment on the remarks of the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

I listened carefully to his remarks, and he made some very good points about how the money that was wasted in the Ornge scandal and in others could have been put to much better use in the health care system. He commented on how each of us would have examples of how money could be spent in all of our ridings to make people’s lives so much better.

I listened very intently as he remarked on a case. We all have cases in our ridings, but his in particular—how one person’s life could be made so much better, and how sometimes people’s lives get caught up in bureaucracy and caught up—and we’re here. We’re here, in those cases, to try and be their voice, because we’re most effective, all of us, the 107 of us, when we give people a voice who don’t have a voice any other way.

I’d really like to commend the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for being the voice for that family, and I would like to add my voice, to hope the minister acts and helps that family, because he did his job and he is bringing that little girl’s plight to the House today. Thank you.

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: I have great respect for the member from Wellington–Halton Hills. We had the opportunity the other day to get a picture with the Queen of the Furrow, from Wellington county. I know the member and the member from Perth–Wellington availed themselves of the opportunity to have a chance to chat with a fine young lady who will do very well.

We’re all touched this morning. The member brought forward a particular case in his riding with a young lady. All of us on all sides of the House, of course, will do what we can, with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. When there are new advances in medicine for citizens across the province of Ontario, it’s a non-partisan issue. All of us want to make sure that people have that access.

He touched upon eHealth. I just want to share a story about eHealth and how progress is being made in eHealth. Just before Christmas, an individual in Lindsay, Ontario, had a stroke. The individual was transferred from Ross Memorial Hospital in Lindsay to the Peterborough regional health care centre because we have the regional stroke trauma centre.

During that period of time, through eHealth, they were able to do a CAT scan in Peterborough, immediately send it to McMaster health centre in Hamilton, Ontario, where the neurologist, through eHealth, electronically was able to read the CAT scan of this individual and was able to prescribe a regimen of approaches to help this individual. Two days later, that individual was discharged from PRHC in Peterborough back to Lindsay, Ontario, and is on the road to recovery. That just indicates to me the advances that we’re making in all areas of medicine in the province of Ontario, and all of us want to support that.

I say to the member from Wellington–Halton Hills, we wish his resident all the very best to get access to that drug to improve that individual’s life—something that, on all sides, we want every day in this province.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Perhaps the minister will speak to the Minister of Health and encourage her to support that request.

The member for Wellington–Halton Hills made very interesting comments. His speech was well laid out. First, he established his credibility and how he serves his constituents and how he works with the government. He expressed his concerns about the direction that the government is taking on this particular bill. Then he brought into the debate the impact that this drug could have on his constituent.

I know this child; I know the family, I know the parents and I know the grandparents. They’re good friends. This is something that they’re very excited about. This could change this child’s life.

I would point out to this government that since they’ve been in government for the past nine and a half years, they have increased the debt of this province. This drug, costing $294,000 per year, could be supplied if this government hadn’t increased the debt. Just this government’s debt—six hours of interest would pay for this drug for one year. That’s what your debt, that’s what your irresponsible spending in this province has created. It has created a situation where we look at $300,000 a year, more or less, as to whether or not we can afford it; but it’s only six hours of interest that this government has increased the debt of this province by. I say, shame on you.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I was listening to the member from Halton Hills and how concerned and passionate and compassionate, I should say, he is about this family’s plight and this little girl’s health issue. My heart goes out to the family. I hope that the Minister of Health will listen to the member from Halton Hills.

I know in all our ridings, there are those stories where people come to us and they’re looking for help because there are things in the health care system that they can’t access or there isn’t access to. That’s something that we need to look at and review, because when those things happen to a family it devastates all of us, and we feel helpless. We’re here to try to make things better.

When we talk about Bill 11, and we talk about making things better, there is one thing that the government put in there, which was the freedom of information so people can get that information. That’s one good thing that’s in the bill, and it’s a positive thing to see.

But we do talk about the Ombudsman, and today we talked about the importance of that oversight and how that’s going to make a difference to people when they feel that there’s unfairness or, perhaps, help they couldn’t get. This is an outlet. An ombudsman is a way for people to have that serious concern heard, and perhaps the Ombudsman can investigate if there were issues around what happened to them with regard—we’re talking about Ornge.

But I also want to take the time today to say thank you to those front-line workers who came forward from Ornge and made their voices heard—but, of course, the government didn’t listen. Their work is appreciated. I know they work really hard. All the things that they do are to make sure that Ontarians do receive the best health service that they can deliver.

I just want to say that my thoughts are with the family from the member for Halton Hills’ remarks, and I look forward to this bill going to committee so that we can talk about how the Ombudsman is so important for oversight.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Wellington–Halton Hills, you have two minutes for a response.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I must say I really appreciate the responses of all of my colleagues to my remarks this morning. The member for Timiskaming–Cochrane, thank you very much. He is absolutely right, and I’m sure he has numerous examples in his own riding of constituents with health care needs. Obviously, he’s absolutely correct, and that was the point of my speech: When we waste precious health care dollars, when we’re not paying attention to proper oversight, when there seems to be little regard for waste and nobody seems to care, we’re taking money away from front-line patients. We should care; we should care about that, and we need to make greater efforts in that respect.

I want to thank the Minister of Rural Affairs for his kind comments. Certainly we would appreciate his support within the cabinet on this issue. We very much appreciated having the opportunity to meet his relative, who is the Wellington county Queen of the Furrow, earlier this week. It was very kind of him to invite us to do that, and I thank him.

I especially want to thank my friend and colleague the member for Halton for his comments. Yes, he has been well acquainted with the Phipps family for many years. In fact, I spoke to him this morning and consulted with him in his office before, while I was working on my remarks, to seek his advice. Again, I appreciate very much his support, because on many of these issues, these are nonpartisan issues, and we should be willing to work together to ensure that they are resolved.

I also want to thank my friend the member for London–Fanshawe for her kind comments. Again, this shows, I think, an indication that this should be considered a non-partisan issue. It’s unfortunate; sometimes we do need to bring the issues forward in the Legislature to draw public attention to them, to ensure that they’re not shuffled by the wayside. I would again ask the Minister of Health to do whatever she can to expedite this process, to approve Kalydeco for the cystic fibrosis patients in Ontario who have this genetic defect that makes this drug work to be a miracle cure for those families.

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

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Today I will speak about Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulances. Ontarians deserve an ambulance service that is second to none. It’s a service that we rely on to provide safe and high-quality care. We certainly want to thank the service providers, pilots, paramedics and all front-line personnel for their dedicated service, but we also know why the Liberal government has introduced this bill.

Our health critic, Christine Elliott, made a good point in her response to the minister’s statement on February 26: “This government cobbled together this piece of legislation in haste, in order to provide cover for the ministry’s and minister’s failure to do their job and to provide the appropriate oversight of the air ambulance service in Ontario.” She continued, “What’s even more troubling is, the legislation was put together before the public accounts committee heard from all of the relevant witnesses and before we understood what the conditions were that led to this air ambulance mess at Ornge in the first place.

How can you possibly expect to develop a piece of legislation when you don’t really even know what the problem is yet?”

But we do know one thing: There has been abuse of public money at Ornge. My colleague Lisa Thompson, the member from Huron–Bruce, had this to say: “Ontario taxpayers deserve so much better. When you hear that there’s an executive spending literally double digits on a bottle of water, taking trips across the world on the taxpayers’ back, it goes to show that this oversight—this ministry has been totally benign and turned a blind eye to the issues at hand.” I agree with her. She is absolutely right. While waste and mismanagement and abuse of public money was taking place, the government didn’t take notice.

It didn’t take action. Meanwhile, patients appeared to be—at the highest levels of Ornge and in the government—a secondary concern.

It’s frightening, what we have heard about how the lives of patients were put at risk because of inadequate equipment or insufficient resources where it really counted. Ornge purchased helicopters that didn’t even allow paramedics to adequately do their job; in some cases they couldn’t even administer CPR.

John O’Toole, my colleague from Durham, raised several examples in a previous debate of abuse of public trust. He told the House about expensive, high-speed racing boats that once were docked in his riding. He spoke about the motorcycles, the fancy headquarters—and the list goes on. To anyone listening to these stories from our part of the province, they have to wonder, “How was this allowed to happen on the taxpayers’ dime? Who allowed it to happen?”

Since the day these abuses at Ornge were uncovered, the government has done whatever it could to deflect the blame. Instead of taking responsibility, the government tried to do the opposite. The Minister of Health claims that she did not have the authority to exercise proper oversight at Ornge. She said the performance agreement was weak, and that it wasn’t adequate. The Auditor General clearly disputes that. It was the minister’s government that signed the performance agreement, so it’s not very credible of them to turn around and say they didn’t have the proper authority to act.

The government can’t say it wasn’t warned. My colleague our health critic said, “The ministry’s failure to listen and take action following the good advice from the Auditor General in 2005 demonstrates that the ministry has failed to provide appropriate service to Ontarians for years. The warning signs were there, and this failure in oversight and management has only worsened in recent years. In the Auditor General’s 2012 special report on Ornge air ambulance, he admonishes the government for failing to meet its oversight commitment.”

It’s too bad that a number of years ago the government didn’t take seriously what was going on at Ornge. We brought this to the attention of the minister a couple of years ago, and it was not acknowledged.

I want to return to the service personnel, the people who do their jobs every day in a professional way, despite the leadership that has failed them and failed the people of the province.

I spoke to this House a couple of days ago about my granddaughter Danica getting a ride in an Ornge helicopter. She broke her arm near Lion’s Head, where our cottage is, and it was serious enough that they had to take her from Owen Sound to London to get it set. It was quite an experience for her. They strapped her into the ambulance—the crew was just exceptional—then they strapped my wife into the ambulance and she went along with them. They both got a helicopter ride. By that time, my granddaughter wasn’t in pain anymore, so she thought it was kind of neat looking at the lights as they flew down to London.

She had a nice ride in the helicopter. It was the crew who made that experience so great for my wife and my granddaughter.

It’s not those people that we speak about today. Those people just want to get on with their lives and get on with their jobs.

Fortunately, my granddaughter is doing very well. Her arm is fully repaired, and she has recovered well.

We also wrote a thank-you note to the crew and the hospital staff for their exceptional service in our time of need.

The government does a real disservice to those first responders when it comes forward with a bill that it hasn’t even thought through—or maybe they actually have thought it through. That’s what really concerns us.

Again, I want to return to what Christine Elliott said this week:

“Mr. Speaker, considering that the ministry failed to exercise its authority as problems plagued Ornge, I’m concerned about the possibility that the passing of Bill 11 will merely assist the government in covering up future scandals and mismanagement. Under Bill 11, cabinet can appoint special investigators to investigate a designated air ambulance service. The bill would also allow the minister to appoint a supervisor to oversee a designated service provider.

What’s more, these appointed investigators would report directly to the ministry, so instead of providing independent, transparent oversight of Ornge’s operation, the government is now going to hand-pick a group of individuals to provide oversight and report directly to those who appointed them. It makes absolutely no sense. These new positions proposed under Bill 11 only facilitate the government’s ability to cover up future scandals.”

That is what is most concerning to us: that the legislation could only make it easier for the government to cover up scandals, as it has tried to do so many times before on other issues.

And now the government tries to pretend as if it’s really a new government. Ridiculously, that’s what the government has been calling itself in press releases and in various ministries: “the new Ontario government.”

I think my colleague Rob Milligan had it right when he spoke this week and said, “One of the things that I find disturbing is the simple fact that this government—it’s the same government that was led under Mr. McGuinty, and now it’s under the new Premier, supposedly bringing in changes and the whole new facade. But no matter how many coats of white paint you put on the old fence, the old fence is broken and the old fence needs to be replaced.”

We agree, and we think the people of Ontario will agree, too, because they’ve seen waste and mismanagement; they’ve seen it repeated over and over. They’ve seen a government that hasn’t learned its lesson. The money the government wastes on scandal after scandal, from Ornge to eHealth to the gas plants, not to mention the expensive energy experiments, is money the government could have invested in health care.

We know that rural health care—we know that more needs to be done to deliver quality services where they’re needed. On a snowy day in February, our health critic came to Perth–Wellington to hear directly from my constituents, including hospital administrators, doctors, nurses and many other professionals from across the health care sector. We heard so many good ideas from the people who participated. The doctor shortage is a main concern for us in Perth–Wellington.

Participants suggested encouraging or requiring new doctors to practise in underserviced areas, making better use of technology to attract doctors, improving health care infrastructure and addressing work-life balance issues, amongst other things.

Wouldn’t it be great, Mr. Speaker, if the money that has been wasted at eHealth, at Ornge and other scandals that this government—wouldn’t it be great if we could get that money back and we could put it towards our doctor shortage in rural Ontario? We could put it towards new medicines that are coming out for very sick patients in this province. But that money is gone.

That’s what has happened for the last 10 years with this government, Mr. Speaker. This bill does not speak to what we need to get done in this province.

Thank you very much, sir.

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 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome the family of Leah Dehn today, who is the legislative page from Baden in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga. Visiting are her parents, Gary and Olivia; her brother, Oliver; and her grandparents Arthur and Donna Dehn from Niagara Falls, who have all come to watch Leah as the page captain today.

I’d like to welcome you to Queen’s Park, and I hope you enjoy your day.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m absolutely delighted to introduce the family of page Nadim Iddon. That’s Sadia Zaman, Neil Iddon and Samarah Iddon. They’re all here in the members’ gallery to witness proceedings, so we must be good.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s a pleasure to welcome Lou and Vanda Lovisotto from Richmond Hill, sitting in the members’ gallery.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to welcome today Val Millson and friend Shelly Van Aaken to the Queen’s Park House today. Val is the mother of a wonderful page by the name of Ellen Jansen. She’s done a great job.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: I’d like to acknowledge that today, I’m going to have the family of page Emily Kostiuk, specifically her mother, Julie Rosenberg. I know she’s not here yet, but I welcome her, and she will be here soon.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m honoured to introduce a good friend of mine and one of my great staff members: John Fraser from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased, on behalf of the member from Windsor West, to introduce the parents of page Stone Haines. His father, Kelvin Haines, is here; and his mother, Mariam Roth. Welcome to you both.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’d like to introduce my friend from North Bay, who had so much fun here yesterday he came back: Ishmael Van Der Rassel.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Sarah Zintel is a student in the Centennial College sports journalism post-graduate program. She will be interviewing me today on my impact in our riding, Ottawa–Orléans. Sarah has been involved in our community as Navan Fair ambassador.

Sarah, welcome to Queen’s Park.

M me France Gélinas: I’m happy and sad to say welcome and good-bye: La mère de Magalie Malette, une page qui est avec nous depuis deux semaines, a également été avec nous pendant deux semaines. C’est sa dernière journée. Bienvenue et au revoir.

I wanted to introduce Michael Hurley from the Ontario Council of Hospital Unions, who is here—not quite here, but on his way to support the family whose loved one was tragically killed in a long-term-care home two weeks ago.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is with regret that I announce to the House that this is the last day for our pages. I would offer us an opportunity to share our gratitude to them.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There is no truth to the rumour that the Minister of the Environment has asked for triple their pay. There is no truth to that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay offers us some good advice: to ask them if they want to sit next week. Thank you very much.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On that regrettable note, it is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Premier. At the justice committee this morning, we heard testimony that was both incredible yet not credible at all.

Here’s the history: TransCanada turns down an offer for $712 million. David Livingston is brought in as the fixer. He’s given no dollar ceiling—carte blanche. He has no energy expertise whatsoever, and yet he’s the man who crafts five options to relocate our gas plants in Ontario.

Under oath, the OPA tells us the TransCanada deal was close to $1 billion. He’s the chief of staff to the Premier who announced the cost is $40 million. I say to you, Premier: Who is telling the truth?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Yet again, we had an individual who is now a private citizen, similar to what happened with Ms. Turnbull, who appeared in front of the committee earlier this week. They came forward and under oath answered questions to the best of their ability. I cannot help it if the opposition is calling witnesses who are not giving them the answers that they want.

Mr. Livingston provided an explanation. He answered questions at great length, and I understand that the committee has asked him to come back. So let’s let the committee do its work and let’s stop engaging in these types of drive-by smears of key individuals who are now in private life and have given of their time to come before the committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: David Livingston, the $350,000-a-year civil servant, told us that he had a blank cheque when he was leading negotiations to settle with TransCanada on the Oakville power plant cancellation.

One document shows TransCanada received a $712-million offer, yet Mr. Livingston, the chief negotiator, said he was unaware of that offer. Another shows that the province would “be pleased” if the total cost didn’t exceed $1.2 billion. This is absolutely unbelievable. A billion-dollar deal is done with absolutely no financial end in sight.

Premier, are you finally ready to admit the $40-million figure you tried to pass off as the total cost is an absolute fabrication?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On the edge of the line. I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I withdraw, Speaker.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, again, I think we’re starting to see that the opposition once again has only a passing acquaintance with some of the facts. Let’s quote from what Mr. Livingston told the standing committee this morning about his expertise in this matter:

“Before I ran Infrastructure Ontario, I had a 30-year career in banking. Especially in my latter days in banking, I was mostly involved with the development of strategy and doing mergers and acquisitions work”—

Interjection.

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

Hon. John Milloy: —“broad background in negotiating agreements between private sector companies. I think the way the government looked at that was that they had, in me and in people at Infrastructure Ontario, expertise in negotiating with the private sector that they felt was of use in trying to make sure that we get the best deal for the taxpayer.”

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We also heard and saw, in an August 2011 email titled “Confidential Advice to Cabinet,” that Mr. Livingston offered up five proposals to satisfy TransCanada. He told us that he crafted—he crafted—these options with no idea of what they would cost or with no energy expertise at all.

Premier, according to sworn testimony, the Ontario Power Authority said this haphazard approach to planning the delivery of energy in Ontario will cost almost $1 billion. Yet on September 25, Premier, you stood in this House and said the total cost was only $40 million. Premier, who is telling the truth?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, the question of cost is something that’s being looked at by the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature. It’s something that is being undertaken by the committee itself. I cannot help it—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Oxford, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: —that the committee keeps—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Leeds–Grenville, come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: I cannot help it, Mr. Speaker, that the committee keeps calling witnesses, and—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Oxford, second time.

Hon. John Milloy: —if they don’t like their answers, they’re blaming me.

Let me quote again—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just to make sure you hear, because you kept talking while I was asking you to stop: The member from Oxford will come to order—second time.

Carry on.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let me quote Mr. Livingston about the role of Infrastructure Ontario in these negotiations. He said, “Because I think most of the people that work there”—meaning Infrastructure Ontario—“were from the private sector. All the projects that we had done, everything that we were doing, were essentially in negotiation with the private sector, so we had expertise in doing this and how to do it. The government felt that if we came back with options or views, they were ones as being in the taxpayers’ interests; they were views that they could trust.”

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the Premier. This whole ordeal started when we asked some simple questions in the estimates committee almost a year ago. We asked: How much does the cancellation of these two power plants cost? You gave no answer. We asked: Where in the government’s estimates were these costs located? You gave no answer. We asked: Where in the budget were these costs located? Again, Mr. Speaker, they gave no answer.

Despite all the documents you’ve given us, we’re only looking for two: How much did Oakville cost, and how much did the cancellation of Mississauga cost? Premier, will you provide these documents today, or will you continue to conceal the truth from the people of Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Mr. Rob Leone: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m happy to respond to the member opposite, and I’m happy to respond because I have done and we have done everything in our power to make sure that all the information is available, that all the questions that have been asked and continue to be asked are being answered.

We have asked the Auditor General to look into both of these situations. We’ve called for an expansion of the committee so that the committee could ask questions on the full range of issues, and I’ve agreed to appear at the committee.

Mr. Speaker, we have made it clear that we want the questions to be answered. I really would think that the member opposite, who was integrally involved in asking these questions initially, would see that there is an opportunity, and that opportunity is ongoing at the committee to get those questions answered.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to answer the questions I asked happened in May 2012 in the estimates committee, and we still don’t have those answers.

Back to the Premier: David Livingston testified this morning that during his handling of the gas plant scandal at Infrastructure Ontario, there were many details of which he was not aware—important details. Mr. Livingston had no knowledge of the $1.2-billion maximum settlement figure brought forth by that government. Mr. Livingston had no knowledge that an offer of $712 million was made to TransCanada. Mr. Livingston also could not say for sure whether he took notes at meetings overseeing the cancellation of a billion-dollar power plant.

Mr. Speaker, this is a case of bureaucrats gone wild. I’ve never negotiated a billion-dollar power plant deal, but if I had, I probably would bring a legal pad and a few Bic pens.

Why was the man the people of Ontario trusted to oversee these political cancellations so unprepared for his responsibilities?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, these drive-by smears are unacceptable. Mr. Livingston, Tiffany Turnbull—their witnesses. They called them before the committee, and under oath they answered questions to the best of their ability, and because they don’t like the answers, they’re taking it out on them. These people are deserving of our respect.

More importantly, I think it’s time that we look again at the facts of the situation. We offered to provide them a government-wide deposit of documents on the gas plants, and they voted against it—a fact that was confirmed by the Chair this morning. We offered them a select committee on this matter, and instead they wanted to engage in a witch hunt on a former member of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, if there’s transparency that’s needed on this issue, it’s from the Progressive Conservative Party.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, the only reason why we have answers to any questions is because we continue to pursue these things in this House and in committee.

Fast forward to a year later: David Livingston, the chief of staff to Premier Dalton McGuinty, is now tasked with concealing the truth from Ontarians. He testified today that he was not shown the memorandum of understanding signed by that government. He said that the Premier’s office was not shown the memorandum of understanding signed by that government. Are we to believe that the Premier of Ontario was not consulted on a $800-million decision?

The current Premier stood in this House and said it only cost $40 million. The former Premier told the Toronto Star that the total cost was $40 million. Who allowed both Premiers to make mistakes, and why didn’t anyone bother to pick up the memorandum of understanding, read it and tell them so?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about an individual, a fine public servant, who is now in the private sector, who appeared in committee this morning and answered questions under oath. I cannot help it that their strategy is failing and that they are calling witness after witness after witness who does not support their position.

Again, let’s review the facts. They opposed the gas plant. We came into power, we followed up with it, and they screamed bloody murder. We offered them a select committee, and instead they wanted a witch hunt against a private member. We offered to give them every document in government, and they voted against it.

Mr. Speaker, they have had more positions on the gas plant issue than the Kama Sutra over the past couple of months, and I think it’s time that they came clear on their position in this matter.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. According to press reports, the Premier thinks it’s time to talk about raising the $100,000 income threshold for Ontario’s so-called sunshine list of public sector workers.

The average Ontarian, earning around a third of that much, is interested in another conversation. They want the Premier to talk about the government’s failure to cap CEO salaries. Is the Premier ready to talk about that?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I certainly have never said anything like what the leader of the opposition has noted. There are conversations about the nature of the sunshine list and the thresholds and so on. But what I have said is that people need to know what people are earning. They need to know the work that is being done for that money that is being earned.

I don’t disagree that there does need to be a conversation about those upper limits and how we deal with those rates of pay, so I don’t think anything that the leader of the opposition is saying is inconsistent—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: She’s the leader of the third party.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Leader of the third party. Sorry; I apologize. The leader of the third party.

I don’t think there’s anything inconsistent about what she’s saying with what I have said all along.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Last September, the former Minister of Finance said sky-high CEO compensation in the public sector was a problem and pledged “to bring ... overly generous compensation packages back to reality.” That’s a quote.

The government said they would cap CEO salaries at $418,000 a year. Is the Premier going to take some action on this commitment, or is this just another conversation that leads us back to the same old status quo?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is correct that we have identified this as an issue. It is still our policy that we do need to look at that, and we will take action. I think that it is a broader conversation about across-the-board CEO compensation, and I think that’s what the leader of the third party is getting at.

We’ve been engaged in compensation restraint over the last couple of years, and we’re seeing the results of that. We’re seeing that there are savings that have accrued to the government. That’s how we’ve managed to reach our targets in terms of deficit reduction. It’s a very important part of our fiscally responsible plan going forward.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The average single-parent family income in Ontario is $38,000 a year. For them, $100,000 is a lot of money, and $500,000 is more than they’ll earn in a decade. They’re being told they have to wait for home care. They have to pay higher bills, they have to struggle just to find a job, and they see a Premier who seems to be completely out of touch.

When will this government get their priorities straight and keep their promise to put a cap on CEO salaries in the public sector?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really believe that the leader of the third party is conflating a number of issues.

First of all, she’s talking about the discrepancies in earning capacity of people in all sorts of endeavours. I am not going to disagree with her. I believe that there is extremely valuable work being done by people who are not being compensated well in the province. That is the reality. There are sectors where people are not compensated well, and the reality is that there are other sectors that, for whatever reason, society values in a different way, and they are being paid much higher salaries. That is a societal issue and I think it’s something that all parties could talk about.

But what we have done is we have made investments to improve the lot of people who are looking for home care, people who want their children to go to university and want it to be affordable—university and college. That’s the work that we’ve been doing.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is for the Premier. Yesterday, the government said that they support the goal of reducing auto insurance rates, but drivers are afraid that this is yet another example where we need a little more action and a little less conversation.

Is the government going to give this goal a mandate to reduce auto insurance rates by 15% in the coming year? That’s my question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will just say what I have said before on this subject: This is an issue about which I’ve been concerned for a number of months—over a year. I had a round table in my own riding where we talked about high insurance premiums. I brought in the Insurance Bureau of Canada; I brought in the brokers’ association. We had a very complete conversation about the issues.

During the leadership, I was one of the candidates who raised this issue early on. I had met with people in Mississauga, in Brampton, across the GTA, and I made it very clear that this was a priority.

Yesterday, we supported the opposition motion. We said that we were concerned about this issue and the principle underlying that motion: that premiums need to come down. We support that and we are going to take action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people are cynical about these promises because they’ve heard them over and over and over again. Two years ago, the government brought in reforms that put $2 billion of savings into the bank accounts of the insurance industry, and rates in this province for drivers went up, not down. Now the government’s saying that they want the rates to come down, but they won’t tell us how they’re going to get there.

Why should drivers believe anything the Premier is saying this time around?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Because we have demonstrated that we can bring auto insurance rates down. Starting in 2004, we took action; they went down 11%. And the member opposite is right: They have gone up again—which is why I agree with her that there’s something that needs to be done.

We are going to take action. We believe that auto insurance rates should come down, which is why we supported the motion yesterday. We appreciate the principle underlying that motion; we’re going to take action. I have said clearly in public and in our private meetings that I want to work with her on this one, and the Minister of Finance is exploring the options to get at the root causes so that we can see those premium rates go down.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People in Ontario have to be insured. They must be insured if they’re going to get behind the wheel. In fact, we require them to purchase this product. The government’s job is to protect drivers and ensure that the prices are fair. Instead, Ontario drivers are paying the highest insurance rates in the entire country. They’ve made it clear to us and we’ve made it clear to the government: Enough conversation. It’s time for lower rates in this province.

Is the government going to give FSCO a mandate to reduce rates by 15% in the coming year or is it not?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re going to take action. We said we’re going to take action.

I take the leader of the third party’s point that that there needs to be a relationship between the reductions in the industry and the premium reductions. That’s exactly what the Minister of Finance is working on. We need to see those premium reductions, and we’ve done it before. We have made changes that brought reductions to premiums across the board in the province. We will do it again, and that’s why we agree with the leader of the third party that action needs to be taken. We’re going to do that.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, court documents were tabled in the public accounts committee that show that the recently appointed chief operating officer of Ornge, Robert Giguere, evaded giving evidence in the bankruptcy proceedings of Skyservice Airlines. That was the airline where he was president from October 2007 until it collapsed under a pile of debt in March of 2010. The documents show that the legal firm representing the court-appointed receiver made numerous unsuccessful attempts to obtain evidence from Mr. Giguere.

That evidence was related to money that was transferred from the general account of the company to another bank account prior to receivership.

Can the minister tell us: Was she was aware of Mr. Giguere’s involvement in these bankruptcy proceedings before he was hired, and of his disrespect for the process?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s disappointing to see that the member from Newmarket–Aurora continues to focus on discrediting hard-working people who are working to make Ornge even better. Ontario is well into a new chapter, and we’re seeing the results that have come from the new leadership that is in place at Ornge. We have a new patient advocate. We have a conflict-of-interest protocol established. We have a new CEO. We have a new COO. We have a new board chair and we have an entirely new board member. We have a whistle-blower hotline that is now active. We’ve got salaries posted online. We have the new medical interiors. We’ve got the Thunder Bay improvement plan.

There is a lot of good news happening at Ornge, and I would think if anybody in this Legislature wanted to stand up and applaud the progress, it would be the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: What is very disappointing about that response is that apparently one more time the minister has no idea what’s going on or who her new COO is. The documents that were tabled at the public accounts committee include a notice of motion for substituted service. Why? Because her COO refused to give evidence and refused to appear when he was served. Counsel for the receiver made several unsuccessful attempts to contact Mr. Giguere, including email, telephone, letter and personal service of a summons, and he refused to even acknowledge.

The other is a sworn affidavit in support of a motion that states that Mr. Giguere was warned that if he refuses to acknowledge he would be compelled to testify. The last witness who refused to testify and had to be compelled was Mr. Mazza.

Will the minister stand up and tell us whether she supports—

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

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think the people of Ontario might want to know who this Robert Giguere is, because he is an example of the kind of very high-calibre people who are coming to work at Ornge because they are committed to providing excellent care to people in their time of greatest need. Mr. Giguere is the former president and CEO of Skyservice Airlines. He previously served as the organization’s COO and an account executive with Transport Canada. He held senior leadership positions at Air Canada, including executive vice-president of operations and senior vice-president of flight operations.

He began his aviation career as a pilot with Air Canada in 1974. He currently holds both an airline transport pilot and flight engineer licence. His extensive aviation experience is well known. He is a highly regarded individual who should not be subject to this kind of smear.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Today, the government’s former lead negotiator on the Oakville gas plant and former chief of staff to the Premier of Ontario said that the treasury board would have reviewed the memorandum of understanding between TransCanada and the Ontario Power Authority, and the treasury board would have reported to the cabinet about that document that resolved that conflict.

How much did the treasury board tell the cabinet it would cost to settle the gas plant scandal?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the question of cost is something that’s being looked at by the Auditor General, an officer of this Legislature. It’s also something that’s being looked at by the committee.

Quite frankly, the committee’s work would be a lot easier if they had voted for a government motion that was put forward—and confirmed today by the Chair that it was put forward and voted—on the fact that we were going to give a cross-government collection of documents to the committee that went far beyond anything that had ever been requested in the past, but to my shock—I think most members on this side of the House were left scratching their heads—that member and his colleagues put their hands up and voted against such a motion, which would have made the answer to many of the questions the committee is looking at much easier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: That same lead negotiator and former chief of staff told the committee that he didn’t know the history of the file when it was given to him, that he apparently didn’t know the costs and wasn’t briefed on them, and that he didn’t cost the plans that he brought back. When he was chief of staff to the Premier, he never looked at the memorandum of understanding that settled the conflict with TransCanada Enterprises. So the lead negotiator and the Premier’s chief of staff didn’t know what was going on here. Who was in charge of protecting the public interest?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, let me quote from what Mr. Livingston told the standing committee on justice policy:

“Before I ran Infrastructure Ontario, I had a 30-year career in banking. Especially in my latter days in banking, I was mostly involved with the development of strategy and doing mergers and acquisitions work, so I had a fairly broad background in negotiating agreements between private sector companies. I think the way the government looked at that was that they had, in me and in people at Infrastructure Ontario, expertise in negotiating with the private sector that they felt was of use in trying to make sure that we get the best deal for the taxpayer.”

Mr. Livingston is now a private citizen. He came under oath and answered questions to the best of his ability. I understand the committee wants him back, and I think the sort of drive-by smears that we’ve been seeing here this morning are beneath the members of the opposition. Let’s let the committee do its work.

TUITION

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the very thoughtful and considerate Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, students in my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell know all about the importance of post-secondary education. As a result of Ontario’s and our government’s investment in education, we have one of the most highly skilled workforces in the country. Over a lifetime, those with college or university educations are much less likely to face unemployment and will earn hundreds of thousands of dollars more over the course of their careers.

Post-secondary education is a path to participating in Ontario’s job market. Tough financial times have affected everyone in this province, and many students have expressed their desire to continue with their education; however, many are concerned about the stability of the current tuition framework.

Speaker, through you, could the minister inform this House what the government is doing to help ensure that post-secondary education is affordable and accessible to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the long-winded member for the question.

Our government is absolutely committed to providing access to our world-class colleges and universities. That’s why, earlier this morning, I was pleased to announce that our government introduced a new tuition framework. The new Ontario government is reducing increases to tuition for college and university students from 5% to 3%, which is an average of inflation plus 1%. That’s a savings of about $1,200 for your average undergraduate student over the course of the framework.

We’ll be reforming the practice of deferral fees to make them fairer for students, and we’ll be working with our post-secondary partners to address their concerns about flat fees. This new tuition policy strikes a balance: We’re increasing fairness and affordability for students and their families while providing institutions with the long-term financial stability needed to provide the high-quality education that we’re counting on them to provide to our students. Our students will have access to high-quality education throughout this—

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

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister, for that comprehensive response. It’s wonderful to hear that the new Ontario government is continuing to focus on providing better access to post-secondary education. I know that the students of my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell will be pleased to hear about the new tuition framework.

Our post-secondary education system prepares students for the future. The Ontario economy rests on the shoulders of a strong, educated workforce, and I’m happy to see that this new tuition framework will help students keep our province moving forward. Providing the tools to achieve these goals is important with the students that I’ve spoken with.

What other ways is Ontario making post-secondary education more accessible to students, and can the minister please update this House on the financial assistance available to students in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: A very important supplementary. Ontario has one of the most robust student financial assistance programs in the entire country. We’re ensuring that our students have access to higher education based on their ability to learn, not their ability to pay. Our government is continuing with its successful 30%-off tuition grant. This program is now benefiting over 230,000 low- and middle-income families across this province. For the 2013-14 year, that will translate, for students in university, to savings of $1,730, and for students in college, savings of about $790.

Mr. Speaker, more than 20 different provincial and federal grants, bursary and scholarship programs are available to Ontario post-secondary students. On top of all that financial assistance we provide our students, we continue to limit annual repayable debt to $7,300.

I look forward to working with students and our post-secondary leaders as we work together to build a globally competitive post-secondary education—

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities as well. That’s interesting: 5% to 3%, and yet you’re hitting trades workers 676%. Very interesting. You’ve got to be proud of that one.

Minister, today in Ontario, we have a youth unemployment rate of 17%. Right here in the GTA, it is closer to 20%. That’s 20% of youth between 16 and 24 who are unemployed. At the same time, we have a shortage of skilled workers in Canada that the federal government estimates at 260,000 people right today. Last year, the federal government filled this void by importing over 213,000 temporary workers.

Think, Minister. There’s something wrong here. We are filling skilled jobs by importing workers while our youth hang out in the malls. We believe that training more apprentices by changing the ratios is key to creating more jobs in trades for the future. I know you are new and uneducated on this file—that’s clear—and clearly care little—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you—time. The Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: That’s okay, Mr. Speaker. I don’t mind the insults. I’m happy to respond to the questions, because our priority on this side of the House is increasing apprenticeships across this province.

I actually want to commend the member for his interest in apprenticeships. I think his heart is in the right place. I think it’s really important that we increase the number of opportunities for our young people to seek out apprenticeships, but let me tell you, there has been no greater champion of increasing the number of apprenticeships across this province than this government, so we welcome the member’s support in our efforts to do that.

We have doubled the number of apprenticeships across the province from 60,000 to 120,000, and when it comes to ratios—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ll speak more to that in my supplementary.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Your ignorance and denial on this file will not put our young people in Ontario into meaningful jobs. Instead, they will join the exodus of others to other provinces that are not catering to the demands of union business managers. Even your superhero Ron Johnson follows the predictions of the Conference Board of Canada and notes that Canada will be short some 360,000 skilled job workers within 12 years.

So my question to the minister is this: Minister, if you are so convinced that your archaic ratio system in Ontario is the best system, can you explain and tell us what is wrong with the Alberta, Saskatchewan and BC ratios, where our young people are going for training and jobs?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s one thing to personally insult the members on the other side of the House, and it’s one thing to personally insult one of his former colleagues in this Legislature, a PC member who is working very hard on behalf of the skilled trades across this province. That may be his approach; our approach is to work with people.

I’ve got to tell you, the member really ought to get his facts straight, because when it comes to reducing ratios, the College of Trades has already reduced ratios on six different occasions. Do you know how many times, when the PCs were in office, they reduced ratios? Zero, Mr. Speaker—zero. So the member ought to get a little bit of history on his own party, and maybe he should then start with apologizing for the actions of his own party.

We’re very excited about the opportunities to grow the skilled trades. We’re very excited about the opportunities we’re creating for apprentices across this province. We’re going to work with the skilled trades—

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

New question.

GAMING POLICY

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, Paul Godfrey said that the OLG plans to provide the government with a new municipal funding formula in April. So the government doesn’t even have a real plan on casinos but yet is moving full steam ahead as if it did, while keeping Ontarians in the dark, pushing casinos on communities that don’t want them, without giving Ontarians a chance to express their views.

Premier, during this afternoon’s debate on my motion, will this government come clean with Ontarians and agree to allow communities to have a real say on whether they want casinos in their communities after they’ve been given the full picture?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, it’s actually hard to know where to start with this question because we’ve been so clear that communities have the authority to determine whether they want to have a casino or not. We have said over and over again that neither the government nor the OLG is going to force a community to take a casino; that councils are going to decide. Councils are going to decide how they want to consult with their communities. They can have a referendum. They can do other kinds of consultations. They can—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That was quick. The Attorney General is not helping by talking while your Premier is answering, nor is the member from Leeds–Grenville, who is not sitting in his seat. Then I could tell him to stop again.

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ll just end by saying that one of the reasons I am standing here today is because I believe in the local democratic process. I fought against the amalgamation of cities across the province, Mr. Speaker, and I believe that communities should have autonomy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Taras Natyshak: On one hand, this government claims that the Slots at Racetracks Program funds were being misused. On the other hand, the OLG is making contracts that are not open to public scrutiny at all.

Government forced the horse racing industry to take secret transitional funding deals, pending an impending deadline at the end of March. Further, the OLG has negotiated contracts to lease space for slot machines from racetracks, which—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ll withdraw, but he’s a hypocrite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s not the process. The member will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’ll withdraw.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Further, the OLG has negotiated contracts to lease space for slot machines from racetracks, which are also not open for public review.

Will the Premier explain to Ontarians why the government is pushing secret deals on the horse racing industry, endangering thousands of rural jobs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we are working very hard to make sure that there’s a sustainable horse racing industry in the province. That’s the objective.

The panel that was put in place looked at the previous situation and said that the SARP program was unaccountable, that it was not transparent, that the industry was fractious, and that it had lost its focus on the customer. I’m sure that’s not what the member is interested in supporting. I’m sure that he would rather see a sustainable industry. That’s what we’re working on.

The fact is that there are now nine racetracks that have a transitional agreement—nine out of 17. I think that is a very good number. That’s more than half, Mr. Speaker. The negotiations go on, and, yes, they are confidential negotiations. By nature, by definition, the negotiations are confidential.

The horse racing industry will be sustainable. It will be smaller, but it will be sustainable.

GO TRANSIT

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. Like many Mississaugans, I often take the GO train to come to work. I take the GO train because it’s fast, it’s convenient and it’s green. I even get some work done. Sometimes I catch up with friends, including fellow MPPs. Not only is the GO train important to me personally, but it’s important to all of the residents of Mississauga, when you consider the fact that what the GO train really does is it connects Ontario’s third-largest city, Mississauga, to Ontario’s largest city, Toronto. So it’s no surprise that I follow this file very, very closely.

I recently noticed that Metrolinx is looking at buying some tracks from CN. Minister, could you tell us what this means for GO commuters across the GTA?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I want to thank the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, because she’s doing a great job on behalf of her constituents. I’ve got seven critics in the opposition—seven; I’m a make-work project for the opposition—and it takes my own member to ask me a transit question, because they won’t.

We are actually investing in $52.5 million worth of track, which is another 13.2 kilometres between Oakville and Burlington. One of the reasons we’re doing that is because of members from Oakville and from Mississauga who have really championed this. Owning this track for the next 100 years will improve travel time and help working families get to work and get home. We’re now working towards two-way service.

This government is more committed to transit and transportation infrastructure than any other in about 50 years in this province, and we’re pretty proud of that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Thank you for that update, Minister, and I look forward to the commute getting even smoother, now that we have more tracks. My understanding is that passengers are going to get priority over freight.

My other question, Minister, is this: Mississauga is one of the fastest-growing cities, and it’s really growing along the Milton GO corridor, so I wanted to know what we are doing to introduce all-day, full-day GO service on the Milton line.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Anyone who rides GO service, whether they’re going out to Kitchener-Waterloo or out to Aldershot, will see massive construction going on, on all of those lines. Why is that happening? Because we are building the capacity for greater express trains, for two-way service. We are now moving to two-way all-day service on all seven GO lines and also, obviously, on the Lakeshore service.

This costs money. We’ve already put over $16.1 billion in public transit, including more than $7.7 billion into GO.

There are members opposite who say that we can’t have new revenue tools, that somehow we can’t afford that. Some $6 billion is coming out of our economy in the GTA—and that’s coming out of working families’ income. It is about young people who don’t get jobs because of that $6 billion, and it is lost investment.

There is nothing more expensive to the taxpayers of Ontario than inaction and a lack of investment. We stand for working families—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Premier. Premier, your predecessor, who graced us with his presence yesterday for the first time since prorogation, sliced and diced the Taxpayer Protection Act every time he felt like raising taxes or introducing a new tax, which he did often. But at least when the member for Ottawa South was Premier, he had gone to the electorate and was given a mandate, even though keeping his promises was not his strong suit.

Premier, the people of Ontario haven’t given you a mandate. You’ve been selected, not elected. Will you show the voters of Ontario respect by supporting legislation to strengthen the Taxpayer Protection Act and realize that you need to have a conversation with the people of Ontario before you raise new taxes or find new revenue tools?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m going to dig down into that question and assume that the concern from the member is that we might actually commit to building transit in the province of Ontario over the next decade. I think that’s actually what the member is getting at.

I had the privilege of serving as Minister of Transportation for a couple of years. It was very clear to me that the infrastructure deficit across this province is manifested in a couple of ways. One is that we have not had enough transit built in our urban centres across the province for at least 25 years. Secondly, the municipal infrastructure—our roads and our bridges across the province, of which there are 13,000—needs attention. We need to make sure that there is dedicated funding for that infrastructure in our urban centres and in our rural and small-town communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Back to the Premier: Premier, we learned long ago that you ought not to make assumptions. But, Premier, that’s not a real conversation with me or the people of Ontario. It’s not real democracy either. That’s just lip service.

I hear from constituents from my riding and from across the province that they can’t afford another Liberal-NDP tax hike. I hear from my constituents who are moving west to escape the economic failure of your new government. A conversation is a two-way street. You’ve been doing a lot of talking; it’s time to actually start listening.

Premier, I know champagne socialism is your drink of choice when you meet with your member from Hamilton Centre, but it’s time for both of you to stand up, put down your mimosas and help protect hard-working people of this province from another tax grab and strengthen the Taxpayer Protection Act.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

We are committed to bringing in a budget that acknowledges the needs of this province, that acknowledges that being fiscally responsible is absolutely essential if we are going to be able to continue to provide the services that people in this province need: education and health care, and investment in infrastructure, because I would say that infrastructure is one of the fundamental conditions for economic growth.

I would expect that the member opposite, given the rural and vast riding that he represents, would actually be supportive of us making sure that infrastructure is in place for all of his constituents so that goods can move, so that they can get to work, so that their infrastructure is maintained—

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

TUITION

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. We know that Ontario students are paying the highest tuition fees in the country while receiving the least per-student investment from this government. Today, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities announced a new tuition framework that will once again see our colleges and university students watch their tuition fees increase by 3% to 5% every year for the next four years.

Can the minister explain how increasing fees will help the youth of this province afford the education they need?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I was very pleased this morning to be able to announce that, indeed, we’ll be lowering the burden on students on future tuition increases from what would have been 5% under the current framework to 3% on average. Mr. Speaker, that will be a savings of about $1,200 over the course of the framework to those very students.

I’ll welcome the member’s support as well for the 30%-off tuition grant, which benefits students right across this province—low- and middle-income students. We’re now up to 240,000 students across Ontario that are benefiting from this grant.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve been listening very carefully to the concerns of students across this province, and we’re responding very robustly to ensure that not only are we reducing the burden on students; we’re also ensuring that we maintain the quality of our post-secondary-education system, which is just as important.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: The government continues to ignore the rising costs of tuition as a barrier to post-secondary education. Under their watch, the Liberals have allowed tuition fees to increase by more than 70% in Ontario.

According to the Bank of Montreal report in the Toronto Star, a child born in Canada today could pay more than $140,000 for a four-year university degree. The people of London, who are facing a 9.2% unemployment rate, can ill afford those costs.

Can the minister explain why Ontario students and their families should continue to pay the highest tuition fees in the country and continue this cycle of debt?

Mr. Speaker, we’re not satisfied with that. We think we can do even more. We’re the best almost in the world when it comes to that. We think we can do even more. That’s why we moved today to adjust our tuition framework, going forward, to provide up to $1,200 in savings for your average undergraduate student over the course of the next four years. That’s why we remain committed to our 30%-off tuition grant.

Mr. Speaker, we’re going to get this job done, working with our post-secondary partners to ensure we’re providing the best-quality education at affordable costs.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

My riding of Scarborough–Agincourt is the home of many new Ontarians. They make significant social, cultural and economic contributions to the community and to our province.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration: What is the government doing to support newcomers in acquiring language skills?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for her question. From my work with her at the Toronto District School Board and here in the House, I know that she’s a tireless advocate for newcomers in our community. Thank you so much.

Mr. Speaker, since 2003, this government has invested more than $900 million into programs and services that help newcomers get the language program services that they need and to ensure that they’re ready to work here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you to the minister for that overview of the ministry’s work in terms of helping newcomers in their communities.

In my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, we are fortunate to have several agencies that provide language training. They include the Centre for Information and Community Services, which provides over 20 language programs for newcomers, and a riding association called the Agincourt Community Services Association, which holds weekly conversational classes for newcomers. My constituents continue to tell me that language training programs are making a difference.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is the ministry doing to provide improved language training programs to a community like Scarborough–Agincourt?

Hon. Michael Coteau: The member is absolutely right. We are seeing great results from Ontario language training programs.

A number of changes to the adult language training programs are in progress to ensure that programs deliver the language training newcomers need. These changes will help ensure that programs are learner-focused and results-based. They will also improve the coordination between the federal and provincial government language training programs to address any gaps that may exist. For example, we expanded the eligibility of the programs to help more people get access to them, and we introduced instructor standards to ensure newcomers get quality instruction.

Our government remains committed to ensuring that programs continue to grow and evolve to meet the needs of Ontario’s newcomers. Mr. Speaker, we know that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question today is for the Premier. Premier, just over one year ago your government decided to wager 60,000 jobs when your party and the NDP joined forces to cancel the successful slots-at-racetracks partnership. We know that this wasn’t entirely the Liberals’ doing. It took the support and endorsement of the NDP caucus to allow your budget to pass and the death sentence to be imposed on families, horses and indeed the entire horse racing industry.

Premier, with no races currently scheduled for the upcoming season and eight tracks without a deal for 201