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

March 21, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-21 (PDF)

L026 - Wed 21 Mar 2012 / Mer 21 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 21 March 2012 Mercredi 21 mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HOME CARE

AUTISM TREATMENT

USER FEES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PAN AM GAMES

TOURISM

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

DIAMOND JUBILEE MEDAL

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SPECIAL REPORT,

AUDITOR GENERAL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DIETITIANS DAY

PENSION PLANS

DIETITIANS DAY

CO-OPERATIVES

GEORGE FREUNDLICH

OTTAWA ST. PATRICK’S PARADE

PENSION PLANS

PROGRAMME RÊVE ET RÉALITÉ

HEADWATERS HEALTH CARE CENTRE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT

ACT (BRAKE PAD STANDARDS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(NORMES RELATIVES

AUX PLAQUETTES DE FREIN)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PETITIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

INSURANCE RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

SCHOOL FACILITIES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

HYDRO RATES

SCHOOL CLOSURES

RURAL SCHOOLS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2012

SUPPLY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2012

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 8, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave / Projet de loi 30, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour les aidants naturels.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to rise this morning to speak on Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave.

This bill was introduced on December 8 and has been discussed on a couple of occasions. I thought it was important for us who are proud to be parents and family members. At this stage in life, I can tell you that these provisions of being able to take time off for compassionate leave and caregiver leave are important. We live in a busy economy.

Now, I would say this: Let’s be fair here. When the bill was introduced—I had a chance this morning in preparation here to look at the remarks made by the minister. No one can fault the intent at all, really. Quite frankly, it’s compassionate, it’s the right thing to do. That’s not in dispute here at all. I think that’s a given. Also, in looking at the response from our critic, Mr. Hillier, it basically said, “During those technical briefings with the minister’s staff I did have a number of concerns that were raised in those briefings.

The first of my concerns is just the very limited consultations that the ministry has done on this bill.” Of course, I expect at second reading it will go to public hearings to clarify some of the intents.

Again, I want to repeat, repeat, repeat on this thing. It’s important to say, compassionately, that we think it’s the right thing to do.

Now, this is where it becomes somewhat my job in the opposition to point out things that the minister—I see the minister is here; I appreciate that as well.

I should qualify as well: I worked in personnel for General Motors for probably about 10 years in my 31-year career. Part of that was dealing with these very issues of what’s paid time off, what’s not paid time off and what’s leave of absence. In fact, when I was first elected in 1995, I had a leave of absence for political purpose and for public service.

Now here’s the issue: For large corporations, many of them incorporate this as good HR policy. I’m also thinking of people I know who are independent. Take, for instance, a doctor’s office. They have a receptionist, probably a nurse. If one or both took the time off, they’re out of business. Now, who pays for it? That’s where we’re really getting into the implementation phase or the how to do it, how to get it right.

But I looked at the minister’s remarks. It was all very—“Our bill fulfills a commitment” that they made during the election of “a new kind of leave for family caregivers.” Everyone was looking forward to it. There’s not one nickel in this bill, not one cent in the bill, on behalf of the government. But what they are doing here is—she goes into this sad tirade here. Oh, here it is: Our proposal would give “up to eight weeks of unpaid job-protected leave to employees to care for seriously ill or injured family members.”

This is the real linchpin of the whole thing, and the people of Ontario have got to know just how shallow this particular government is. And that’s not the intent. The intent here—if it was done by our leader, Tim Hudak, we’d have a plan that was executed. There’d be a set of regulations that would allow this to become effective.

Here’s what it says here. Remember, the people taking the time off don’t get one nickel. In fact, the employer, you could argue, is saving money. There are 600,000 families in Ontario now that don’t even have a job. Caregiver allowance? They’re sitting at home watching Dr. Phil or Oprah or something.

Here’s the key: “We will again ask our federal counterparts to take the steps necessary to extend employment insurance benefits to those taking family caregiver leave.” The federal government has 10 provinces, and they try to have uniformity in health care, all these various things. Now Ontario’s coming in—it’s the largest province, about 13 million—and says, here’s another thing for you to do; here’s another requirement.

Who pays for unemployment insurance, by the way? It’s insurance. The employers pay for it. So this is a tax. This is a tax on employers. It’s a tax on jobs.

Now I want to repeat for the third time—let’s keep this in focus. We agree with the compassionate concern, the intent, the validation of that, the sincerity. They promised it. Here’s another one of those promises that doesn’t deliver. The intent is there, we all agree. I’m sure my friend from Trinity–Spadina agrees; in fact, I hope he speaks after me. But the fact is, this is so shallow, it’s actually—it gives away the whole way this current government works. This is the problem I have.

It’s like, right now, debt. When I think of the debt in the province of Ontario, that’s future taxes on the children. They’re looking good today for things they’re going to have to pay for tomorrow—your future, the cost of university, the cost of education, the lack of jobs. These are the things that aren’t being taken care of by this government. It all, to me, comes to a crystal-clear impression of what this government is not doing.

I did read in detail the bill. Here are some sections—there are some questions that need to be answered. I know the minister’s here, and the minister’s listening. I’m certain the minister will have public hearings on this.

The bill itself, for the public here, is one page. The cover’s bigger than the contents of the bill. There’s a

section two, subsection two, and it says here—it outlines all the people who are entitled, and I’ll just go through it because I have a few minutes here:

“

(1) The employee’s spouse;

“

(2) A parent, step-parent or foster parent of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

“

(3) A child, step-child or foster child of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

“

(4) A grandparent, step-grandparent, grandchild or step-grandchild of the employee or the employee’s spouse;

“

(5) The spouse of a child of the employee;

“

(6) The employee’s brother or sister …”

Now here’s a really interesting one—it’s broad and encompassing: the next-door neighbour. Well, it doesn’t say that, but it says, “Any individual prescribed as a family member for the purpose of this section.” So the next-door neighbour—why wouldn’t you want to care for the elderly person next door? I agree with that. Well, you can stick that in here.

My point is, this bill—who was asking for it? Who’s putting the demands on this, on the small business? I think of my brother-in-law, who’s got a delicatessen in Peterborough. He and his wife work all the time, and they’re very skilled. They have a little restaurant component to it. They work hard. They have one or two people who work for them, I think, usually at lunchtime and stuff like that. I wonder: Would they be entitled to take the time off because they’re—why not, if the cat was sick or the dog was sick? Let’s not trivialize. Let’s not trivialize here.

This pet may be the only contact—now, I don’t want to accuse them of being insensitive, but to some people who are living alone, their only care is for their pets.

I think this bill needs hearings very seriously because it’s so loose, and really what they’re doing is they’re blaming Stephen Harper. They’re blaming Stephen Harper. That’s who they’re blaming.

Not only this; this puts a bit of an implication on the health care system. You can’t get to a doctor now because you have to go to emergency, but they have to get some kind of certificate. You have to go to the doctor and verify that—you can’t just say, “My spouse isn’t feeling well.” So now you’ve got a cost to the system, which is already overstrained.

We’ve got a deficit in Ontario of over $16 billion. I hope it’s going to be smaller in the budget next week. It probably is, because what they usually do is they super-inflate numbers to $16 billion, $17 billion. Then they’re going to come in with the budget: “It’s $10 billion. What a great job we’ve done.”

Look, there are 600,000 people—and Don Drummond told you that if you don’t do something, you’re going to double the deficit. Right now, that whole deficit discussion is being ignored, but here’s the issue: Right now, we have the lowest interest rate in recent history. The cost of servicing our debt now is just around $10 billion. If this interest does pick up—because interest always has to be greater than inflation, and inflation is creeping up. It’s about 2.4%. Interest always has to be higher than inflation, so if interest goes up, the cost of debt is going up. If it goes up 1%—let’s say it’s 2% now. If it goes up 1%, that’s a 30% increase in the cost of debt.

I look at that whole scandal around Ornge that we talked about yesterday. My head and my heart were both aching, to think of how much money has been stolen out of the health care system under the watch of Dalton. I almost get passionate about this when it starts to bother me so much inside. I try to sort of move back once in a while and not get so serious.

But I do realize—now, I’m going to care. There were a very good number of questions asked yesterday by the leader of the NDP, Andrea Horwath. No, it was France Gélinas, pardon me, the member from Nickel Belt. And these were about the lack of hours of care through the CCACs. The minister kind of bobbed and weaved: “We’ve put more money in. We’ve doubled the money.” You’ve doubled the cost and you’ve got half the service. That’s what they’ve done.

France Gélinas, the wonderful critic in health care, much like Elizabeth Witmer—they’re both very focused on that. Here’s the issue: It was clearly stated by a critic that knows her details that people—and they mentioned specific references to specific families. I don’t want to use this. She did a wonderful job yesterday. What they’re saying is—she came back with things like, “Well, we have a new strategy. It’s called Aging at Home.” It’s actually called aging alone, because there is no care at home with them. They’re cutting back the CCACs.

They’re told, or directed, that there wasn’t enough money—because of the deficit, because of overspending on other things, helicopters and things like that—for hours for home care. Now we’re going to give them more time off.

Actually, what the people of Ontario want is a job and a sense of security around them and a vision for Ontario. McGuinty’s vision is to open up more casinos to help hurt the poor even more. I think in every area that I look at, Mr. Speaker—it’s good to see a new Speaker in the chair there. Everything I’ve watched in the last several months, it’s going downhill at a rapid speed and accelerating. The people of Ontario—it’s in everything. Don Drummond said there’s 300-plus recommendations. Here’s some help: Grab one of these life rafts and start to pull yourself out of the hole. But what have they done? They’ve kept digging.

This is another example of trying to promise everything to everyone. Here, you can have a day off work and then you can have home improvements for seniors, but there’s no money in it; you have to spend $10,000.

There isn’t one thing that I can see that makes any sense and the people of Ontario need to start paying very close attention, with the budget next week, to what their plan for the future really is. They threw this out—this promise on Bill 30—during the election, that we’re going to improve caregiver time off. They didn’t put one cent into it. They’ve spent more money printing paper than they will helping the people in their homes. This is the truth.

And if you read it, even their pets will be covered, I think. It’s not clearly in here but I’m pretty sure it will be, because who wouldn’t want to? Who wouldn’t want to help the pets? I put that for the minister to respond to. Is she going to deny the—

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Move an amendment.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Minister, are the pets here?

Mr. John O’Toole: No, it says “any individual”—so it’s not a pet—“as a member, for the purpose of this section,” as described—well, it’s open to

interpretation in the regulations. Again, we need to clarify this.

First of all, Tim Hudak and our critic, Randy Hillier, have made it eminently clear that we’re completely supportive of the intent. That’s not to be disputed. There’s a lack of clarity. They should have taken a bit more time to draft this up. I know it was an election promise, and how many election promises have you actually kept? None. Zero.

Even the other day he promised—this is why I’m getting calls at my constituency office. You made a promise on—after Don Drummond issued the report, he said, you know, he stood there, sort of—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Could I ask the member to kind of stick to the topic? You’re drifting a little bit.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you. I respect the comments of the Speaker. I think this whole idea that I was wandering, it gives me this kind of—the thing is that I’m concerned.

I think some of these people could be off work in Ontario because of stress. And what would the stress be? Because their children have no future. There are no jobs for the kids graduating from university and college. Tell me in your response, what are the jobs of the future? Not some job at a casino. Who are you kidding? All these jobs in energy and renewable energy are a good example of why they’re in stress, so it is related to the bill.

What would the stress be? Well, they’re going to have 50,000 jobs in the green energy. There are reports that say you actually lose jobs. Now, what are the jobs? Cutting the grass around the solar panels, driving a lawn mower. After they’ve welded together all the towers and that for the wind turbines, who’s working around those turbines? I don’t see anybody standing around. There’s nobody working around them.

I see the Minister of Energy’s here as well.

This stressful society in the last several years—when people look at the eHealth scandal, they get stressed; when they look at the Ornge helicopter issue, they get stressed. Then they get worrying about their future. Then they take time off work and the employer has to pay unemployment insurance premiums, which is a tax on jobs. It’s a vicious cycle. There’s no plan for the future of Ontario. In fact, I would like to say that in the—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Point of order, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Peterborough.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I consider the member from Durham a very good friend of mine, but he is kind of wandering here a little bit. I know he wants to get back on topic—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock.

Mr. Jeff Leal: —because he has something very articulate to say.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I must confess, he is certainly skirting around the issue. He has points that are related but sometimes he drifts. So I would ask the member once again, try to stick to the script, please.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and out of the deepest respect—I also respect the member from Peterborough.

Now, the member from Peterborough, let’s say, for example, he met with the horsemen from Peterborough who are all upset because they’re losing their jobs. Why? Because of his lack of action. Now they’re going to be stressed and they’re going to take time off. Who’s paying them? Now they’re going to close the casino that they work at, some of them. Look—

Mr. Jeff Leal: They’re not going to close the casino. They’re going to move it into the city.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Order.

Mr. John O’Toole: For the record, I want to repeat what the member from Peterborough said: It’s a commitment he made today that they’re going to keep the casino at Kawartha Downs open and—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Oh, now the member from Peterborough—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Now at least he’s starting to disclose the plan, the secret plan—

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Stop the clock. The member from Peterborough must refrain from his comments if he wants the member from Durham to stick to his script.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I withdraw.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

Mr. John O’Toole: I feel a certain amount of stress, when the member from Peterborough withdrew, how he’s starting to feel conflicted now. He’s got to feel conflicted, because I know he wants to help the people in Peterborough. I know that.

For instance, small business—my brother-in-law Sam at the deli—is all that I’m talking about. You would know—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yeah, exactly. My point is, these are people.

I want to go back. The strategy in society today, in

summary, is this: We have an aging population in Ontario. There’s evidence that people are living longer, and in health care you consume all of your money in the last 20% of your life. The higher the age group gets, 80 to 90—they spend about $70,000 a year per person. To stay in a long-term-care home is about $60,000 per bed—per bed.

They haven’t added one bed, not one. What they’ve done is they’ve regulated retirement homes. Now retirement homes don’t have one cent of provincial money in them. What they’re going to do is they’re going to increase the cost of retirement homes. How much does a retirement home cost? I know first-hand. It’s between $3,500 and $7,000 a month for a retirement home.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You’ve got to be a millionaire, for God’s sake.

Mr. John O’Toole: Exactly. So the people of Ontario have every reason to be concerned that this bill is just a false shell. You open it up and there’s nothing inside it. It’s another broken promise by this government. And what are they going to do? They’re going to blame Stephen Harper for not paying these people that are off unemployment insurance. Why would that not be the case for all of Canada, then? So you think that Premier McGuinty, who can’t run this province, is going to start running the country?

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I want to repeat, because our leader makes sure that we would implement this in a fashion that would be a commitment you could trust. So to me, this debate this morning comes down to one word: trust. The word is “trust.” Can you trust them to deliver? That home renovation tax credit: You can’t get it. The 30% student deduction: You can’t get it.

To me, all of this paper comes down to the single word “trust.” Trust Premier McGuinty and the Liberals to give you unpaid time off for eight weeks—and you must take it a week at a time. Not for a doctor visit—no, you can’t take a day off; you have to take it in blocks of entire weeks. This is another piece of good intention poorly executed, and that explains this government to a T.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member from Danforth.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Close enough. The member from Davenport. Thank you, Speaker.

I was listening to the member from Durham and, you know, I was following along. For the most

part it made sense to me, particularly when he called this act a bit of a false shell. It’s obviously something that we will support. It moves in the right direction when we start to talk about improving employment standards. But the truth is that people in this province are very stressed out, and I also agree with the member from Durham, who stated that and said that people are also stressed out in their workplace.

What’s been happening in this province is that labour standards are going further and further down. When I talk to people in my riding of Davenport, people are stressed out that they can’t find work. When they do find work, it’s not full-time; it doesn’t pay the bills. I was speaking to someone the other day who is about my age and is still living at home with his parents because there’s just simply not a job market out there that will employ him full-time.

What we really need to do is make sure that people in their workplace are supported to stand up and speak out if their workplace is unsafe. But I think what has happened in this country around EI—the fact that most people are not eligible for it; the fact that minimum wage is not keeping up with the cost of living; the fact that our welfare system is so dreadful in this province—means that people will not speak out. People cannot afford to take sick leave even if they want to, and that’s a real concern.

I also heard the member from Durham say that this report probably cost more than the actual implications of implementing it. We need to spend more money on the people, on enforcing labour standards in this province, than we do writing the papers that we create these things on.

So I will be supporting this, but I do think we need to make sure that we actually have inspectors coming around workplaces and making sure that they’re safe workplaces for the employees who are there.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? Minister.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Thank you, Speaker. I just wanted to join the conversation. I wish I had more than two minutes.

I wanted to comment on what the member for Durham said. It was a very entertaining speech, and certainly I think it’s academy-worthy, indicating his support of pet coverage. But this is a really serious issue, and I think there are certainly enough families across this province that we’ve heard from who are currently trying to balance the struggle they have, balancing a very sick family member with retaining their job. We’ve heard from caregivers; we’ve heard from a variety of HR professsionals across this province.

I understand that he really hasn’t followed the bill all that closely based on his comments. So I just want to remind him that there are personal emergency leaves right now that provide a short-term leave that would help a family. They have 10 calendar days that they can use. There’s also a family medical leave, but that’s in case of a very serious medical condition where there’s a significant risk of death within 26 weeks.

We’ve identified a gap. There’s a gap in the current leaves of absence under the Employment Standards Act. It doesn’t currently provide a long-term, job-protected leave for employees who want to care for a family member with a serious medical condition that requires care or support. This is in the case where there’s no risk of imminent death. It’s a very serious issue.

When we made the announcement, we had a young woman come forward with a very sick mother. She had to leave her job to help her mother get through all those doctors’ appointments. It was very serious to her. She lost her job. It was something that she loved doing, but she was torn between caring for somebody she loved and keeping her job.

This is about providing compassion. You started out when you had that conversation at the beginning. I appreciate that you believe that there’s good intent, and I would like to encourage you to do what the member from Nickel Belt did. She provided some very thoughtful comments on nurse practitioners. I’d encourage you to do the same thing.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Comments and questions?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I would just like to share a couple of comments with regards to my reflection upon what our member from Durham shared with us this morning. He is an absolute study in debate, and I certainly appreciate his perspective and the manner in which he brings such eloquent points across in this chamber. I congratulate him for that.

But, you know, he brings up a very good point. I represent an absolutely wonderful rural riding, and when we talk about the government strategy for aging at home, I think they’ve been totally void of understanding real issues. I have a 96-year-old grandmother who lives in rural Ontario on the farm still. She’s very independent, but in terms—she needs her CCAC. But in terms of aging at home, the reality of rural Ontario is, when the roads are closed, who’s going to get there to help them on a cold winter day?

There are so many things that are suspect. We’re cautiously sharing our support for this because we’re suspicious that the minister hasn’t really consulted with a lot of people. We’ve just heard from across the floor that they spoke to a lot of people. We’re quite interested to know who those folks are. The fact of the matter is, this is a very serious issue. People should be able to take leave and support the people that mean the most to them and fill their hearts because they’ve given so much. But the fact of the matter is, as I said, we’re cautiously—how do I say this?

We’re cautiously offering support because the fact of the matter is, we feel there needs to be more consultation, and we actually urge the minister to withdraw this bill from second reading and work with the opposition parties to create a select committee to investigate and collect evidence that would support the introduction and passage of this bill based upon merit, not posture.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I do agree with the member from Durham on one thing, and that is that people are stressed out. They’re probably stressed out in this Legislature and outside of this Legislature. The real stress, in my view, is income-related. More and more people are becoming poorer and poorer than ever.

The problem with this bill, as much as it is a nice gesture, is that people will be able to take a leave, a protected leave, but it will not be paid by anybody. This is not, as the member from Durham says, a tax on the employer; this is going to be taxing on those individuals who will be pressed to take care of somebody in their own home, but it’s not a tax on the employer. It’s a huge tax on the individual that is going to have to take time off work to take care of somebody, and that’s the dilemma that people are going to be facing. That’s where the real stress is going to be.

We haven’t touched on reprisals against people who want to take time off, and there will be reprisals from the employer when someone asks to take time off to take care of one of their own. That is for sure. That’s going to happen.

But when I hear the member from Durham saying, “We’ve got a better plan,” I don’t know what that plan is. And when the member from Durham says it’s a matter of trust, I say, “Hmm. I’ve been through Mike Harris’s regime, and I don’t remember them doing one single little thing for the seniors. Not one little thing.”

And while these Liberals haven’t funded any long-term care—which is true—nor have they built any long-term-care facilities, do I believe, John, that the Tories are going to do that? No siree. So when you talk about trust and a plan—hmm, I don’t know.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Durham has a two-minute reply.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m really pleased that the member from Davenport—I just want to prove that I did listen to their comments. He said, basically, that people can’t afford this. That’s basically what he said.

I would say I’m very impressed that the minister was here, and she did say that I—I thought she made a bit of a slam on me there; it wasn’t called for. But I’d like her to produce the request that she mentioned, the information from the HR professionals. I’m requesting publicly a copy of those documents. I’ve not had one call on this, to be honest.

Now, I think the most realistic comment was from the Huron–Bruce member, a good friend and also quite an expert and highly regarded in the agricultural community. I think she hit it when talking about the CCAC and her 96-year-old mother—

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Grandmother.

Mr. John O’Toole: —grandmother. Pardon me. Sorry about that—a slip that I could pay for. But the fact is, that’s a sentiment that we feel on this side, together with the young families of members that are in the caucuses who have children. I know I have a couple of daughters in England—one just had a baby, and one’s expecting one in May—and I have one in Clarington that just had one as well. The little boy was born six weeks premature and was quite unhealthy.

Now, we do have parental leave, but between the things—I think her husband, my son, should have been able to take time off, and I’m sure his employer would, because that’s the way civil society works. This bill, in itself—good intentions, but actually nothing in it.

I think the member from Trinity–Spadina—and I’m highly respectful of the fact that he even listened to what I said, but the fact is, he said pretty much the same thing as well. He said people simply can’t afford it, he said people are stressed, and he said that this bill is a shallow promise.

Well, I can commit to this: Tim Hudak keeps his promises.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate.

Miss Monique Taylor: I’m pleased to speak to the Family Caregiver Leave Act today. This bill is a step forward in making life easier for those who need care for a family member, but it is a very small step.

Once again, as we’ve seen in other government bills that have been put forward lately, they have really great names. I’m sure that we all know someone who simply has had no choice but to take time off of work because a family member needs their attention. When it happens, you have no choice; you have to do what you have to do. In such an event, this bill would entitle an employee to up to eight weeks’ leave per year to support a family member who has a serious medical condition but is not at risk of death. It is certainly good that the person’s job would be protected. Unfortunately, it is only a guarantee of unpaid leave, and for many, that’s the kicker.

I just mentioned that the leave is for people who have an ill family member who is not at risk of death. That distinction is made because we already have the family medical leave, which provides up to eight weeks’ leave of care for a family member who has a significant risk of death occurring within 26 weeks. In the case, however, of the family medical leave, there has been EI support since 2004. This is not the case for the family caregiver leave.

Without EI support, I have to wonder how many people would be able to take advantage of this leave. It’s all well and good to say, “Look, you’re going through a difficult time just now. You need to take some time and look after your family. Don’t worry, your job will still be here when you come back.” It’s good for a worker to hear that, but if you’re living from paycheque to paycheque, struggling to pay the bills, it doesn’t mean much if you’re having that leave, and you have no money coming in.

No, to make this really meaningful, the government needs to pressure the federal government so that there is some form of income support for those who need to access this leave. So the bill may be once again putting the cart before the horse.

I would also like to take some time to talk about the Employment Standards Act, which this bill seeks to amend. The Employment Standards Act sets minimum standards for employees in Ontario. Some of the workers are members of a trade union. They are, as we would say, organized, and these workers have brought themselves together to act as one. Collectively, they can negotiate contracts and look after each other to ensure that they are not taken advantage of, that they get a fair rate of pay and that adequate attention is paid to their health and safety. But not every worker in this province is unionized.

Unfortunately, the laws of our province and the power of employers do not make it easy for workers to exercise their rights and join a union. For those workers, the Employment Standards Act is all they’ve got; that’s it.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, I’ve worked in many places where the Employment Standards Act was our only safety net. I can tell you that many, many workers in that situation are not aware of what the minimum standards of employment in Ontario are. Several workers would not even dare to speak up to an employer, because they are fearful or at risk of losing their jobs.

I can also tell you that employers don’t exactly go out of their way to make sure that employees know their rights under the ESA or even that it exists. Perhaps a handbook of the ESA would be a suggestion that is made during the committee process of amending the ESA. Making sure that all workers are given one of these handbooks could ensure that all workers would know their rights, and employers would know that they would have to follow the ESA.

The point I want to make is that for an amendment to actually have its full impact, we need to ensure that people know that the provisions exist, and they need to know how to access them. We already know that the Minister of Labour only hears a very small percentage of violations of the Employment Standards Act. Again, I must repeat: There are several workers, especially racialized workers, who will not stand up for themselves for fear of reprisals, and they will not stand up for fear of losing their jobs.

There are several employers out there who are not so worried, because they definitely have enough resumés stacked up in their desks, with Ontarians chomping at the bit to have any opportunity for employment. We know that, no matter what it says in the act, workers are being denied overtime pay, are being paid below minimum wage or are owed wages.

The Workers’ Action Centre has reported that only 4% of workers who are owed wages actually even file claims under the ESA. Clearly, these are issues with compliance with the act, and there are issues with the ability or reluctance of workers to take advantage of the provisions of the Employment Standards Act. Again, possibly this handbook would ensure that workers know their rights, and it would be a key tool to ensuring that Ontarians are getting a fair deal when going to work each day.

Mr. Speaker, the ministry must take a more proactive role in administering the Employment Standards Act. Don’t get me wrong, Mr. Speaker: I’m not against employers, because this bill does nothing to protect them either. How could an employer safely ensure that a job will be held if he or she needs to run a business? Will there be any form of insurance policy for them? A small business that relies on possibly only one or two employees will certainly miss them and run into hardships when covering this time when the employees are gone.

Unfortunately, just as this bill is being debated, the government wants to cut $6 million from enforcement at the end of this month. This after promising to invest $10 million a year to hire new employment standards officers and improve compliance with the act. I urge the Minister of Labour, don’t undermine this amendment before it’s even in place. Do not cut $6 million from the ESA enforcement budget.

Some unionized workers or employees in managerial positions already have written into the contracts provisions that allow them to use sick days to care for family members who are seriously ill; and, as I said, these are not the workers who are going to rely on the Employment Standards Act. No, the workers who need the Employment Standards Act are often those who earn the least, those whose jobs are the most precarious. We have a responsibility to these workers. If they are not being given the opportunity to join a union, then we should at least make sure that we’re providing decent minimum standards and make sure that those minimum standards are enforced.

If we’re going to be changing the Employment Standards Act, there are other items that we should be thinking of, like increasing the minimum wage for Ontario workers. How can we justify a minimum wage that is below the poverty line? As the gap between rich and poor grows, we simply cannot accept that those at the lowest end of the pay scale do need and deserve a raise. It should be raised to $11 per hour this year and indexed to the cost of living.

Another concern I have with this bill is the term “serious condition.” It says that the doctor will decide this, but will he or she be given the proper direction of what that term means? And will this add further burden onto the appeals that are already before the ESA? We see in WSIB, ODSP, CPP cases the backlogs that have been caused due to the fact that a particular doctor did not give an answer that someone liked, no matter which side they’re on. We just seem to be always adding another screw to the wheel and hoping that the air will stay in it.

And there again, another problem: Who is going to pay the doctor to fill out the note that has been requested? Another burden and time constraint to our very, very busy doctors.

Mr. Speaker, I seem to have found more things wrong with this bill than in the positive nature that I’m sure it was written in. I will once again say that this bill is a very small step in the right direction. We really need to push hard for the EI support for the family caregiver leave, and we need to make sure that workers know about the provisions, that they feel able to access without fear of reprisal.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Let me start off by saying that this bill is far from perfect. Only a very limited number of employees will have the personal resources necessary to even be able to access these provisions. That said, it is a step forward, although a very small step forward, and for that reason I will be supporting this bill, in expectation that this is only the first of many other following steps forward and that greater provisions will come in the future.

In Ontario, many families are put in difficult situations. They have seriously ill family members, but the current employment protections do not go far enough to allow them to care for seriously ill family members who are not in a terminal or life-threatening situation. This bill addresses that concern and it creates a provision for a family caregiver to take up to eight weeks of unpaid leave without the fear of losing their job, a regulation that should have been in place years ago and an amendment that will become even more important with our aging population and greater need for family members to pull together to care for loved ones.

As I have said, this bill is weak. It’s another half-measure by this government. Probably the most glaring weakness is that there isn’t any income support for those taking the leave, meaning that only those with the financial resources will be able to take time away from their jobs to care for their loved ones. This is a weakness, and many people will simply be unable to afford the eight weeks without any income. I don’t think I’d be stretching too much to suggest that many families in Ontario today probably would find two weeks’ unpaid leave completely unaffordable.

But at the very least, this amendment sets the groundwork for future advances, and I’m hopeful that sometime in the next few years there will be the political will to provide income supports for these workers to help ensure that more families can take advantage of this employment protection.

One thing I’ve not heard but I’d like to hear about would be a cost-benefit analysis of providing income supports in a case like this. I would suspect that the cost to the system would be much less expensive to help cover the income of a family member or spouse for eight weeks, even if it is a percentage of their regular income, than it would be for the government to cover the cost of health care and support workers for the ill family member.

We know that many social programs such as this one actually come at a net benefit to the taxpayer, a notable example being the reports that suggest that full-day kindergarten saves the government money through savings in other programs. I’d certainly like to see an analysis of this—if this could be the case for this program. We know that investing is not only the right thing to do, but it actually maximizes our tax dollars.

I would, of course, be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge that the most likely funding source for an income supplement program like this would be through the federal government’s employment insurance program, so I will admit that the fault for this shortcoming may not necessarily lie with the provincial government. That said, I hope the Minister of Labour could give her assurances that they will lobby the federal government to make the changes necessary to ensure that this program is accessible to all workers and not just the lucky few who can afford to take an eight-week unpaid absence from their job.

Of course, in an ideal world we wouldn’t need a piece of legislation like this. In an ideal world, employers would happily provide their workers with some level of compassionate leave, and I’m sure that some do. But we all know that this is not an ideal world and that, unfortunately, we have to legislate based on the lowest common denominator. With this in mind, I do think, again, that this is a step in the right direction.

Another provision that I do have some concern with is this bill’s impact on very small businesses and essential services. As it stands, this bill does not state a minimum number of employees and it does not seem to exempt certain essential sectors, and I do worry that the potential exists for some problems in this regard.

In many communities, “small businesses” is a very literal term. The small stores or other operations may have one or two employees. If one of those employees suddenly takes eight weeks’ leave, it does have the potential to pose an undue hardship on the other employees or the business owner. But I know that in these circumstances, most of these small businesses are tight-knit communities and almost like families where the employer would more than likely encourage their employee to take the time to care for their family and return to work when they’re able.

Likewise, I worry about how this would affect essential services in small communities, such as police officers, where, again, there isn’t always the staff complement necessary to fill in for a prolonged absence. That said, I’m sure—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): There seems to be about six sidebars going on. I’m having difficulty listening to the speaker. If you want to have sidebars, I suggest you go outside. Thank you.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you.

That said, I’m sure these are larger organizations and they will find ways to adapt to find short-term solutions to fill the staff complement.

While I do worry about the impact on smaller staff operations, I’m hopeful that the provisions of this amendment will come under review and that, if there is need to accommodate small business, the government will be agreeable to that in the future.

As happens with all new legislation, there will be hiccups along the way, but I believe this is a good step, and although a minor first step, it does have the potential to have a positive impact on families across the province and an even greater impact when income supports are in place and all the problems are ironed out.

I am hopeful that the committee charged with reviewing this bill will seek submissions from some of the organizations that could be adversely affected by the legislation and propose amendments that they deem necessary to make this a workable plan for Ontario business.

The other thing I’d like to talk about is protection for employers. I think, in particular, of tourist operators in my region. Many of these businesses are what you could call mom-and-pop operations, where the owners do the majority of the work, including cooking, cleaning, renovations and meeting the needs of their guests. Their only employees may be guides or casual positions that are brought on purely by demand, meaning the employee is booked for a particular week because there is a guest who wants a guided trip.

Guides are extremely skilled and knowledgeable individuals whose work simply cannot be filled by someone coming off the street. So, if the guide were to cancel at the last minute and the owner was unable to fulfil the request due to other commitments, such as guiding a group of their own, it leaves the guest unhappy. They talk to their friends and business drops.

Anyone who knows the tourism industry in the northwest knows that business is built on repeat business. A satisfied customer may visit the same lodge for 10, 20 or 30 years. Over the course of that time, in an extremely tough industry to make a living, that’s how we lose a lot of business: if we are unable to satisfy a guest for any particular time. I would certainly encourage the committee to ask the tourism industry for their thoughts on this bill.

That said, I think it’s important to offer this type of leave. It’s important to protect the jobs of people who are facing serious family illness. The problem is that this bill does not go far enough. It has no income protection, and I wonder about it having adequate inspection.

We all know that the current Employment Standards Act is almost a joke. If you have a union, you’re okay. If you don’t have a union, you’ve got literally no protection. I’ve seen that working in the constituency office in my former job, when I worked with the former MPP. There, I helped a man who worked in one of the small communities in my riding. He was working for a year at this company. He was on the management track. He did all sorts of dirty and difficult jobs. He went above and beyond.

He received excellent performance reviews, and yet he was let go so that the company could hire the owner’s cousin, who had less experience. In that situation, the Employment Standards Act did nothing to help this individual.

And so, while I will support practically any measure that will strengthen our Employment Standards Act, this bill doesn’t go far enough.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I want to thank the member from Hamilton Mountain and the member from Kenora–Rainy River for their comments.

As the minister indicated before, we have identified a gap in the leaves that we currently have in place. I want to assure them that the government intends to ask the federal government to extend employment insurance to those who would take the new family caregiver leave, if the bill is passed. So the government does intend to ask for EI benefits for this proposed leave.

Going back to the gap, we now have in place the personal emergency leave and the family medical leave, and both have EI support. What the gap intends to address is, for example, if a family member falls ill unexpectedly, one could take advantage of the personal emergency leave, which would give the employee 10 days that they can take from work and would be paid by EI. If the family member was to become terminal, with a significant risk of death occurring within 26 weeks, then the employee could ask for the family medical leave, which would still be covered under EI.

Then, let’s say—how can I say it?—the family member would undergo an operation and then be recovering; that’s when the family caregiver leave would kick in. And we will be asking the federal government—hopefully they will provide EI benefits.

Also the—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Questions and comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s an honour again to stand in this chamber and discuss Bill 30 that the government is proposing.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we understand—the member from Durham earlier mentioned the compassion that we have for our families and family members. The member from Kenora–Rainy River put it quite well and eloquently, and the member from York South–Weston obviously has some valid points. But let’s be clear about something: This bill has good intentions, but it doesn’t—if you truly want to assist, you have to push a little further. You have to do more than just what this government is proposing.

And another theme that I’ve sort of picked up on—and there’s a bit of a pattern being developed here—is that of passing the buck. They try to blame our federal cousins and counterparts for not doing their fair share. Quite obviously, they’re not doing their fair share. I mean, it’s one thing to be compassionate. We all love our families, we all have seniors and loved ones we want to help and assist. We want them to be comfortable in their own homes, live a life with dignity. But we need to actually look at a bill that’s going to provide that kind of requirement. And quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think this bill goes far enough in what the government is trying to propose.

So if you’re going to present something that is, again, window dressing—that’s all this is. It’s a feel-good kind of bill but there’s no real substance to it. There’s no foundation to it, Mr. Speaker, and that’s why I don’t think Bill 30 is a bill that I can support.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments? The member for Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad you got that riding right. I was a little bit concerned about what your comments were going to be today.

But anyway, again, coming from a background that directly deals with individuals that are faced with the challenges of caring for their individuals, dealing with the stresses of every day and helping their family members, this bill definitely doesn’t go far enough, and it’s unfortunate. We have an opportunity here where we can really do something good for all Ontarians.

If we lived in a perfect world, where we all had good employers, where we all had that good relationship, we wouldn’t need this legislation because we would have that ability, we would have that compassion between employee and employer to have that time off when we need it.

But we do have to build something. We do have to present some type of legislation in order to cover those individuals who are not in a union environment, who are not protected through certain regulations and legislation that should be in place. This is the opportunity that we have to help those individuals to take that time off when they need it to care for their family members. And it certainly doesn’t go far enough.

We’re saying that you can take up to eight weeks off. Never mind eight weeks, just one week—one week is the decision that people are going to be faced with in order to take that time off for their loved one. They want to have that opportunity; they want to feel safe, like they can take that opportunity without any reprisals. So it’s definitely going to be up to this government to make sure that we educate the public of their rights, that they can do this—not just a little ribbon on top of a vote.

We have to make sure that they are fully aware of their rights so that they can do this and so we can benefit individuals. But let’s take the time to push this and bring it to the level that it needs in order to bring the benefits that are supposed to come from it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Our government does want to give employees the one thing they need the most when their family or loved ones are ill or injured. We want to give them that time off with their loved ones, and that’s why we’ve introduced this legislation, which, if passed, would give up to eight weeks of unpaid leave, job-protected time away from work to care for people and family members with a serious medical condition.

I want to respond to members opposite and how they keep saying that this bill is unworkable because employers won’t grant this time off. It’s up to eight weeks of unpaid leave. It provides them flexibility, whether the need is one week, three weeks or eight.

Family caregiver leave is a matter of compassion, and it’s the right thing to do. At the end of the day, we want to help Ontarians in difficult times. I can’t tell you, Speaker, how many times constituents in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East have come in and said that they’re trying, they’re struggling, to balance work with caring for an ill or injured family member, and they would welcome this kind of relief, this kind of support from our government. And I would like to think that all parties would be supportive of such a wonderful piece of proposed legislation.

As my colleague from York South–Weston indicated, we will be encouraging the federal government to allow workers to access employment insurance if they take the leave. It’s the right decision for people in Ontario, and if passed, the bill would not come into force until July 1, 2012, to give adequate time for employers to transition and to be ready for this very important legislation. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Hamilton Mountain has two minutes to reply.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to the members from Guelph, Northumberland–Quinte West, Algoma–Manitoulin and Pickering–Scarborough East. It’s definitely been an interesting debate happening here this morning, and there seems to be a consensus on this side of the House that it is a good bill; there just needs to be more to it.

I’m happy to hear that the intention is to go forward to get EI, but is that putting the cart before the horse? You know, that’s a scary thought. People living paycheque to paycheque—how can they simply afford to just, you know, take up to eight weeks’ time off? It sounds great, but most people probably wouldn’t be able to afford to do that.

So I am happy to hear that your side will be going after EI. Will the feds come to that? I don’t know. I really think that, if we are going to be opening the Employment Standards Act, we need to make sure that we’re doing it right. If we’re going to do it, let’s do it right. The handbook may be a really great tool, making sure that employers are handing these out to the employees so that they know what their rights are. How many employees are actually even going to know that they have the right to this? Is the employer going to say, “Oh, there’s new legislation that will help you out”? No.

There may be some, because some communities, you know—there are great people out there. There are fabulous, great-hearted people out there, but there are some people who are there for the almighty dollar. They don’t care. They have a drawer full of resumés waiting for the next person to take your job if you’re not going to be there that day.

Are people going to know their rights? That’s my biggest concern about this. I look forward to further debate. I know I will be supporting this. Hopefully we will get the EI to support it also. Thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. Further debate? The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You’re doing a wonderful job in the chair today, keeping everybody directly on course and not drifting off too far afield.

Mr. Speaker, it’s my pleasure to speak on the family caregiver act as the critic for labour for the PC Party. I also am very appreciative that the minister is once again in the House to listen to this debate on Bill 30.

I will start with this, because it’s from the minister’s own comments in the House this morning. She stated in the House, in her two-minute response to the member from Durham, that the minister had heard from a number of groups, a number of people. HR professionals was one of the groups that she mentioned that they had heard from.

The minister’s statements in this House this morning are completely inconsistent with and at odds with what her own ministry personnel have stated to me on two occasions. During ministerial briefings, I asked the minister’s political staff and the administrative staff in the ministry with whom they had spoken and what their response had been. The minister’s own staff said they hadn’t spoken to anybody and that there had been no efforts put forth for anybody to actually demonstrate that there’s a need for this bill. So maybe at some point today, the minister could rise and clarify the inconsistency between her words in the House and her staff’s words to me in the ministerial briefings.

I think a real crux of this bill is: Where is the demonstrable need? I’ve heard from the members of the third party, and I’ve heard from members of the government, about how people are being denied the time off to care for their loved ones.

I’ll give you my own personal experience and observations of near 40 years in the workforce. I have never come across somebody who was denied time off for care of their loved ones—never, not once. It has never happened to me, either as a union electrician or a non-union electrician or during my time in retail. Never have I been denied time off.

I heard the members from the third party say things about reprisals and stuff. Reprisals from employers for people who take time off to care for their loved ones—I’ve not seen that. I guess maybe where I come from, it is a little bit more civil society than some of these other places, but once again, I’ve not experienced that, Speaker. The minister’s staff has not collected any data. That’s another great flaw in this bill: It doesn’t provide any mechanism to actually collect data, to see if people are indeed being denied any time off or having reprisals for taking time off for caring for their loved ones.

I also think that there are the unseen and the unintended consequences of this bill. At the present time, if I’m an employee in a small business—and I’ll say “small business” because most union collective bargaining agreements have mechanisms in place to address family care for their collective bargaining members. But for small business people, the non-union sector, right now there is a mutual and natural check and balance in the arrangement. An employer is not going to want to lose a good employee. They’re going to want to keep that good employee.

They’re going to provide flexibility and latitude for that employee to take time off to care for a loved one. And the employee is also going to be flexible and have some latitude to ensure that the employer is not overly burdened by those actions as well.

Under this act, that natural check and balance, that natural incentive for mutual agreement, is taken off the deck. The cards are no longer there. Now everybody will have up to eight weeks of time off, and it really is, as the member from Durham mentioned, so broad a spectrum. It’s not even a sieve; it is just a big, empty net. Anybody can be in there and qualify as part of the family caregiver act to take time off for.

Now, that on its own may not be a significant problem. But if this government gets its way, and we know—the ministry staff have told me quite clearly that they are pushing and advocating for the federal government to include time off for family caregiving as an insurable EI benefit. Take a look at this. We have this big, broad net: brothers, sisters, mothers, cousins, second cousins, third cousins, next-door neighbours. Anybody can be captured in this act, and you’ll be able to take up to eight weeks, if the government has their way, of paid unemployment time off. I think you could make a good, strong case for a defined family member, but not such an expansive group of people.

Also, it doesn’t identify what the illness or the injury or the ailment has to be. If somebody is sick with a cold for eight weeks, it would qualify under this bill. If somebody is feeling a little down in the dumps, they would qualify under this bill. We certainly must have in this bill a requirement that the injury or the illness is a significant impairment and prevents that person from, indeed, caring for themselves and requires assistance. But this bill, in my view, Speaker, is nothing but political posturing by the Liberal government. It really—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, how can you say that?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, if you were here, Minister, you would have heard my arguments, but you were asleep at the switch once again.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member will take his seat. I would suggest that the member does not get personal and sticks to the script—and withdraw that last statement.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I withdraw.

Anyway, Speaker, those are a few of the significant problems with this bill—not just what is today, but what is going to come out of it tomorrow. If the government does indeed get their wish of employment premiums or benefits out of this bill, it really must be tightened up.

I think, if the government was being honest and truthful and not just using this bill as a political-posturing mechanism, that they would define, in this bill, who would qualify, under what conditions they would qualify, and they would also put it right in the bill that they expect that the federal government—or if they’re not going to provide that insurable benefit, then cough it up themselves. Put the money where the bill is, Minister. If you really think that this is important, if you really don’t believe that it’s just a political-posturing bill, put the money in the bill and provide the insurable benefit for those people who need to take time off and provide care for their loved ones.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina will get in his seat if he wants to talk.

Mr. Randy Hillier: That would demonstrate—not just to me, but it would demonstrate to everybody in this House, it would demonstrate to everybody in this province—that the Liberals are taking this seriously and not just using it for political posturing.

Once again, they have not collected any data to demonstrate that there is a need for this. There’s no empirical—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I’d like to thank the member. This will continue at another time.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): It is 10:15, and this House stands adjourned until 10:30. Thank you.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to introduce constituents from the agricultural community, specifically the Ontario Harness Horse Association people who are visiting us here today at Queen’s Park: Paul Lindsey, Kent Baker, Dave Gibson and Dave Heffering. They and others will be visiting members with respect to the issue facing many of the people in the agricultural community today.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome Kevin and Anne Moynihan, who are joining us from Halifax, Nova Scotia, the in-laws of my staffer Li Koo; and a friend of mine, Janet Henley, who is from north Toronto, the Eglinton–Lawrence riding. It’s very nice to have you here.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I just had a wonderful meeting with Family Service Toronto and I’d like to welcome Stefanie Morra, Pearl Mendonça and Madeline Kingston.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ east gallery today, Dr. Michael Bell and his daughter, Bianca, who are here with me today. They won a lunch with the MPP. Of course, Dr. Bell was the very distinguished candidate for the Green Party in the 2011 federal election, and we certainly welcome both of them here today.

Also, in the members’ east gallery is Mr. Rick Johnson, the former MPP for Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock in the 39th Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. We always warmly welcome all former members.

Further introductions?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to welcome Alex Forgay and Nancy Bell, who are in the gallery. They’re the proud parents of Alex Forgay, a page here in our page program from the riding of St. Paul’s. Let’s please give them a warm welcome. In fact, I think Alex is the page captain today.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’d like to welcome Mr. Richard Helbig and Mr. James Richardson from Aurora.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the Minister of Finance about his role and that of his ministry in the Ornge scandal. On April 13 of last year, when questions were first raised about the scandal in this chamber and about the irregularities at Ornge, the Minister of Finance stood in his place in response to one of those questions and said this: “I can assure the Legislature and the people of Ontario that the contractual arrangements with Ornge protect the interest of taxpayers unequivocally.”

Speaker, given that there’s now a criminal investigation into those contractual arrangements, can the minister tell us why he felt so compelled to so vigorously defend this organization? Can he tell us who he got that information from last April?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite is aware that we expect the Auditor General’s report today. There’s a criminal investigation going on that’s being conducted by the OPP, and I look forward to the recommendations of the Auditor General, as does our government. I would remind the member opposite—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —that the OPP investigation will—I’m not certain when that will be completed, but that will also assist all of us in understanding what went on there.

Clearly, there were challenges that we were not aware of at the time, in April. I welcome the Auditor General, as well as the OPP investigation, to assist us in getting closer to understanding what precisely occurred at Ornge over the course of the last number of years—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: It’s not enough to say that there’s an investigation going on. It’s not enough to say that the Auditor General will report the results of his investigation. The question that I put to the minister was very specific. I want to know now who’s investigating the Ministry of Finance for the information that they gave the minister so that he could stand in this place and say that, unequivocally, he can assure the taxpayers that the terms of the contractual arrangements are in the best interest of the taxpayer.

Will the minister now stand in his place and tell us who gave him that information that allowed him so boldly to stand in his place and say that he could unequivocally assure taxpayers that their best interests are being met?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Later today, the Minister of Health will be bringing forward legislation that will contain the government’s entire response to this very—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The convention is, when I stand, it gets quiet.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health will be bringing forward new legislation today. We’ve signed a new performance agreement. The OPP is key, in my view—and I think it’s the view of all members of the House—to understanding what precisely went wrong.

To the member opposite, I do regret saying that last year. There’s no question. We on this side of the House are confident the OPP will do the kind of investigation that the Minister of Health has asked them to. I’m confident that the legislation the minister is bringing forward today is appropriate. I’m confident in the Auditor General, and I’m confident the OPP will help us get to the bottom of this.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, finally there is one cabinet minister here who actually regrets that he said what he said about this issue, and I want to commend him for that. But there are many others who have not accepted responsibility, and that speaks to the need for having a select committee of the Legislature where people can come forward and tell us exactly what they knew. The OPP investigation won’t go there; the Auditor General’s scope will not include that. There are many front-line people who want to come and tell us what happened and what must be done to restore confidence in our air ambulance service.

I want to know from the minister now, in the same spirit that he admitted that he was wrong when he made the statement in April: Will he stand in his place and admit that we need a select committee, and will he support a select committee of the Legislature to get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me first of all say to the member opposite and all Ontarians that our Minister of Health has taken every appropriate and necessary step in a timely fashion to get at the bottom of this most unfortunate set of circumstances.

Mr. Speaker, let’s just review what we’ve done. First of all, the Auditor General will be reporting today. I look forward to his recommendations, as does the Minister of Health, and she will act on those recommendations.

Second of all, we asked the OPP to come in and look at this because, quite frankly, the member opposite and others know that what went on here could possibly—and we don’t know for certain. We’ll wait for their investigation. We will learn things that nobody had access to, I suspect, as a result of this. We have taken all the appropriate steps in as timely a fashion as is possible. I’m confident the Auditor—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is also to the Minister of Finance. The Auditor General’s report, as you’ve just indicated, is going to be released about an hour from now. The Minister of Health—as you know, and we all know if we’re in cabinet—has had the report in her hand for several weeks. She knows what it will say, and that’s probably why she’s not here today. She knows it will say that she—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows that we do not reference people’s attendance in the House, by tradition.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: She knows it will say she had greater oversight ability than she has been telling the public, the media and the members of this House. Who—I say to the Minister of Finance, through the Speaker—made the decision to say that the minister didn’t have the oversight abilities which the auditor says she does?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I look forward to the Auditor General’s report today, but more importantly, I look forward to the legislation the minister will bring forward today. Most importantly, I ask that member and the party opposite: Will they support that legislation? Because the Minister of Health has acted in the interest of all Ontario taxpayers in a comprehensive and timely fashion. She has responded in a situation that, in my view, is unprecedented—certainly something that I have never seen. I have confidence in her ability to deal with the Auditor General’s report.

I look forward to the introduction of her legislation today, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to the support of the official opposition for that legislation as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Minister of Finance: I think, again, we’re hearing a minister and a government who are more focused on issues management than actually getting to the bottom of the scandal at Ornge.

I’m going to give the Minister of Finance another opportunity to answer to this House. If the decision to have the minister pretend she lacked oversight powers for Ornge came from the Premier’s office staff—who were, as we now know, briefed on the alarming and intricate web of Ornge businesses—I ask the minister, how are they being held accountable?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I have confidence that the Auditor General of Ontario will present us with a full and comprehensive report. I have confidence in the Ontario Provincial Police, that their criminal investigation will result in an appropriate response from them as to whether or not criminal activity took place. I have great confidence in the Minister of Health and the way she has handled this, Mr. Speaker. It has been a difficult issue. The opposition is now on a fishing expedition.

I’m looking forward to the introduction of legislation this afternoon that the minister will bring to this House, and I look forward to the support of that member and her colleagues for that legislation, because what’s important to Ontarians is that we move forward and we correct the challenges that were there. The Minister of Health is doing just that, Mr. Speaker, and I have confidence in the—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, we also have confidence in the Auditor General. But we know that the scope of his investigation is limited, and that’s why we, again, want to make sure that we have a select committee to get to the bottom of what happened at Ornge.

The auditor is going to say that the minister had the power to oversee Ornge and step in and actually do something to prevent the scandals there. If the Minister of Health is not willing to acknowledge that, and if she’s not going to honour the word she gave to the members of this House to support a select committee, then I ask the member, the Minister of Finance opposite, is she prepared to be held accountable, as a cabinet minister should be, and do the honourable thing and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, our Premier, our government and every member on this side of the House has full confidence in the Minister of Health. She has taken appropriate action in a timely fashion. She called in the Auditor General. She called in the OPP. She has dealt with an unprecedented situation. They talk a good game, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A reminder that when I stand, we do get quiet and don’t use it as an opportunity to throw in some last jarbs, please.

Interjection: Barbs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Yeah, barbs.

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The party opposite refuses to acknowledge that public accounts meets next week. We’ll call witnesses. We’ll deal with this.

This issue is a challenging one. It is rife with all kinds of unprecedented situations. The Minister of Health has dealt with every one of them, in our view, properly, appropriately and timely, something—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —the calibre, the type of minister she is is something we never saw in that government. We’re proud of her. We stand behind her. We’re going to rebuild this thing and make sure all Ontarians are satisfied that we’ve taken the right steps.

Interjections.

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: To the Acting Premier: On March 5, the Minister of Health promised, “If it is the will of this Legislature that there be a select committee ... I will, of course, be fully supportive of that.”

Yesterday, a majority of elected representatives in this Legislature voted to strike an all-party select committee to get to the root of the debacle at Ornge. My question: Will the Acting Premier abide by the will of this Legislature and promise to strike that select committee today?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’d like to update members on a meeting of the public accounts committee that was held this morning where it was confirmed that, on March 28, as well as April 4 and April 18, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, a standing committee of this Legislature, will be holding hearings on Ornge. It’s going to begin in the morning of March 28 with the Auditor General briefing the committee on the contents of his report. In the afternoon, the committee will have the opportunity—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Shouting people down is not the tradition of this place.

Hon. John Milloy: In the afternoon, the committee will hear from the Deputy Minister of Health, as well as Ron McKerlie, the acting CEO of Ornge.

I also understand that members brought forward, including the New Democratic Party, a list of witnesses which will be discussed later on during the subcommittee meeting.

There is a standing committee of this Legislature, one which is respected, one which is known—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Evidently the government will ignore the will of this House, just as it has ignored countless whistle-blowers and its own powers of investigation under the performance agreement until the debacle at Ornge made headline news.

Here’s what one of those headlines said under George Smitherman in December. He wrote, “ ... the ministry did not conduct proper oversight ... it is a commentary on my successors and the ministry.” Today, he asks, “What did the minister do? Let’s call them what they are—the funder. What did sugar daddy do?”

Does the Acting Premier agree with the former health minister’s characterization, and will he promise to strike a select committee today?

Hon. John Milloy: I don’t think the member recognizes, as a new member, that he is—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland will come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: —that he is, in fact, attacking a standing committee of this Legislature, which is chaired by the opposition.

All members from all sides of the House, members from all parties, unanimously agreed that the public accounts committee would look into the Ornge situation. They have asked the Auditor General to come forward, they have senior officials coming forward, and they’ll be meeting later this week to discuss other witnesses that will come forward.

The standing committees of this Legislature have unbelievable power when it comes to summoning witnesses and looking into every corner of an—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Mr. Speaker, we’re not attacking anybody. We want the truth in this House for once and for all. Today, the Auditor General is going to give us that truth, and it’s expected that he will highlight the fact that the Minister of Health had the power to open the books at Ornge but did not use it. On top of that, her ministry ignored the warning signs from accountants and employees blowing the whistle and from members of this Legislature.

Does the Acting Premier think that somebody who hasn’t done their job should keep it?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, the member will not take yes for an answer. He is standing here today and talking about an Auditor General’s report and his desire to have a committee of this Legislature look into that report. Mr. Speaker, a committee of this Legislature, chaired by the opposition, is looking into this report. As I said yesterday, far be it from me to meddle in the internal affairs of another party, but I’m sure that if the member speaks to the whip, he can be subbed in to ask questions of public accounts, which is meeting on March 28.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is introducing legislation this afternoon, and I look forward to the support of the NDP and the Conservatives as we move forward with legislation to address concerns about the Ornge situation.

HOME CARE

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Your government continues saying that you’re increasing funding to home care, yet in our constituency offices in Hearst, Kapuskasing and Timmins, we literally get dozens of calls every week about people who are being given reduced services from home care.

I want to give you an example. We have Rollande Dumaresq, who’s blind and who lives in Kapuskasing. She was getting a day and a half a week where somebody would come in and do her personal care, her bathing, her light housekeeping and her meal preparation. She gets a call last Wednesday saying that that’s now going to be reduced down to 0.5 hours per day, two days a week. How is Rollande able to stay at home independently if you’re continually cutting the services that she needs to be able to stay there?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult for me to respond on a specific case. I will take that information and relay it to the Minister of Health on that specifically.

What I can tell the member opposite is that we have invested more than 1.1 billion additional dollars in our Aging at Home strategy.

The other thing I can share with the member opposite is that I do concur there’s more to be done. He’s right about that. I met with a constituent yesterday who just had his services increased. He has MS. It was well publicized in our local media. Those cases are happening as well.

So we’ll look at that individual case to have a better understanding of what happened in that circumstance. We’ve invested more than $1.1 billion, but there is more to do. I acknowledge that and concur with the member opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: To the Deputy Premier: It shouldn’t take a constituent having to call their MPP in order to deal with what needs to be done automatically in our health care system. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The other one is Judith Moses. Judith is a frail individual who lives in the city of Timmins. She is a person who is frail and is not able to do much of what she needs to do at home. She needs services every day in her home to prepare her meals, to do the things that need to be done for her to be able to live independently. She’s incontinent at night. She needs somebody to change the bed. Now she goes from seven days a week to two. How is she to stay in her home independently if you’re going to be reducing those services?

Will you commit to increasing the funding to those services, or doing the shift in resources, in order to make sure that people are able to live at home independently and don’t have to call their MPP to get their services?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, Mr. Speaker, it’s difficult for me to respond to an individual case. I’ll undertake to follow up with the Minister of Health on that.

But I would like to point out to the member opposite, and colleagues in the Legislature, that our 14 community care access centres have helped more than 200,000 people go to home from hospital. Some 150,000 seniors are living safely in their community; 1,600 children with complex chronic diseases are being assisted every day; 23,000 dying people have the ability to stay at home with their families. Thousands of people find the different health care services they need and which are provided to more than 50,000 children.

Mr. Speaker, there are always going to be circumstances, unfortunately, like the member raises. I also see circumstances that are the opposite, where services have gone up, but I do undertake to look into that specific case. Ideally, we want to ensure—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I appreciate the offer to look independently into these particular cases. We’ve already done so with our CCAC. But here’s what the problem is: There’s $116 million a year for the northeastern Ontario CCAC. It covers Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, North Bay and every community going north. The issue is, there’s not enough money to go around. We have an increasing, aging population who have a deeper need year over year, and there are more people going into the system. So what is the CCAC doing?

It’s saying, “Listen, we’re going to try to reduce services to those people whom we think we can do that with so that we can increase services to those people who are in higher need.” The long and the short of the story is that people are going to fail as a result of that. So what I’m looking for from you is a commitment through this budget process that in fact you’re going to do something to deal with making sure that people can stay at home independently and have a system that works for them.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We already have that system, Mr. Speaker; I remind the member of that.

I hope the member and his party opposite will support the proposals that the Minister of Health has made public about how we’re going to fund health care across the range of services. I would point out that, yes, there will be some things in the budget around home care. But what troubles me is that that member and his party voted against every home care initiative in our past budgets. They voted against, for instance, 10,000 new nurses.

They will pick out individual cases, which is fair. We’ll follow up on those. We’ll also point out cases where people are staying at home. I’ve pointed out one individual in my riding, whom I’d never met before, who has MS. He has been able to stay at home for eight years as a result of increasing services. This government and party have the right plan. My hope is, that member and his party will have the courage to support it when the budget is brought—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. New question: the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I have a very serious question for the Deputy Premier, and I think every member of this assembly deserves a straight and very clear response. Can the Deputy Premier tell this House the secret location of the bunker that the Minister of Health and the Premier are hiding in today?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I find that the member’s question is inappropriate and not to the conventions of this place. I will ask her to ask her supplementary.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: There has been a stunning and appalling lack of leadership between the minister and the Premier. They missed a vote in this House last night to have a select committee, and I want to know—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This will be a warning that if another mention of someone’s attendance is made, I will skip your question and move on.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Miss Monique Taylor: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Mr. Speaker, the autism intervention program is delivered through nine regional service providers to children on the severe end of autism spectrum disorder. This program is a lifeline to children and families struggling with autism. My question is this: What evaluation is done of this program to ensure that children with autism are receiving the highest-quality and most effective treatment?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: Mr. Speaker, as always, I appreciate the question from the member opposite. It gives me the opportunity to remind everyone in the Legislature of our investments to help families that have kids with autism. In fact, since 2003, when this government first came into power, we have more than quadrupled autism investment, to a total of $186 million annually this year alone. I should mention, as well, last year’s new investment of $25 million specifically for ABA treatment, which is an important form of treatment that I believe approximately 8,000 new children with autism will be able to avail themselves of. That is a new program.

We will continue to meet with experts and service providers, as well as with parents of children and youth with autism, to make sure that we provide the best possible services.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Miss Monique Taylor: It would appear that the reports are compiled outlining the number of children entering and leaving the program. However, evaluations of how the children responded to the treatment and the effectiveness of the programs are not being completed, in spite of the requirements for this evaluation under the program guidelines.

The minister has received correspondence from concerned parents, including an email to MPPs documenting this issue on March 15. When will the minister commit to evaluating these programs so that the best practices can be determined and children with autism are receiving the highest quality of care?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: It is a good opportunity, actually, for me to mention that not only does there exist a process of appeal if parents with children and youth with autism feel that the treatment provided to them could be altered or improved, but importantly—and I think we all appreciate that parents do want to know how their children are progressing, the impact of the treatment that they’re receiving, the treatment and services that best meet their needs.

We are establishing an autism spectrum disorders clinical expert committee to accomplish exactly what the member opposite is asking for and to provide advice to the ministry on effective interventions, emerging research and best clinical practices, so that the experts, on an ongoing basis, can assure the parents that their children and youth are getting the care they require.

USER FEES

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Minister, it was recently announced that the Ministry of Transportation would be phasing in incremental increases on a number of various MTO services, such as replacing lost drivers’ licences, issuing permits for off-road vehicles and plate validation renewals.

These fees have been around for decades, as we all know. Ontarians understand that when they use certain services, a reasonable fee is involved to cover the cost of providing that service.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Do these increases ensure that MTO’s fee structures remain fair for the taxpayers of Pickering–Scarborough East and all Ontarians, while allowing priority investments to be made in the future for our transportation infrastructure?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pickering–Scarborough East for the question. Indeed, these changes do safeguard that Ontario’s fees remain fair for all types of road users.

The fact of the matter is, the last time these fees for automobile validation renewals were raised was in 1997, 15 years ago, when the members for Halton, Oxford, Durham, Oshawa, Newmarket–Aurora, Haldimand–Norfolk, York–Simcoe and Wellington–Halton Hills, all Conservatives, voted to raise them.

Another fact is that inflation alone over the past 15, 20 and 25 years has led to many of these fees being critically below the cost of the services they are designed to cover. That difference is something that taxpayers ultimately end up having to absorb, and that disparity only grows over time.

Rather than subsidizing someone else’s driver’s licence replacement—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —or snowmobile—

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

I remind members that when I say thank you, that is the last word. I would like you to finish the wrap-up, and then you sit down.

Supplementary?

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Minister. I can’t think of many services in Ontario where the cost of those services is the same as or less than they were 20 years ago, in 1992. Car washes, theatre tickets and newspapers cost significantly more nowadays than they did 20 years ago, even though these things have changed very little, if anything, in two decades.

I think most taxpayers would agree that essentially subsidizing other people’s things like snowmobile permits is not necessarily an efficient or fair use of their tax dollars. I know the PC Party disagrees with that, and we all know they are for keeping unsustainable subsidies in place these days.

Can the minister assure Ontarians that Ontario fees will not become an undue disadvantage relative to other provinces in our country?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member raises some interesting parallels. Our fees are being brought more into line with the national average but will remain lower than most, even in 2015.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to passenger vehicle validation fees, right now in New Brunswick, for example, the fee is $172; in British Columbia, it’s $142; in Manitoba, it’s $119; in Quebec, it’s $104; in Nova Scotia, it’s $100; in Ontario, it is $74. In 2015, the maximum fee in Ontario will be $98, still below all of the above.

There are some tough choices that lie ahead, but when faced with the choice between supporting better health care, better education and better roads, or supporting millions in subsidies for racetracks and snowmobile permits, unlike the party opposite, our party will choose better health care—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Bill Walker: Thank you, Speaker. Through you to the Deputy Premier: The Minister of Health says that new legislation to increase oversight at Ornge is coming today, but she knows that the auditor already found she had the oversight powers to step in.

The reason Ornge is in the mess it is today is because Minister Matthews did not have the good judgment to act in response to warnings about spinoff companies stealing valuable health care dollars, or of cooked books, or the almost daily revelations of crew and patient safety being compromised.

Why change the legislation when the problem is the minister who oversaw the scandals at Ornge and did nothing?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, this government welcomes the Auditor General’s report. We welcome the OPP investigation. Clearly, the new legislation the minister is bringing in today is designed to deal with a circumstance that had never happened before. What is important is that the minister has acted in a timely fashion—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: She has, first of all, ensured—and I know all Ontarians agree, contrary to what the member opposite suggested—that we have the best paramedics, the best air ambulance service around. All those steps have been appropriate, and I look forward to his support of the minister’s legislation when she introduces it later—

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

Mr. Bill Walker: To the Deputy Premier again: Improving oversight only works when you can trust the people doing the oversight. The minister and top Premier’s office staff were given a 30-page briefing note about what Ornge was up to. Even when they are spoon-fed the information, they do nothing.

The minister’s failure to step in when she could shows her bad judgment. She no longer has the trust of Ontarians. She cannot fix the problem because she is the problem. Why hasn’t she resigned?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The Minister of Health has dealt appropriately, timely and reasonably, and has done all the right things to make sure that this never happens again. I would suggest, with respect, that the people of Ontario have confidence in that minister, as does every member on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker. I have had the opportunity to serve in public life for some 23 years in a variety of capacities, and I am proud of the response to a very difficult circumstance.

I look forward to the Auditor General’s report later today. We look forward to receiving the OPP investigation. We look forward, as the minister has said, to responding to all of the Auditor General’s recommendations. I put that Minister of Health up against any Tory on that side of the House, and certainly any Tory health minister in the past. One of the—

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

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the minister responsible for the Pan/Parapan American Games. On February 28, I asked the minister about concerns raised by Paul Henderson respecting the games going over budget. The minister said at the time that less than 3% of the budget had been spent and that we are still negotiating venues. Sixty percent of the venues have been clustered from 51 sites to 30 sites.

Speaker, will the minister tell Ontarians the details of the tendering processes and the actual operating and new construction costs associated with these significant venue changes?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I am very proud of the fact that Toronto 2015 has been doing what’s necessary to provide a world-class set of games to Ontario. They have just made a presentation to PASO down in Mexico. They’ll be updating their website with some of the details of that presentation. We are undergoing, in regard to finalizing those venue announcements.

I am extremely excited, as should all Ontarians be, about the outstanding contribution that the games will bring in 2015. Over 10,000 athletes and officials will be attending. More than 15,000 jobs will be brought to the province. This is going to do an amazing amount to promote athleticism, tourism and economic—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —for the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Once again, I didn’t get an answer. Speaker, we have two and a half years until the opening of these games. Minister Sousa’s Pan Am website states that we will see economic development, as he just said, through building new and improved sport and recreation infrastructure.

With the new clustering of event venues and no public financial accounting to date, Speaker, will this minister tell us where these venues will be located, and where the money for building the new venues, some so far from Athletes’ Village, will come from? And when will the financing of these games be shown to the taxpayers of Ontario? We’ve been asking for a long time. What’s the price?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We do know that there’s a contribution of over $500 million from the federal government. They’re contributing now in terms of the venues and the construction of the venues. They’ll be putting up 60%. The municipalities will be putting up 40%. The government of Ontario’s putting up $500 million as well, for operating.

There’s a total of about $1.4 billion in that budget. That is out there already, in the public domain. We have made every effort to ensure that things are done on time, and Mr. Speaker, we’re doing everything we can to make sure it’s on budget. I am very, very proud of the efforts and the work done by those individuals.

To the member across the way: I am extremely anxious to get everything out there openly and transparently. It is my desire to do the same, because we want to ensure confidence in what’s being done. I’m sure the member across will be just as excited once—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Monte Kwinter: My question is for the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. In the midst of the global economic uncertainty, major cities around the world are competing with one another to corner the tourism market and to remain major destinations for tourists. The city of Toronto is no exception.

As a major metropolis and Ontario’s capital, Toronto is constantly competing with overseas markets, and that is why it’s important for the government to ensure that Toronto remains a destination of choice for national and international visitors.

Speaker, through you to the minister, what reassurance can this government offer to Toronto residents to let them know that their city is fiercely competing for tourism despite challenges to major economies?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from York Centre for asking.

The member will be happy to hear that Tourism Toronto recently reported that 2011 was a record year for tourism in the city. For the first time ever, the number of sold hotel rooms surpassed nine million—a wonderful record indeed. Visitor spending, including same-day trips, totalled $4.6 billion in the Toronto region, covering a range of businesses and activities while employing 242,000 people in the hospitality and tourism sector.

Our government remains proud and committed to actively engaging new and emerging markets to enhance Toronto’s and Ontario’s tourism industry, and we will continue to move forward to attract new visitors.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’m happy to see that Toronto has improved its visitor numbers and continues to grow in the tourism market. However, in addition to overnight stays, I’m sure Torontonians would like to know their city is benefiting from tourism that attracts hosting and events. The city is equipped with a multitude of venues that are second to none, which should be used to showcase what Toronto has to offer.

Speaker, can the minister indicate what sorts of attractions are bringing tourists to Toronto and what exactly this government is doing to invest in the city’s tourism so that it may continue to compete on an international level?

Hon. Michael Chan: Our efforts have firmly placed Toronto and Ontario on the world map as a premier global travel destination by offering one-of-a-kind festivals, cultural attractions, conventions and world-class sporting events that generate jobs and strengthen our economy.

Toronto has hosted a number of organizations and signature events. Last year, Speaker, our government was proud to welcome the International Indian Film Academy Awards to Toronto, drawing tens of thousands of visitors and enabling our economy to gain a greater share of India’s $125-million overseas film production industry. This year, Speaker, the city welcomed the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada for their conference, which drew close to 30,000 people to the city. And this July, Toronto will host—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Deputy Premier. On March 1, the Minister of Health looked the members of this House in the eye and said, “If it is the will of this Legislature that a select committee be struck, I will be nothing but supportive.”

Well, the Legislature has spoken. It is our will that a select committee be struck, yet the minister has been silent. Deputy Premier, where is the minister and why is she not supporting our call for a select committee?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member is desperately close to making an assumption of someone’s attendance here in the House. I understand what she said. I don’t like the idea that it’s walking the line. I would ask and remind the member not to do that again.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Once again, I know that the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that standing committees or the committees of this Legislature are not looking into the Ornge situation. As I mentioned earlier, Mr. Speaker, on March 28, the public accounts committee, a standing committee of this Legislature, which in fact is chaired by one of her colleagues, will be looking into the Ornge situation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In this case, I was actually trying to hear clearly and the member is sitting right beside me. I still couldn’t hear, so please.

The answer?

Hon. John Milloy: On March 28, at 9 a.m., it will begin with a briefing by the Auditor General, followed by an appearance in the afternoon by the Deputy Minister of Health and the interim executive director of Ornge. Mr. Speaker, at the same time, the minister will be tabling legislation, introducing it in the House this afternoon, which, if it receives second reading, we anticipate will go to a parliamentary committee.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The will of the Legislature has been very clearly stated, and that is to have a select committee to look into this matter. The public accounts committee is not set up for that. They track progress in fixing the financial mismanagement the auditor identified. Similarly, the OPP is looking at evidence of criminal wrongdoing, not the focus that we need to have. And the legislation that the minister is proposing to bring in this afternoon is completely premature because we don’t even know what the problem is. That is why we ask again, will you set up a select committee that has been identified and voted and supported by the will of this Legislature?

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I thought the standing ovation was for me.

Let me review for members once again. We have had a forensic audit of Ornge. We have an OPP investigation into Ornge. We have the Auditor General’s report, which will be made public very shortly. We have the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which has the full authority of any standing committee to call witnesses, to ask for papers. There was a committee meeting this morning which began to plan their hearings into Ornge. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, very shortly, the Minister of Health will be introducing legislation to this Legislature, which, if it passes second reading, I anticipate will go to committee, which will have an opportunity to examine the Ornge situation.

I further add, Mr. Speaker, as my friend the deputy House leader keeps pointing out, there are nine standing committees of this Legislature, and under the standing orders of—

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

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Minister, on Monday, you stated in this House: “When we discuss programs, serious programs, which this government brought in, we do that in concert with our stakeholders. So we’re having discussions with the agricultural sector. We’ll sit down with our stakeholders ... to make sure that we get things right....”

Minister, the OLG revenue-sharing agreement was supported by your government for many years. In fact, in 2008, your government commissioned a study which found that the agreement was beneficial for the province. And, sir, the equine sector is a major agricultural stakeholder in the province. Minister, did you consult with the farm families that depend on the horse industry for their livelihood before your government decided to kill it?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: To the Minister of Finance and the Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not seeking quiet for you to continue.

Deputy Premier.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. conducted public consultations beginning in January through to June 2011. They met with First Nations, they met with casino owners and operators, responsible gambling researchers, racetrack owners, horse people, industry leaders, operators in other jurisdictions, convenience store operators and government organizations.

The consultations were conducted to hear stakeholder perceptions on the future of lottery and gaming in Ontario, to learn about best practices from within the province and around the world, and to identify opportunities to work with the private sector or stakeholders in new ways. The consistent message, Mr. Speaker, was that we had to change the way we’re doing business, we had to be more effective and better at what we were doing, and we are—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: Again to the Minister of Agriculture: The horse racing industry creates more than 30,000 direct jobs in the rural parts of Ontario: people who pay taxes, who in fact pay for health care and who create another 30,000 spinoff jobs—jobs that will disappear because your government decided to renege on a contract. The overall losses in the agricultural sector will be far greater than any money that your government will claim to save.

To the Minister of Agriculture: What do you have to say to the thousands of farm families who will lose their livelihood because of your government’s decision?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think what needs to be put on the record is what we can do in rural Ontario with $345 million. For instance, Mr. Speaker, this sector receives two and a half times more than all the money made available to nine other sectors for risk management. With $345 million, we could hire 18 times more what is needed for meat inspection in rural Ontario; and we could cover all of rural Ontario with broadband. We are spending two times more on this than we spend on the rural economic development fund for all of rural Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult choices. Our priority is to move in the direction we’ve indicated. The NDP are trying to have it both ways. They oppose gambling one day, and the next—

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

QUEEN ELIZABETH II

DIAMOND JUBILEE MEDAL

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, this is a landmark year in Canada: 2012 marks the 60th anniversary of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II’s ascension to the throne. It is the year of her Diamond Jubilee. This is an incredible landmark, Mr. Speaker.

This year-long celebration gives Ontarians a chance to look back and thank Her Majesty for her tireless service to Ontario and to Canada. It also gives all of us in this House the opportunity to recognize outstanding community leaders who exemplify the Queen’s kindness, generosity and sense of duty.

Minister, you’ve mentioned in this House before that the Diamond Jubilee Medals will be awarded to a number of deserving Ontarians. My question to the minister is: How will this medal serve to recognize those deserving individuals in our communities?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I’d like to thank the great member from Ajax–Pickering for the question.

This year marks the Diamond Jubilee of Her Majesty the Queen. The last monarch to celebrate a Diamond Jubilee was Queen Victoria, in 1897. To recognize this milestone, the province will recognize over 2,000 outstanding Ontarians with a Diamond Jubilee Medal, and these medal recipients are people who have used their time and talents to make our province a better place to live. Residents of Ontario can be nominated if they are a Canadian citizen or a permanent resident and have distinguished themselves in their fields.

Mr. Speaker, this is a fitting way to celebrate Her Majesty and the importance she puts on service to others.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Minister, I know that there is a lot of excitement out there about these awards. People are asking how they can nominate worthy community members from their own community. In my community of Ajax–Pickering alone, there are a number of individuals whose commitment and service have been extraordinary, and these will be announced very shortly.

Minister, how can members of this House and all Ontarians nominate deserving members of our communities for a Diamond Jubilee Medal?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is an exciting opportunity to recognize some truly outstanding individuals. All members of provincial Parliament have the opportunity to nominate residents of their ridings to receive Diamond Jubilee Medals. This will ensure that they reach every corner of the province and reward those Ontarians who share the bravery, kindness and commitment demonstrated by the Queen.

In addition, all Ontarians have a chance to nominate members of their community for a Diamond Jubilee Medal. Ontarians can visit the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration’s website and fill out the online nomination form.

Throughout her reign, Her Majesty has been an inspiration to people around the world. Let us recognize extraordinary Ontarians in honour of Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Minister of Education. Minister, last week you defended the fact that your government broke a revenue-sharing agreement by saying that the agreement only benefits “a few wealthy racetrack owners.” Minister, obviously you have heard from Ontarians who are incensed by your absolutely disgraceful comments. Do you still agree that the revenue-sharing agreement that you have broken only benefits a few wealthy racetrack owners?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: To the Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please.

Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to take the question, for which I have responsibility—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Renfrew, last and only warning.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’ve been talking today a lot about Ornge, Mr. Speaker. This year we’ll spend $150 million on Ornge. That compares to $345 million to the horse racing industry.

These are difficult and necessary choices. With the $345 million we can continue to hire nurses in our small rural hospitals who will contribute to the economy. We can keep teachers in small rural schools. That is our priority: more teachers in rural schools and more nurses in rural hospitals.

These times call for difficult and necessary choices. We’ve made one here. It’s the appropriate thing under the circumstances. Our priorities are—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I can tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker: The horse racing industry is not Ornge.

Minister, today in the members’ gallery we have Ms. Rosie Shellswell. Rosie is not a wealthy racetrack owner. Rosie is 31 years old. She has cared for horses and has prepared them for racing for the past 16 years. This is her livelihood. Rosie cannot drive because she has an inoperable brain tumour. She can only dream of having an income and a chauffeur and all the benefits similar to those you, as the minister, have. Yet Rosie continues to smile and care for her horses and has never received one penny of compensation from the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Or your leader. Your leader has one. Your leader has a chauffeur.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Why don’t you shut up, okay?

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw that, sir.

Rosie is one of 60,000-plus people who will not be able to earn a living as a result of your sad and pathetic destruction of the horse racing industry, an industry that has returned some $16 billion to this province. Minister, can you explain to Rosie what prompted you to kill 60,000 Ontario jobs, and do you have the courage to actually apologize to Rosie and others like her in this province for your comments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There are people who are losing their jobs. These are difficult and necessary choices, but we have a $16-billion deficit. The member opposite feigns deep concern but waits till the last minute of question period to ask questions. Two weeks ago, they said we should end all corporate subsidies. Just be careful, I would say to the industry, to work with all sides of the House, because they say one thing one day and quite a different thing the other day. We differ with them; these are difficult transitions.

There will be a horse racing industry. It will be comparable in size to others. Unfortunately, these difficult and necessary choices are being made in the best interests of all Ontarians.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: This question is to the Acting Premier. We have learned today that the dozens of hospital projects that the Liberal government had promised during the election campaign, just a few short months ago, are on the chopping block. In my community, we have been waiting for years for a new facility at Peel Memorial Hospital. Promise after promise has been made and broken. In October 2007, the McGuinty government announced funding for this hospital. Four years later, again on the eve of an election, this funding was reannounced. Can the Acting Premier assure my community that the Peel Memorial Hospital redevelopment will actually move forward?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the Minister of Infrastructure.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. Mr. Speaker, we’re proud of the 23 hospitals that were built or under construction under our government, certainly compared to the 28 hospitals that were closed by the Conservative government. We have been making unprecedented investments in infrastructure over the last seven years. Indeed, the average infrastructure investment by the previous government was $2.6 billion per year. Our average, over the last seven years, has been over $10 billion per year.

The

article that appeared in the newspaper today is inaccurate in many respects. I would encourage the member to pay attention to the budget. The reality is that there will be some adjustments made in our profiling of infrastructure, but we will still have a very robust infrastructure budget creating many jobs.

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

I offer to the members an observation, and the observation is one of my difficulty in hearing, sometimes, the question, and, most of the times, the answer. Sometimes people point their fingers at each other, saying they said something unparliamentary. I cannot hear everything that is said and done. This is about the honour of members not using unparliamentary language. If any membe