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

April 15, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Apr-15 (PDF)

L024 - Mon 15 Apr 2013 / Lun 15 avr 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 15 April 2013 Lundi 15 avril 2013

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

POWER PLANTS

CANCER TREATMENT

CANCER TREATMENT

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NURSES

POWER PLANTS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

WIRELESS SERVICES

WASTE DIVERSION

CANCER TREATMENT

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TOURISM

VICTIMS OF CRIME

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS

FOOD ASSISTANCE

YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

DISASTER RELIEF

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

ALFREDO DEGASPERIS

PLANT CLOSURE

THUNDER BAY ECONOMY

HYDRO RATES

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

PETITIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

CHILD CUSTODY

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

CATARACT SURGERY

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

AIR-RAIL LINK

TIRE DISPOSAL

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

ROAD SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Rob Leone: I would like to take the opportunity to introduce Alanna Newman, who is the incoming Ontario PC Youth Association president and the president of the Scarborough–Guildwood PC Youth Association. I’d also like to introduce Stuart Clark, who is the presidential candidate for the Ontario PC Campus Association and president of the Queen’s campus Conservatives. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a delight to welcome Girls in Government on Girls in Government day today. We have teachers Ms. Kathryn Grant and Ms. Anne Daley; we have students Jacqueline Pinnington, Una Crawley, Christina Roberto, Harmony Campbell, Alexandra Lucchese, Eva Newhook, Caitlin Aspinall, Anna McAlpine, Sydney Duffy, Kate Armstrong, Safis Assadolha, Olivia Hui, Kathleen Evans and Eva Bonjour-Liss; and parent Nancy Evans. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m just thrilled to introduce Dianne McKenzie. She is executive director of Epilepsy Durham Region. She is here today to meet with myself and MPP Dickson, and I believe she’s met with many other MPPs. She’s a delight. She’s very organized. She’s just a fantastic advocate for her organization.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my pleasure to introduce constituents from the great riding of Durham: Walter Stapleton and his granddaughter Rileigh Stapleton. Rileigh is a grade 7 student at Trinity College, who has expressed interest in my job in the future.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Speaker, it gives me great pleasure—sitting in the Speaker’s gallery today is a former member of the provincial Parliament, Ken Keyes, who served here from 1985 to 1990. He was one of my predecessors as mayor of the city of Kingston and also one of my mentors who brought me into political life many, many years ago.

He is joined today by Yveta Tesar, who works with the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care in Kingston. She wanted the chance to visit Queen’s Park to view question period and have lunch with her MPP.

I’m very pleased to welcome you both, and I’m sure you will join me in that as well, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the Attorney General for stepping on my task.

The member from Nepean–Carleton.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is a pleasure to welcome to the assembly today my aunt and uncle, up from Nova Scotia to be part of the assembly. I won’t make a comment on the favourite hockey team that they’re going to watch tonight, but let’s just say this: Go, Sens, go, and may the Leafs not make the playoffs yet again.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I have friends here from Algoma–Manitoulin. Today one of our pages, Callum Arnold, is captain. His proud grandparents George and Leona Arnold are here, along with his parents, Kimberly and Wayne Arnold, and the beautiful, young, little sister, Sarah Rose Arnold. Please welcome them.

Ms. Soo Wong: I’d like to welcome Fiona Su, who is my new assistant in the constituency office. Welcome, Fiona, to the House.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would like to welcome the family of our page captain, Maddy Elliott. Maddy is a student in grade 7 at Laurelwood Public School in my riding of Kitchener–Waterloo. I’d like to congratulate her and welcome her family, who are here with us today for question period, in the members’ gallery: Adam Elliott, Frejia Elliott, Joe Elliott, Beverly Elliott, Shawna Elliott, Liam Kelly and Josie Chretien.

I would also like to recognize Constable Ralph Morales, who is up in the public gallery. He’s Maddy’s uncle.

We’re all proud of you today, Maddy. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Speaker: I believe the comment made by the member from Nepean–Carleton was offensive to all Maple Leafs fans, and I would ask that you have her withdraw that statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I haven’t even tried, and I’ve lost control.

I’d like to thank the member from Newmarket–Aurora for setting us in the right tone.

In deference to the Attorney General, it is the Speaker’s joy to introduce former members, and I’m going to actually duplicate that introduction by introducing Mr. Ken Keyes from Kingston and the Islands, in the 33rd and 34th Parliaments. Welcome to the Speaker’s gallery of the House.

Also, today in the Speaker’s gallery, we have, from the great riding of Brant, Kailyn Gadsby from Brantford and Rosemary Crawford from Paris, both recipients of the InterMune IPF Legacy Scholarship Program, living with a debilitating disease. Joining them today are their family and friends: Susan Gadsby, Aaron Gadsby, Miranda Mabini, Carrie-Lyn MacNeil, Paul Crawford, Annette Crawford. And from InterMune Canada: Joel Bathe, Rod Elliot and Megan Boyle. Welcome to Queen’s Park, and thank you for being here.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have a feeling you’re going to be saying sorry quite a bit today.

I beg to inform the House that, in accordance with

section 87 of the Legislative Assembly Act, the name of the following person appointed to serve on the Board of Internal Economy has been communicated to me as chair of the Board of Internal Economy: Donna Cansfield, MPP, is appointed by the caucus of the government in the place of David Orazietti, MPP.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order from the member from Leeds–Grenville.

Mr. Steve Clark: I would like to correct my record in a question on Thursday to Premier Wynne asking her to support the capacity to pay act. I quoted an Ottawa Sun editorial. What I said at the time was that the editorial said, “This bill should be supported by all parties. Stop” the madness. In fact, the editorial read, “This bill should be supported by all parties. Stop this nonsense.”

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is a point of order, and the member is very within his rights to correct his own record. Thank you.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you very much, Speaker, and good morning. My question is for the Minister of Finance. The people of Ontario, Minister, anxiously await a budget date. The hearings of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs have concluded. The final report is being assembled and should be in the hands of the minister this week.

While having no confidence in this government, the PC Party does have a job to do on behalf of all Ontarians. Our job is to ensure that the McGuinty-Wynne government stays true to its word and provides a balanced budget on schedule—your schedule, 2017-18, because based on facts and figures we do not believe that you can or that you will.

Minister, you have refused to categorically state that you will balance the budget on time. I’d be very happy with a simple yes or no response. Will you meet that date and balance the budget, yes or no?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I am very proud of the outstanding work that’s being done by all Ontarians, recognizing that for the last four years running we’ve beat our targets. We have conceded in achieving some outstanding results on behalf of our province. We are on target to balance our books by 2017-18 as planned, and we’ll do it with or without the opposition. I hope you’ll support us because what we plan forward is going to be the appropriate thing for all Ontarians in a balanced approach to ensure that no extreme initiatives are taken that would hinder that recovery, because we are on track to achieve a balanced budget by 2017-18.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Minister, your response is laughable but it’s not funny.

We in the opposition have dismantled and analyzed the figures. Speaker, we simply do not accept the possibility even remotely that Minister Sousa could possibly deliver a balanced budget in the McGuinty-Wynne government’s stated time frame, and I’d like to send over a slide deck so that we can share with you the work that we’ve done.

Your wavering and refusal to be specific causes us and indeed the major credit agencies to worry. Ontario needs jobs creation and investment. Your hesitation and your coached media coyness tell us that you don’t know how to balance the books. You’ve already dipped into the only savings you had from the past fiscal year to pay for your government’s capitulation to the teachers’ unions. Your cupboard is bare. What are you going to do about it?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s put this in perspective. We have 400,000 more net new jobs since the recession, the worst recession in history over the last 90 years, and we have achieved some outstanding success. We’ve now been able to bend our cost curve. We’re implementing over 50% of Drummond’s recommendations. We’ve taken on a report by Jobs and Prosperity and we’re looking also at social reform to support those most vulnerable so that everybody can succeed, and we are doing it in a very, very collaborative way because that’s the way to go.

What the opposition is suggesting is extreme measures, slash and burn, do away with those in need and ensure that what would end up happening is in fact even a worse recovery. What we need is to facilitate that recovery because it is a sensitive recovery, and we are on track because we’ve achieved those targets and more, and that’s exactly what you’re going to hear in our budget going forward—

Interjection.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Your slide deck I welcome. What I really—

Interjections.

Hon. Charles Sousa: —good solutions going forward.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: We provided them. Frankly, Speaker, we’re tired of the new minister practising his answer evasion skills on the media and now to the people of Ontario. Business as usual for your government is a disaster for our economy and for the people of Ontario. People are tired of these teasers. Just answer the questions, Minister. It’s simple. How about the straight goods right now? When are you tabling your budget? Are you maintaining or breaking your promise to balance in 2017-18? What services are being cut, or, conversely, what taxes are being raised?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let me be clear. We beat our targets four years running. We’re going towards a balanced budget by 2017-18. We’re working with Ontarians—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’ll do. Thank you.

Minister.

Hon. Charles Sousa: And to Rick Brennan’s question, I guarantee that we are working towards every possibility to balance our budget by 2017-18, and we will do what’s necessary to achieve that success.

We’ve incorporated a lot of recommendations from a lot of people around the province, because we have reached out to everyone as much as we can. Well over 600,000 people have been touched in terms of what it is we want. We’ve got input from a lot of people to make this a budget that speaks to the people of Ontario, and we will work towards that, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate all of the recommendations and input that has been made.

TEACHERS’ COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. Last week, I asked you 11 questions and sent a letter asking to know the true cost of the secret OSSTF deal—still no details. It’s common knowledge that the retirement gratuities alone cost $63 million. This does not include the extended maternity benefits, nor does it include the attendance recognition.

Can you inform the House how much the enhanced maternity benefits and the attendance recognition will be used from your so-called savings?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I’m very happy to report to the House that we do have an agreement with OSSTF. That agreement is in the process of being ratified as we speak, and I’m very optimistic that that agreement will be ratified.

What’s really important about the agreement is that we will be able to move forward with our teachers, who are our front-line professionals—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —in having a school system that is an absolutely excellent—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, come to order. You were too busy yelling to hear me say “Order”—specifically to you, and the member from Chatham.

Hon. Liz Sandals: One of the things that we’re particularly proud of is that because we have approached our teachers in a collegial manner, in fact we do have extracurricular activities returned to our secondary schools.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, that is 12 questions, one letter and zero answers.

The Premier said last week—she acknowledged that she moved money around. She hasn’t put the so-called savings into either front-line classrooms or paying down the deficit.

We know the retirement gratuities cost $63 million alone. The OSSTF MOU and the ministry’s own numbers suggest that the maternity benefits can be calculated to $16 million, and the attendance recognition at $35 million. That means the secret OSSTF deal is costing students, parents and school boards $114 million at minimum, Speaker, and that’s without opening the ETFO agreement or the “me-too” clauses.

When this is all said and done, you will be rearranging hundreds of millions of dollars in the education budget. So I ask you, what programs are going to be cut in order to be paying for this money-moving scheme in the Liberal government?

Hon. Liz Sandals: One of the things I find truly amazing is that the opposition finds it offensive if, working within our budget, we can find a way which makes the school boards happier and the unions happier and the government equally happier, and the kids getting extracurriculars back—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Liz Sandals: —I mean, I just find this amazing that making things work better is bad. I always thought making things work better was good. But what do you know? The opposition thinks making things work better is a bad thing.

I’m sorry, Speaker; I’m very confused by this.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: We think spending money you don’t have is bad.

By the way, anybody who is counting: 13 questions, one letter and zero responses.

The OSSTF deal alone cost, at a minimum, $114 million. The reopened deal with ETFO and the “me-too” clauses for OECTA and AEFO have not even been calculated yet.

You’re trying to make the public and this assembly believe that this is not going to cost anything. I’m sorry, $114 million comes at a price to our students.

Laurel Broten and Dalton McGuinty said that they chose FDK and lower class sizes over enhanced teacher benefits. Your secret OSSTF deal chose sick-day cash payouts instead of class sizes and FDK. You can’t have it both ways; or were Ms. Broten and Mr. McGuinty misleading this House, or are you?

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Certainly, Speaker. Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This is an opportune time to remind members that we do not use individuals’ names. We identify them by their title or by their riding. And I will also remind members that I will be moving to the next question if the continuation of using unparliamentary language was just to simply get on the record and move forward.

Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I would like to assure the parents and students of this province that we have made absolutely no changes to the roll-in of full-day kindergarten. That will continue exactly as planned, and we have not changed the class sizes. We still have the lower class sizes and all the staff that we chose to protect and the $1.8 billion in savings that were announced in January. Those $1.8 billion in savings still exist in March, in April and going forward. This new agreement is not costing taxpayers in Ontario one dollar more. The costing in January is the same as the overall costing in April. The savings from January are the same as the savings in April.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier—

Interjection.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Perhaps Mr. Yakabuski would ask it for me.

Later today, the Auditor General is going to report on the cost of the cancelled power plant in the Mississauga situation. Whether that costs $190 million or more, that’s money that could have been spent on people’s priorities.

Will the Premier apologize for wasting millions of dollars to save a few Liberal seats, which could have been used to get people working, to get the health care that they need, and to get life more affordable for everyday Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Auditor General will report today on the costs, and we welcome his report, but let’s be clear: We listened to the residents of Oakville, we listened to the residents of Mississauga, and we relocated those gas plants. Not only that, as this House knows—every member in this House—all parties agreed that that was the action that needed to be taken. All parties now, I believe, have a responsibility to move forward, improve the siting of future energy projects and ensure that we get it right from the beginning.

I’ve been very clear that it is my wish that we had been able to make those decisions earlier and get it right from the beginning. That’s what we need to do now, but everyone in this House agreed that those gas plants needed to be relocated.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Everybody agreed that they didn’t belong there. New Democrats said we wouldn’t tear up contracts sight unseen. That’s the reality, but the reality is also that there is $190 million, at the very least, that the Liberals decided to spend or waste in order to save some of their own seats. That money could have been used to put 25,000 young people in this province to work with the NDP’s First Start program. It could eliminate the wait-list in home care in this province, and could guarantee that people actually get the home care services that they need within a five-day wait.

Instead, it was handed to a private power company in a cynical attempt by Liberals to hold on to power.

Will the Premier admit that it was wrong? Will she just admit that it was wrong for her government to put the needs of the Liberal Party ahead of these kinds of changes for Ontario’s people?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand where the leader of the third party is coming from, except that she can’t have it both ways. She can’t say that, on one hand, she would relocate the plant and then say but she wouldn’t rip up the contract. That’s just not how it works. We made a commitment. All the parties made a commitment that they would relocate the gas plant. That’s what they said all along. That was the promise that was made on both of these gas plants, and we followed through.

So I say to the leader of the third party, I wish it had been different. I wish we had made a decision earlier that would have meant that that money didn’t have to be spent, Mr. Speaker. But once the decision was made—a decision on which we all agreed—then we had to go forward. We had to go through the process of relocating the plant, and that was the decision that was made.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, it’s unfortunate that the Premier only likes to look at one little, tiny part of the puzzle. The bottom line is, this party over here, called the New Democratic Party, is the only party in this Legislature that does not support private power deals, whether they’re in Oakville, whether they’re in Mississauga, wherever they are.

Here are the facts, just to remind the Premier: The government signed a private power deal, and then not only did they scrap it but they hid the true cost of that decision from the public because it would help them win seats and hold on to power. People are tired of watching the government put the needs of the Liberal Party ahead of the needs of the people of Ontario. Is the Premier ready to say that this was wrong? Just say that it was wrong and that the government should not have done it and apologize.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I am quite in opposition to looking at this narrowly. I actually am trying to look at the big picture, Mr. Speaker. I’m trying to put in place a process to go forward that will be better. I think that the upfront process—the communication with the communities—needs to be better so that we don’t make decisions we have to backtrack on. The reality is that it’s always going to cost more if you have to renegotiate a decision, if you have to backtrack on a decision. So let’s get it right in the first place. That is my objective.

The reality is that all the parties in this House agreed that the location of these two gas plants was not right. We followed through on our commitment to move the gas plant. That was our commitment to the people of Mississauga and the people of Oakville, and we followed through.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier, Speaker. I’ve got say, though, that it’s unfortunate that Liberal arrogance prevented them from making the right decision a long time ago. That’s why we’re in this mess.

Late last week, we learned that 26 more cancer patients received over-diluted chemotherapy drugs. Can the Premier tell us whether all affected patients have now been identified?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I want to begin by expressing my deep sadness that this happened. I was in London on the weekend; of course, London has been very shaken by this change.

What I can tell you is that all of the hospitals have reviewed all of their files. They believe they have identified all patients who did receive these particular drugs, and those patients have been notified.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, people who undergo chemotherapy treatment and their loved ones are already facing some of the toughest chapters in their lives. The government failed to provide oversight to protect them and still can’t answer some basic questions. When will the Premier and the government be able to tell us definitively that all affected patients have actually been identified?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as the leader of the third party is well aware, we have pulled together all the partners who have something to contribute to understanding what went wrong here, because something did go wrong here. We owe it to patients to ensure that we understand what happened and that we take the steps to ensure that it never happens again. That work is well under way, Speaker. Dr. Thiessen was appointed just last week, and he is on this full-time, getting answers to the questions that patients and their loved ones and, indeed, all of us have.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, when families are struggling with something as frightening as cancer, they need to know their government is ensuring that they’re getting the best possible care they can get. Instead, they see key parts of their treatment outsourced, no oversight and no answers to basic questions like, “Did this actually affect me?”

This never should have happened, and the people need real answers, Speaker. Why won’t the Premier let the Ontario Ombudsman look into this scandal and use his expertise to get to the answers that people actually deserve?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The leader of the third party identified a question that cancer patients have: “What does this mean for me?” That is the most important and first question that hospitals are working to answer. That is why they reached out to all affected patients, Speaker. They arranged for group sessions where people could come and ask their questions, and they’ve arranged for speedy access to individual meetings with with patients’ oncologists.

I can tell you that our hospitals have really demonstrated their commitment to patients through this chapter. They have worked tirelessly around the clock to ensure that the appropriate patients have been contacted and that they are getting answers to questions.

We still have questions, Speaker. That is why Dr. Thiessen and the working group are continuing to work very hard to get answers to questions.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, as you’re aware, thousands of Ontario’s most vulnerable patients—cancer patients—have been given diluted chemotherapy drugs. People across Ontario are wondering how this could have happened and are shaken by this breach in our health care system.

Today we’ll be bringing forward a motion in the social policy committee for an investigation into how such a breach could have happened and how we can prevent it from ever happening again. Minister, will you and the other Liberal members be supporting our motion?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, just to correct the record, because I think facts are very important in this case: It is incorrect to say “thousands” of patients; it is correct to say “hundreds” of patients.

What I can tell you, though, is that I do understand the opposition will be bringing forward a motion. We certainly support an investigation. We have several investigations under way currently. Yes, we will support this, but we do need to get all of the players participating in this. We cannot have a narrow scope. It needs to have the full scope. Patients deserve answers to the whole question.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Again, just for the record: There is clear evidence that there are over 1,200 people who have been impacted by this.

Minister, this isn’t the time for another backroom investigation conducted by Liberal appointees. Ontario hospitals have been getting chemotherapy drugs from an unaccredited, unlicensed drug manufacturer. Thousands of people have been impacted by this oversight failure, and Ontarians deserve to have an open and transparent investigation into what happened. Most of all, they deserve this in a timely manner and not at a time that suits the Liberal government.

Minister, will you promise the families and individuals that have been impacted by this control failure, and support our motion for an open, transparent investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the first question, yes, we will support that. It’s important, though, to expand to include others, like Health Canada, the College of Pharmacists and so on, in this mandate.

I must take serious objection, however, to the aspersions that were cast upon the character of Dr. Jake Thiessen. Dr. Thiessen is a highly regarded expert when it comes to cancer and when it comes to pharmacy. He is absolutely the right person for the job, and I would ask the member to withdraw her characterization—

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Premier. In 2010, this government made decisions that changed the auto insurance industry’s profit margin in this province. They slashed accident benefits by 15%. These changes resulted in an annual savings of $2 billion. Yet in the past two years, our premiums have gone up by 5%.

In this upcoming budget, will the government pass on the billions of dollars of savings to Ontario drivers in this province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question from the opposition member, who has brought forward a recommendation, through a private member’s bill, to address the issue of auto insurance in a gradual way, to reduce it over time. As noted, our government also introduced legislation in 2004 around the same issue.

We need to work collaboratively; we need to work together. I appreciate the input from the third party, unlike the opposition, who have criticized this budget process and have already said no to something they haven’t even read.

I appreciate your consideration going forward. We will work together to try to find ways to reduce the rates so that all Ontarians can benefit from the work that we do collaboratively.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: On Friday, a desperate insurance industry released a report—a couple of studies—that magically made the profits, these billions of dollars, disappear. In this sleight-of-hand trick they accomplished by reducing and making all these profits disappear—they used different numbers than FSCO, the Ministry of Finance’s own branch, uses.

Will this government reject this self-serving report and, for once, side in favour of the 9 million residents of Ontario and decide in favour of drivers here in this province? And will this government ensure that in the upcoming budget, the 15% reduction in auto insurance premiums is implemented within a year of the budget being passed and that the savings are passed on to drivers in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As all members of this House know, we’ve implemented—we commissioned a report on the anti-fraud task force to find ways to get at the root causes of what’s happening in the industry, to ensure that we reduce the costs of insurance that affect our premiums ultimately.

As we know, in Ontario we’re paying up to 10 times more than they do in other provinces for treatment, so we’ve got to find ways to ensure that we get at those root causes, ensure that we eliminate some of the fraud that’s happening and ensure that we protect all citizens.

So I will commit to providing some direction as to what we need to do in this budget, together with all members of this House, to benefit all Ontarians, and we will do just that in the upcoming budget.

NURSES

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. We all know the vital role nurses play in the care of sick and injured Ontarians. I’ve spent many years working as a front-line health care worker, including being a registered nurse, and that experience made me keenly aware of the importance of good nursing care in improving the health of all Ontarians. It also made me very aware of the pressure nurses face day in and day out. Our population is aging, and their role is only growing more important and pressures are ongoing and more intense.

People in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt and across the province will all depend on the care of hard-working nurses at some point in their lives. My constituents are concerned that their nurses’ skills are not being fully utilized.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister, can she please tell the House what the government is doing to ensure that nurses are able to do the best job they can?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for this very important question. Ontario’s nurses are the backbone of our health care system, and Ontario’s nurses are the best nurses in the world.

We know that we need to get the most out of these skills and the knowledge that Ontario’s nurses have. That’s why I was delighted when, on Friday, the Premier announced to the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario a commitment to expand the types of services that nurses can perform to improve the care of their patients. We are working with the College of Nurses of Ontario to expand the scope of registered nurses and registered practical nurses in providing care. With these changes, nurses will be able to dispense medications in certain circumstances.

This builds on increases we’ve made to the scope of practice for nurses, creating five new nursing roles like registered nurse surgical first assist, in which specially educated RNs work collaboratively with surgeons in the operating room.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Minister, I know that the constituents of my riding will be happy to know that nurses will be able to provide a greater range of services to provide care to Ontarians when they need it.

I also know that our government ensured that there are more than 15,000 more nurses in the province today than there were in 2003. As more nurses are providing care in Ontario, it’s also increasingly important to make sure nurses receive the support they need so they can continue to provide the quality care for their patients.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister, can she please tell us what else the government is doing to support nurses in Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I share the member from Scarborough–Agincourt’s commitment to our nurses. We need Ontario to be the best province in Canada for nurses to provide care.

I’m proud of what our government has already done. We’ve made Ontario one of the first jurisdictions in the world to create a full-time job opportunity for new nursing graduates through a comprehensive orientation program. Some 14,000 new nursing graduates have benefitted from a full-time opportunity through this nursing graduate program.

In 2007, we opened Canada’s first nurse-practitioner-led clinic in Sudbury. This successful pilot has led to the opening of 26 nurse-practitioner-led clinics.

We know that nurses provide the best care when they’re able to use their skills all the time. That’s why I’m very pleased that we’ve increased the proportion of nurses working full time from under 50% to almost 70%, and we’ve invested $40 million in a nursing retention fund to help retrain and retain nurses.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question this morning is for the Premier. Premier, let’s pick up where we left off on Thursday, when I exposed your deep involvement in the Oakville gas plant cancellation. Here’s a July 29, 2011, document that provides instructions to the Minister of Energy from a cabinet meeting he attended. Clearly we were entitled to this document. It falls perfectly within the committee’s guidelines.

Premier, you were aware of this document. It was tabled at a meeting where you sat in the chair, which is why you’re in the hot seat again today.

Premier, do you deny intimate knowledge of the cost of the gas plant cancellations?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know that the government House leader will want to comment on the details of what happened at committee. But the document was provided to committee last week, after the committee passed a new document production motion requesting Cabinet Office documents. That is how the document proceeded.

But Mr. Speaker, I have been clear the decision was made—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. That one got me. The member from Renfrew apologized before I even finished standing up, so I thank you very much for bringing attention to yourself.

Carry on, Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’ve been clear, Mr. Speaker, we listened to the residents of Oakville; we listened to the residents of Mississauga. We made a decision; we acted on that decision. It was a decision that was supported by everyone in this House.

I was a member of the government, I was part of the cabinet, and so I was part of implementing that decision and that meant that the document that I signed was part of that implementation of that decision.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, all taxpayers really want to know is how much this Liberal gas plant scandal is going to cost and who ordered the documents to be withheld. Your Liberal government continues to stick to your $40-million story for Oakville and your $190-million story for Mississauga, yet we’ve had witness after witness swear under oath that the cost of these cancellations will top $1 billion.

Now, Premier, you know the cost. We have these documents that prove you were intimately involved in the cabinet discussions on these settlements. Will you end the charade today, turn over all the documents we were entitled to half a year ago and tell us the full cost of your gas plant scandal?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

Hon. John Milloy: I think in the series of questions that were asked today, there were two questions. One, who prevented the production of all the documents? Well, Mr. Speaker, that honourable member and his colleagues, both in the PC Party and the NDP, prevented all the documents from coming forward when government members put forward that motion. He raised his hand and voted against it.

The second question was about the Premier’s knowledge, and I think it’s important, Mr. Speaker, that we understand the Premier knew that all parties in this Legislature opposed both plants, and notwithstanding the best efforts of the leader of the New Democratic Party today to try to distance herself, let me share a quote here from Mayor Hazel McCallion, when she told the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, “The impression that was certainly given beyond a doubt … I think all parties would have cancelled it; there’s no question about it.”

Mr. Speaker, that is only one of many quotes showing the New Democratic Party was in full opposition to that plan.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question, Speaker, is to the Minister of Consumer Services. Minister, for five years I’ve been proposing legislation to ensure condominium owners have recourse when faced with substandard conditions, rigged repair contracts or unfair fee increases.

Last year, the government finally launched a review of the Condominium Act, but the review is taking years to complete and it ignores many of the issues condo owners face, such as changing Tarion, changing the building code and the need to have an independent tribunal.

Why won’t the government take real action to protect condo owners now?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’d like to thank the member from the third party for his question and his ongoing interest in and dedication to our review of the Condominium Act. As he said, we are in the process of reviewing this act right now, and I’m very pleased to report that the process is moving forward, on

schedule and on time.

In fact, we had reports completed at the end of March, in our phase one, and stage two is under way. I met with the expert panel on condominium review just a few weeks ago, Speaker. They are on their way to completing their work. In stage three, a residents’ panel will be convened. And in the fall—the fall of this year, Speaker—the public will review and validate the action plan before it’s presented to the government. So we’re moving forward in a very open and democratic way, getting all input, taking all the issues that are identified and the opportunities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Speaker, the pace of the review is about equal to that of a snail. Secondly, when I read the review—it misses three essential things that I’ve been fighting for for five long years: first, a tribunal where condo owners could go and get real protection and defend themselves against a tyrannical board, a bad developer or a bad or incompetent property manager; secondly, the building code changes that would make sure that people do not hear every noise that’s coming from the other unit; and three, a warranty program that protects consumers and not developers.

My question to you is: Will you guarantee that these very changes that I’ve been fighting for will be part of the recommendations you will be bringing forward?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: What I can guarantee is that all the input—all the discussions that have been brought forward by the public, by residents’ panels, by the expert panel—will indeed be considered. This is an open and democratic process.

In fact, I think I’ve already reported to the House, Speaker, but perhaps I could remind the member—I also appreciated that he sent his staff to a technical briefing that I offered specifically for all my opposition critics. Just to refresh the House’s memory, the top five issues affecting the condo community, as reported by all the stakeholders, are governance, dispute resolution, financial management, consumer protection and qualifications of condo managers. The additional issues that the member opposite is raising—very happy to consider them as part of the public review and as we move forward this year on a review of the Condominium Act. It’s important to modernize this act.

WIRELESS SERVICES

Mr. Kim Craitor: My question is to the Minister of Rural Affairs. Minister, one of the major concerns in rural Ontario, which includes my riding of Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie: access to services and infrastructure. One area where this is particularly important is when it comes to Internet services. Businesses in my riding and across Ontario require stable, fast and reliable Internet connections in order to conduct important duties and expand to new markets. While broadband Internet is easily accessible in urban communities, rural communities have unique needs and challenges. I want to be assured that this government has taken those needs into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Could the minister please inform the House what is being done to increase access to broadband Internet services in Ontario?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for Niagara Falls—the hard-working member for Niagara Falls—who does such a great job for his community.

Mr. Speaker, as you would know, in the 19th century, the transcontinental railway was a way to link community to community to community. In the 21st century, it’s broadband connectivity. So I want to let you know what we’re doing. Since 2003, our government has committed up to $127 million for broadband expansion in rural Ontario. This investment will create jobs and connect our rural communities to the world. Since 2007, more than 250,000 rural Ontarians have had access to a high-speed network, and that number will grow to one million once all the projects are completed.

By working together, we’re strengthening rural communities and helping to ensure growth and prosperity for all Ontarians, regardless of where they live.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Kim Craitor: My question is again to the minister. I’m glad to hear that the new government has taken the needs of small rural municipalities seriously. I want to tell the minister that in my riding, we have benefitted from some of the investments you made reference to.

All Ontarians appreciate the vital role high-speed broadband Internet plays in modern life. It allows families to stay connected; importantly, businesses to connect with the entire world; and communities to thrive.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Rural Affairs: I heard some good news recently about broadband services. Could the minister share with the House and the people of Ontario the latest news on what this government has done to improve access to Internet services to rural communities across this province?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member for his supplementary. I want to indicate that last Friday, we went live in Northumberland county. I was joined by the very fine member Mr. Milligan, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West, and I was joined by his federal counterpart, Mr. Norlock. It was a great day for Northumberland county.

On Friday, I was honoured to attend the announcement marking the completion of the Northumberland local access zone of the Eastern Ontario Regional Network. Our government has committed up to $55 million to expand high-speed broadband access in eastern Ontario. This announcement shows great progress. In total, the project aims to bring basic broadband access to 95% of households and businesses in eastern Ontario.

Working together, we can secure a prosperous future for families and businesses in eastern Ontario. It was a great day for everybody in Cobourg.

WASTE DIVERSION

Mr. Michael Harris: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, farmers were outraged after learning they would have to fork out thousands of dollars more every year to pay for massive new eco taxes in order to fund your government’s tire-recycling monopoly. But then you got caught. You were called out by the Ontario PC Party and hard-working farmers across the province. So you went on damage control, looking for a way out. And what was your solution? Tinkering with the eco tax funding formula. Now, instead of a 2,000% increase, farmers will face a 1,000% increase, only to have the next 1,000% tacked on to the bill sometime next year.

Minister, does your eco tax policy change mean you remain committed to your failed tire tax program?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As an individual who is part of the party that brought in the flawed Waste Diversion Act in 2002, which everybody has been trying to work with since—and by the way, your leader was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations at that time, so you might call him the godfather of eco taxes in this province, because he failed to protect the people of this province when that legislation was brought in.

I want to say I was pleased that the Ontario Tire Stewardship, which is independent of government, set up under legislation that you as a government brought in, sat down with the farmers and tried to come to a conclusion which would be beneficial to both and to find a formula that was reasonable.

But I think everybody in this House agrees that your flawed legislation has to be completely changed, and that is the goal of our government: to change that legislation—

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

Mr. Michael Harris: Minister, you can play that blame game all you want, but Ontarians know the truth. Speaker, they had 10 years to amend the Waste Diversion Act and have done nothing—nothing. Instead, your government chose to use this piece of legislation to grow massive new—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): First of all, I might want to come to this side and say, “Stop heckling,” but I have to come to this side and say, “Stop heckling,” because I’m having trouble hearing the question.

Mr. Michael Harris: Speaker, their government chose to use this piece of legislation to grow massive new bureaucracy and develop excessive new taxation powers.

Last November, the PC Party called on you to end your eco tax programs, yet you chose not to act. Now there’s a growing chorus of voices, all telling you to dismantle your recycling monopolies—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Michael Harris: —which surprisingly now even include the Toronto Star. Everyone understands that these programs unfairly penalize consumers and unnecessarily restrain the ingenuity of the free market.

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

Mr. Michael Harris: So, Minister, I’m asking you today, will you—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You’ve got to get your timing down.

Minister of the Environment.

Hon. James J. Bradley: What I am going to commit to is undoing the damage that your government did when it brought in the Waste Diversion Act of Ontario. I recall, sitting at the table at the time—some here may remember this—was none other than your leader, who was Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, and did nothing to protect the consumer.

But I do note that there has been a change, I think, in view by the opposition. I notice that we see now that the head of Waste Diversion Ontario is opposed to this. I notice that Rob Cook, as well, has said there’s no use tinkering with this act, which of course you established. He said that the act has to be completely revamped.

What I have said, to you and to others, is that we’re going to get rid of that Conservative act which has caused so many problems and enabled this situation to arise.

CANCER TREATMENT

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. My office continues to be contacted by constituents who are still uncertain of the safety of drugs administered in the hospital, and it’s no surprise why. Friday, we learned that 26 more patients were affected by the mis-dosing of chemotherapy drugs, and everyone is still confused about exactly who is responsible for ensuring the safety of all drugs brought into our hospitals. No clear answers are coming from the hospital, the drug companies, the regulators or the ministry.

Why has the minister allowed the confusion to continue for so long?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s important to acknowledge that this is a tremendously difficult time for those cancer patients. They have all been contacted and they are meeting with their oncologists.

Neil Johnson, the vice-president of cancer care at London Health Sciences Centre, has said that his medical oncologists have reviewed the cases. They are confident that there is no causal link between the under-dosing and the deaths. He said, “I am saying it didn’t contribute to the deaths.”

What I can tell you is that we must get answers to questions. I wish there were simple answers. I wish someone would stand up and give us all the answers. The reality is, there are many layers of accountability. We must ensure that all of those partners who have a part of the responsibility are together. That’s why we brought them all together, including Health Canada, which has a very important role to play in this to get answers to those questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: London residents are gravely concerned that the Minister of Health, who is also the local MPP to so many, has been so missing in action. She has been unable or unwilling to answer the most basic questions of oversight and seems to be more concerned with dodging responsibility than answering the questions of her constituents. For London residents like Barry, who was given the wrong dose and who will find out if he is cancer-free in the next two months, this confusion is unbearable, Minister.

Will the minister please do her job as both the MPP for her riding and the Minister of Health and allow the Ontario Ombudsman to do his job and get to the bottom of this?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I take my responsibility as Minister of Health of the province of Ontario very, very seriously. That’s why we have pulled together all of the people and organizations that have accountability and ownership of this issue. It’s very clear that something went wrong. Something went very wrong. We must collectively understand what happened and put in place those safeguards to ensure that this never happens again. That’s why I’ve appointed Dr. Jake Thiessen to do a review of cancer drugs in the supply chain, because we must never allow this to happen again.

I was pleased that New Brunswick Premier David Alward, who of course has patients affected as well, has said, “I’m very pleased to see how quickly the government of Ontario has moved forward with a decision on the investigation.”

We are moving quickly, but it’s very important we get answers to questions and get those from experts.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the minister responsible for women’s issues. Minister, as you know, Sheridan polytechnic college, which shines brighter nationally and internationally, is located in my great riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. Colleges and universities are places of learning, growth and discovery.

We hope they are also places which are safe places for our students; however, these institutions are not immune from dangers such as sexual violence. Studies show that 15% to 25% of female students will experience sexual assault during their academic career.

Minister, will you please tell this House what our government is doing to protect our students while they are on campus?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you to the member for Mississauga–Brampton South for raising this important issue. Unfortunately, sexual violence is much too prevalent in the lives of far too many young women in our society. Our government and Ontario colleges and universities share a commitment to providing all post-secondary students with a safe and fulfilling learning environment. We do not tolerate sexual violence in our communities and we do not tolerate it on our campuses.

That’s why, last year, we introduced a four-year Sexual Violence Action Plan which focuses on raising public awareness to prevent sexual violence, improving services for victims, and strengthening the criminal justice response. The action plan was based on input from 30 consultative meetings. As part of the action plan, we launched a resource guide, Developing a Response to Sexual Violence : A Resource Guide for Ontario’s Colleges and Universities. We are providing it to our colleges and universities across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m happy to hear about the vital resources we are providing to the campuses all across our province. It is very important for the campus community to be informed and educated. Sexual violence is unacceptable; however, education alone will not help reduce the frequency of sexual violence.

Minister, what are the practical tools which are available in the resource guide to help campuses to protect our students?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: The guide provides tools to develop policies and response protocols, including templates to help clearly communicate to campus communities about sexual violence prevention and response, a glossary of relevant terms, applicable legislation, and provincial services available to assist victims.

Speaker, there is always more to do. As our world continues to grow in an online community, we must acknowledge the need for new approaches to tackle online sexual harassment and violence and child pornography. That’s why our government has now written twice to the federal justice minister seeking an amendment to the Criminal Code on cyberbullying and the non-consensual distribution of intimate images. That’s why, at our request, FPT officials are currently examining gaps in the Criminal Code.

We must also change the culture around the word “consent.” Young people often do not fully understand consent and feel that consent can be implied unless there is a clear “no.” This must change, Speaker. No one consents to being sexually assaulted. Consent must be unequivocal.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, a question to the Premier: When first elected leader, you promised almost daily to reform social assistance. You said that the Lankin-Sheikh report was “our government’s report.” This was the second report from your government. The Drummond commission recommended to cut bureaucracy and cut duplication that prevents recipients from getting a job.

What happened, Premier? Why the silence? What’s going on here? Drummond, Lankin-Sheikh and our PC white paper all recommend consolidating Ontario Works and ODSP for efficiency, for cost effectiveness—jobs, for those on social assistance. What’s the holdup?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I cannot resist; I am going to send the supplementary to the Minister of Community and Social Services because I know he’ll want to talk about details. But I want to respond because I think it’s terrific that the member opposite from this party is asking a question about social assistance. It shows a compassion that I think is really appropriate.

Mr. Speaker, I remain absolutely committed to beginning to implement the Lankin-Sheikh report. We’ve been very clear. As the Minister of Finance has said, this is part of the discussion that we’re having in the run-up to the budget. We’ve been very, very clear. It’s important to us that we get this right. It’s very important to us that, as part of the economic growth and the economic plan of the province, everyone can take part, including people who have been marginalized and for whom the system has actually kept them out of the workforce. We are committed to moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, and I know the minister will want to speak to the details.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Back to the Premier, Speaker: Your reports, Premier, call for measures to help recipients get jobs. You’ve obviously done nothing. I mentioned that our official opposition published a white paper to cut bureaucracy and cut duplication, again, to help recipients get jobs. I received all-party support for a private member’s bill to foster employment and permit disabled people to keep more of their own money. It passed second reading. That was three years ago. A few weeks ago, I introduced a private member’s bill to cut waste through consolidation while protecting the distinct needs of people with disabilities.

What happened to you, Premier? What happened to your priority to reform social assistance? We have seen no action.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I said, we are moving ahead. There are 108 recommendations, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Community and Social Services is talking to the folks on the front line. We have been clear that this is something that we are going to act on, and as the Minister of Finance has said, in the run-up to the budget we are preparing to implement the report.

But I really hope that this is an indication that the party opposite is actually going to read the budget and may actually be willing to support us because, Mr. Speaker, you will find, and I hope the member opposite will see in the budget, that there will be that common ground that they will be able to support. I agree with the member opposite: We need to make sure that everyone can take

part in our economy and that the very systems that government sets up are not systems that keep people out of the workforce, but in fact support them to get into the workforce and keep them there. That’s what we’re going to be working on, and I hope the party opposite will read the budget and support us.

TOURISM

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Premier: In my riding of Kenora–Rainy River, tourism is a vital part of the economy. Last year this government closed all three of our travel information centres in favour of a travel app that doesn’t work in the remote areas of my riding where tourists visit. Now we have signs dotting the highways in these same tourist areas that encourage travel to Manitoba over northwestern Ontario. And it’s all at a time when our tourist operators are finding it increasingly difficult to get MTO approval to post their own highway signs along these same stretches of highway.

Speaker, can the Premier explain the strategy and provide statistics that prove that these changes are actually working for Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. Speaker, times have changed, and we have to change with the times. We talk about tourism in the rural areas. It’s important to understand we are in the information technology, and many, many people, many tourists, when they come to Ontario, will log on to the website. They will plan for their trip before they even leave their house. It’s very important to understand that people are looking at the website. They use their email, and all that planning will be done before they really leave their house to come to Ontario.

This is where we are going, and we are committed to enhance our portal. We are committed to strengthening the OTMPC for the portal service to the public.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: Again to the Premier: Speaker, the Ministry of Tourism claims to have a new strategy respecting travel information centres and tourism in northern Ontario. This strategy evades clear understanding. What we do know is that the OTICs have been closed, and we do know that the ministry’s travel app does not work.

Speaker, can the Premier tell us what the strategy is, or what it’s supposed to be, and when are you going to do the right thing and fix it?

Hon. Michael Chan: Speaker, allow me to give you some numbers of last year. In 2012, tourism across Ontario increased. It increased in Niagara Falls, in the Toronto region, in the Ottawa area and in Thunder Bay.

Speaker, the tourism sector is a $23-billion business, supporting 300,000 jobs.

We have to move on with technology. We have to move on with the website because people look at the website, plan their trip and come to Ontario.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Steven Del Duca: My question today is for the Attorney General.

The week of April 21 to 27 is recognized across Canada as National Victims of Crime Awareness Week. During this time, we are all encouraged to raise awareness in our communities about victims of crime and reflect upon the extraordinary work of those who help them. The theme for this year’s National Victims of Crime Awareness Week is: We All Have a Role.

Speaker, in advance of National Victims of Crime Awareness Week, can the Attorney General please inform the House on what role our government has played in victims’ services?

Hon. John Gerretsen: Let me first of all thank the hard-working member from Vaughan for his question, because he has been working very hard since he has been here.

We all know that victims of crime play a much larger role in our whole administration of justice system than they ever did before. Over the last 10 years, this government has spent, of our tax dollars, over $900 million to help victims of crime in the various services that we provide. For example, we spend $21 million annually on the Victim/Witness Assistance Program, which provides information, assistance and support to victims and witnesses of violent crime during the criminal court process.

We’ve also provided millions of dollars during that period of time to sexual assault and rape crisis centres, and they provide counselling, information and support services to survivors of sexual violence through community-based centres.

Speaker, these are just two examples as to how the money is being spent to make sure that the victims of crime are an integral part of our criminal justice system.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Kitchener–Conestoga has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of the Environment concerning eco taxes. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SCHOLARSHIP RECIPIENTS

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I would like to recognize two recipients of the InterMune IPF Legacy Scholarship program who are here with us today, Ms. Kailyn Gadsby and Ms. Rosemary Crawford.

For those of you who do not know, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, or IPF for short, is a chronic progressive form of lung disease for which there is currently no known cure or cause. This fatal disease causes swelling and scarring of the air sacs and tissues between the cells of the lungs and affects approximately 5,000 to 8,000 people in Canada.

The IPF legacy scholarship program extends five one-time scholarships of $2,500 to the students of family members living with IPF.

Kailyn Gadsby is with her family today in the chamber and is following in her mother’s footsteps, working at the same agency as her mother did and with some of the same individuals.

Rosemary Crawford is another of the five recipients and is a first-year student at Conestoga College who is passionate about pursuing a career in nursing. Her father was recently diagnosed with IPF but strives to live his life to the fullest. Rosemary plans to continue to follow her father’s legacy by working hard in her career and educating people about IPF.

I offer warm congratulations to both recipients of the IPF legacy scholarship, and would also like to remind everyone that on May 6, 2013, the Ontario Lung Association is having their lobby day here at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m sure the member appreciates that I let him go over the time because the two people he introduced are from my riding. Thank you, member.

Mr. Bill Mauro: That’s all it takes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s all it takes.

FOOD ASSISTANCE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m proud to rise today to talk about the generosity and spirit of community in my wonderful riding of Essex. Two inspiring groups have taken it upon themselves to help feed the increasing numbers of families that are struggling to make ends meet by rescuing surplus produce from local suppliers that would otherwise end up on the compost heap.

Spearheaded by Tina Quiring and Vern Toews, the Southwestern Ontario Gleaners is an interdenominational group that has embarked on a project to dehydrate rescued food and package that food to be used for instant soups. This healthy food will be distributed through local school lunch programs and food banks locally in Essex county.

The Gleaners have embarked on a fundraising campaign and have begun to develop their plan. They will need the help of our community, and I am confident they will find that help.

I would also like to mention Plentiful Harvest. Plentiful Harvest is a project supported by the Unemployed Help Centre, Windsor-Essex United Way and local labour groups. They have purchased a refrigerated truck to rescue and preserve food and have also opened a community kitchen to help those in need to prepare this food.

It is a great honour to stand in the Legislature today and thank these groups for identifying a need and rising to the challenge to meet that need.

YOUTH HOMELESSNESS

Ms. Helena Jaczek: This past Friday, April 12, Pathways for Children, Youth and Families of York Region held their first community night walk fundraiser in Richmond Hill to raise awareness of youth homelessness in York region.

Pathways has served my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham and the rest of York region for over 20 years, delivering innovative support programs to improve the lives of homeless and at-risk youth and families. Delivering services in seven languages for over 1,200 families and over 1,800 youth each year, they estimate that there are 300 homeless youth in the York region every night.

For example, Megan came to Pathways in December 2012 when she was facing eviction, unable to work, was in a custody battle for her son, and was living with mental health and addictions issues. With help from a Pathways worker, Megan was able to find adequate housing in York region and enrolled in the Base 4 Success employment program. Megan is now working at her placement in a local retail store, where she is excelling. She has her own place, a job and shared custody of her son.

Thank you, Pathways for Children, Youth and Families of York Region, for raising your lanterns to guide the way home during the night walk, shining a light on the issue of youth homelessness in Oak Ridges–Markham and York region. Your work will help to achieve a fairer society in the province of Ontario.

DISASTER RELIEF

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Neighbour helping neighbour: That’s what we saw in Perth–Wellington after the ice storm this past Friday. When that storm knocked out power, people made sure their neighbours were warm. They brought them food and water, and made sure they were okay.

Our municipality set up warming centres in churches and community centres. People could go to get warm, get clean water or recharge their cellphones. Officials took calls from concerned residents. They assessed the damage and coordinated a response. They showed leadership, and we thank them for that.

I also want to thank the dedicated hydro crews, many from our area and many from other places. They worked long hours, and continue to work in some areas, to turn the lights back on.

On Friday afternoon, we received word that North Perth had declared a state of local emergency. It remains in effect. That same afternoon, we emailed the Premier and the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We told them about the power outages, the safety hazards from fallen trees and hydro lines, and property damage. I asked them to respond promptly and favourably to any municipal request.

I want to thank the Minister of Community Safety for calling me. I gave her an update on the situation and asked for her support. I appreciate her concern for the people I represent. I also appreciate the interest shown by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

In times of hardship, we see the character of our communities. In our public works crews, our municipalities and our neighbours, we saw once again that the character of our communities is strong.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise today to talk about an open letter that all members of the House received on Friday afternoon. The open letter was written by a constituent of someone—I’m not sure whom, because I believe the letter originated in Ottawa—talking about my Bill 49, which is

an act to make sure that owners and managers of restaurants and other places cannot take any portion of an employee’s tips.

The writer of the open letter to all MPPs talked about the scenario of dine and dash, and he was concerned about whether or not this will be covered under the ambit of my bill. He points out how serious this problem is, because he had to sign a document to continue working. This is a contract from his restaurant: “The bartender/server is responsible for the reimbursement of dine and dashes on your shift. Be aware of your guests at all times.” What that means to a server or bartender is that if somebody eats and drinks and then leaves, they are responsible for it.

He wanted to know from my bill, and for other things, whether that would be covered. It’s very clear that the law protects people, that their wages can’t be taken, but it does allow for dine and dash to be taken away from an employee’s tips. That’s one of the things we need to do. We need to make sure the same scenario does not unfold in restaurants that unfolded in a gas station earlier this year when a man was killed running after someone who had stolen gas.

Gas and dash, dine and dash: They’re both equally bad.

ALFREDO DEGASPERIS

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I rise today regarding a solemn occasion, the passing of Mr. Fred DeGasperis.

Mr. DeGasperis was a wonderful Ontarian and Canadian who will be greatly missed by his family, his friends, the land development and construction industry, and the seemingly endless list of charitable organizations he supported generously throughout his life.

Mr. DeGasperis came to Canada from Italy at the age of 18 in the 1950s. Like thousands of others, he came in search of opportunity and in search of a better life for himself and for those closest to him. Through hard work, determination and vision, he, along with his two brothers, built an extensive land development and construction empire that is known across our province and our country today as a leader in innovative community building. His efforts have helped thousands of families across the GTA and beyond realize their dream of owning a home, including those who live in Vellore Village in my riding of Vaughan.

Mr. DeGasperis had an inherent talent for building physical infrastructure, but he was equally determined to enhance our social infrastructure. For example, the walls of hospitals here in downtown Toronto and in communities virtually right around the GTA include Mr. DeGasperis’s name as an individual of unparalleled generosity. He was also a strong supporter of a multitude of other philanthropic and worthwhile causes.

My thoughts and prayers go out to his wife, his children, his grandchildren and his brothers and sisters. I know that Mr. DeGasperis will be missed by people across my riding of Vaughan and beyond. He truly was one of a kind. I stand today to pay tribute to him and his lasting contribution to Ontario.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Last week I was informed that Tender Tootsies, a factory in my riding that specializes in making Canadian-made shoes and boots, will soon be closing its doors for good. Tender Tootsies has been the major employer in the town of Glencoe for generations. They once employed 1,000 men and women. Recently, the company cut back to only 40 employees in an attempt to try to keep this important business alive.

I am deeply saddened by the loss of this iconic local business. They have a long history in my riding and have contributed greatly to our local community: an operation that began with a plant in Glencoe, had 470 employees in 1978, and in its prime grew to over 1,000 employees.

This story of the challenges that manufacturers are facing is one that can be heard right across this province. There are many examples of great men and women who have worked tirelessly to grow their business and contribute to the backbone of Ontario’s economy. But it will all go to waste if the government of Ontario continues to fail Ontario businesses.

THUNDER BAY ECONOMY

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m very pleased to stand today and talk about the economy of Thunder Bay, which has been one of the best in the province for the last three or four years, with one of the lowest unemployment rates in the province for the last three or four years.

There’s more good news on the way as we see the forestry sector beginning to rebound very seriously in my riding and all of northern Ontario. As an example, Resolute Forest Products has put on a third shift at their sawmill in Thunder Bay, and Resolute is completing a cogeneration project—about $60 million that our government helped fund with about $10 million—that is going to make that pulp and paper mill the lowest-cost operating pulp and paper mill in all of North America in the entire Resolute fleet.

Now, Speaker, there’s even more good news. Resolute has very recently announced that they will be building a brand new $50-million sawmill in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, in or near Atikokan, that will create 90 to 100 new jobs in the mill, plus about 150 in the woodlands operations to support the mill operation. That represents part of about $170 million in capital investment by Resolute Forest Products over the last one and a half years.

As well, we will be seeing two new pellet mills come on stream very soon, directly connected to the conversion of the Atikokan coal plant from coal burning to biomass—a huge piece, a big job generator in our riding as well.

As I’ve mentioned, the economy of Thunder Bay continues to grow. It has been one of the best in Ontario for the last three or four years, and these announcements are only going to help to enhance that and further that: very good news for job seekers in the Thunder Bay–Atikokan riding.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I rise today to share the concerns of Dufferin–Caledon residents that hydro rates are again being increased by approximately 3% on May 1. Unfortunately, hydro rates have now more than doubled since the Liberal government came to power in 2003.

The number one issue I encounter in my constituency office is the affordability of hydro for families, businesses and manufacturers in Dufferin–Caledon. That message was made clear to me at the recent Orangeville Lions Club Home and Garden Show. At this year’s show, I received an overwhelming number of negative comments regarding the continuously increasing costs of hydro.

The worst part of it is that the increases are not even reflective of the direct costs of hydro, but instead result from the Liberal government’s appalling mismanagement of the energy file—mismanagement like the reckless gas plant cancellations and their stubborn pursuit of deeply flawed green energy experiments like the unsustainable feed-in tariff program.

I recently visited a manufacturer in my riding who shared with me how the high cost of hydro is impacting the decisions they make. This increase will further stifle his ability to reinvest in our community and to create new jobs, jobs that Ontario desperately needs.

Hydro rates have been steadily increasing because consumers are asked to pay for smart meters they never wanted, overpriced energy contracts they cannot afford, money-losing exports they cannot believe, and a debt retirement charge that has already been collected. Ontarians need and expect their power system to be efficient, sustainable and affordable.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Haldimand–Norfolk has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Premier concerning social assistance. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member from Kenora–Rainy River has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport concerning the tourism strategy in northwestern Ontario. This matter will be debated tomorrow at 6 p.m.

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finally, I beg to inform the House that I have today laid upon the table a special report from the Auditor General of Ontario entitled Mississauga Power Plant Cancellation Costs, dated April 2013.

PETITIONS

DOG OWNERSHIP

Mr. John O’Toole: These are petitions from my constituents, and I intend to stand up, as I am now, for them. This is from Amber Mowbray. She’s from Bowmanville. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas aggressive dogs are found among many breeds or crossbreeds; and

“Breed-specific legislation and breed bans are not effective solutions to the problem of dog attacks; and

“The problems of dog attacks are best dealt with through comprehensive programs of education, training and legislation encouraging responsible ownership of all breeds;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to support Bill 60 (aka Hershey’s bill) repealing provincial animal control legislation that is breed-specific and instead implement a comprehensive bite prevention strategy that encourages responsible ownership of all breeds.”

I sign and support this on behalf of my constituents. Amongst them would be T. Callant and many others.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Bill Mauro: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the NDP member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton has put forward a plan for auto insurance that would dramatically drive up rates for drivers throughout northern Ontario. According to one estimate, drivers in northwestern Ontario could expect to pay 38.8% more in insurance premiums if the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton’s proposal is adopted;

“Whereas Mothers Against Drunk Driving Canada has said, ‘In essence, the bill would force responsible drivers to subsidize the insurance premiums of dangerous drivers’;

“Whereas the leader of the third party and the other NDP members of the Legislature have made it clear that they continue to support the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton’s proposal for auto insurance reform;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To make it clear that the Legislature does not support the member for Bramalea–Gore–Malton’s proposal to change auto insurance in Ontario.”

I support this petition. I’ll put my signature to it and give it to Jack to present to the table. Thank you very much.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the government of Ontario’s newly created Ontario College of Trades is planning to hit hard-working tradespeople with membership fees that, if the college has its way, will add up to $84 million a year; and

“Whereas the Ontario College of Trades has no clear benefit and no accountability as tradespeople already pay for licences and countless other fees to government; and

“Whereas Ontario has struggled for years to attract people to skilled trades and the planned tax grab will kill jobs, and drive people out of trades;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To stop the” Liberal “job-killing trades tax and shut down the Ontario College of Trades immediately.”

I will gladly sign this petition.

CHILD CUSTODY

Mr. Kim Craitor: I’m pleased to introduce this petition, known as the grandparents’ rights.

“Whereas the people of Ontario deserve and have the right to request an amendment to the Children’s Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children’s relationships with their grandparents as requested in Bill 48 put forward by” the MPP for Niagara Falls—that’s me—

“Whereas currently, subsection 21(1) of the act provides that a parent of a child or any other person”—

Interjections.

Mr. Kim Craitor: Just so you know, I’m being heckled about the grandparents’ rights bill; I just want to mention that to you, Mr. Speaker.

—“may apply to a court for certain orders respecting custody OF or access to the child. An amendment to that subsection specifies that a grandparent may apply for such an order; and

“Whereas currently subclause 24(2)(a)(

i) of the act provides that where a court makes a determination relating to certain applications in respect of custody of or access to a child, the court shall consider, among other things, the love, affection and emotional ties between the child and each person entitled to or claiming custody of or access to the child. An amendment to that subclause specifies that this includes grandparents; and

“Whereas relationships between children and grandparents are a special bond that should be maintained;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the Children’s Law Reform Act to emphasize the importance of children’s relationships with their grandparents.”

I’m extremely proud to sign this petition to show my support.

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas, beginning January 1, 2013, the WSIB was expanded to include groups of employers and principals who had previously been exempt from the WSIB and had private insurance; and

“Whereas this new financial burden does nothing to improve worker safety and only drives up the cost of doing business in Ontario; and

“Whereas the economy of Ontario is struggling and government must assist businesses in every way possible;

“We, the undersigned, do hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to repeal the statutory obligations created by Bill 119.”

I affix my signature in support.

ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly.

“Whereas Agincourt is historically recognized as north Scarborough’s oldest and most well-established community; and

“Whereas the residents of the community of Scarborough–Agincourt share unique interests; and

“Whereas historically Agincourt’s electoral voice has always been found in an electoral district north of Ontario Highway 401; and

“Whereas communities, such as Scarborough–Agincourt, with historical significance should be protected and not divided; and

“Whereas the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario has recently released proposals to redraw the federal riding map of Scarborough–Agincourt; and

“Whereas ‘community of interest’ is a mandated consideration of the federal Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act; and

“Whereas the original proposal from the commission included a unified Scarborough–Agincourt riding; and

“Whereas the commission’s report would inexplicably divide the Scarborough–Agincourt community; and

“Whereas the residents of Scarborough–Agincourt should not be divided and the electoral riding should remain, in its entirety” with its northern Scarborough neighbours;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To call upon the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario to recognize the historical and demographic context of the Scarborough–Agincourt community and to preserve riding boundaries that include a protected Scarborough–Agincourt community north of Ontario Highway 401.”

I will give this to Kamryn.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Parkdale–High Park, with an apology; I was distracted and didn’t see her start to get up. I will now recognize her out of rotation.

SERVICES FOR THE

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Many thanks, Mr. Speaker. That’s so sweet of you.

“Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas agencies that support individuals with a developmental disability and their families have for several years (beginning in 2010) faced a decline in provincial funding for programs that support people with developmental and other related disabilities; and

“Whereas because this level of provincial funding is far less than the rate of inflation and operational costs, and does not account for providing services to a growing and aging number of individuals with complex needs, developmental service agencies are being forced into deficit; and

“Whereas today over 30% of developmental service agencies are in deficit; and

“Whereas lowered provincial funding has resulted in agencies being forced to cut programs and services that enable people with a developmental disability to participate in their community and enjoy the best quality of life possible; and

“Whereas in some cases services once focused on community inclusion and quality of life for individuals have been reduced to a ‘custodial’ care arrangement; and

“Whereas lower provincial funding means a poorer quality of life for people with a developmental disability and their families and increasingly difficult working conditions for the direct care staff who support them; and

“Whereas there are thousands of people waiting for residential supports, day program supports and other programs province-wide;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“

(1) To eliminate the deficits of developmental service agencies and provide adequate new funding to restore services and programs that have in effect been cut;

“

(2) To protect existing services and supports by providing an overall increase in funding for agencies that is at least equal to inflationary costs that include among other operational costs, utilities, food and compensation increases to ensure staff retention;

“

(3) To fund pay equity obligations for a predominantly female workforce;

“

(4) To provide adequate new funding to agencies to ensure that the growing number of families on wait lists have access to accommodation supports and day supports and services.”

I couldn’t agree more. I’m going to sign it and give it to Madeline to be delivered to the table.

CATARACT SURGERY

Mr. Norm Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have more petitions to do with cataract surgeries, from Huntsville and Burk’s Falls area.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario has identified cataract surgery to be a key health service for which it aims to reduce wait times under its Wait Time Strategy; and

“Whereas the current wait time for cataract surgery at Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare exceeds the provincial wait time and the provincial target under the Wait Time Strategy; and

“Whereas demand for health services like cataract surgery is expected to continue to rise with a growing retirement population;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the government of Ontario maintain adequate funding levels to Muskoka Algonquin Healthcare for cataract surgery procedures so that it may reduce wait times for cataract surgery.”

Mr. Speaker, I sign this—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Glengarry–Prescott–Russell.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Good things grow in Ontario

“Whereas the agri-food industry is now, and has historically been, one of the primary economic drivers in Ontario; and

“Whereas the people of Ontario support local processors and producers in Ontario through purchasing and consuming locally grown and raised fruits, vegetables, meat and processed food products; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario, and the Premier of Ontario, support Ontario farmers and Ontario food producers by leading by example; and

“Whereas the province of Ontario celebrates local Ontario producers and processors and promotes the good things grown, harvested and made in Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass and enact, during spring of 2013, Bill 36, the Local Food Act.”

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton Mountain.

Mr. Grant Crack: I support—

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

The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Ontario’s tradespeople are subject to stifling regulation and are compelled to pay membership fees to the unaccountable College of Trades; and

“Whereas these fees are a tax grab that drives down the wages of skilled tradespeople; and

“Whereas Ontario desperately needs a plan to solve our critical shortage of skilled tradespeople by encouraging our youth to enter the trades and attracting new tradespeople; and

“Whereas the latest policies from the” McGuinty-Wynne “government only aggravate the looming skilled trades shortage in Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To immediately disband the College of Trades, cease imposing needless membership fees and enact policies to attract young Ontarians into skilled trade careers.”

I support it, will sign my name, and send it with page Jack.

AIR-RAIL LINK

Mr. Jonah Schein: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas diesel trains are a health hazard for people who live near them;

“Whereas more toxic fumes will be created by the 400 daily trains than the car trips they are meant to replace;

“Whereas the planned air-rail link does not serve the communities through which it passes and will be priced beyond the reach of most commuters;

“Whereas all major cities in the world with train service between their downtown core and the airport use electric trains;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the province of Ontario stop building the air-rail link for diesel and move to electrify the route immediately;

“That the air-rail link be designed, operated and priced as an affordable transportation option between all points along its route.”

Speaker, I support this petition. I’ll sign my name to it and hand it to page Amina.

TIRE DISPOSAL

Mr. Toby Barrett: Speaker, I have petitions coming in from farm dealerships and construction dealerships across my riding, titled Stop the Tire Tax Hikes.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario government has approved massive increases to Ontario Tire Stewardship’s eco fees for farm and construction tires;

"Whereas Ontario imposes tire eco fees that are dramatically higher than those in other provinces;

“Whereas other provincial governments either exempt agricultural tires from recycling programs or charge fees only up to $75;

“Whereas Ontario’s opposition has proposed a plan that holds manufacturers and importers of tires responsible for recycling;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Suspend the hikes to Ontario Tire Stewardship’s fees on farm and off-the-road tires pending proposals to lower costs.”

I affix my signature.

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

Ms. Soo Wong: I have a petition to the Ontario Legislative Assembly:

“Whereas the agri-food industry is now, and has historically been, one of the primary economic drivers in Ontario; and

“Whereas the people of Ontario support local processors and producers in Ontario through purchasing and consuming locally grown and raised fruits, vegetables, meat and processed food products; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario, and the Premier of Ontario, support Ontario farmers and Ontario food producers by leading by example; and

“Whereas the province of Ontario celebrates local Ontario producers and processors and promotes the good things grown, harvested and made in Ontario;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario pass and enact, during spring of 2013, Bill 36, the Local Food Act.”

I fully support this, and I give it to page Theodore.

ROAD SAFETY

Mr. Michael Harris: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the drivers of Ontario, lacking rules of the road for roundabouts in the province of Ontario;

“Whereas the absence of clear guidelines has caused confusion and uncertainty for drivers;

“Whereas the lack of standardized signage and rules for pedestrian right-of-way at crosswalks near roundabouts has led to personal injury;

“Whereas the lack of rules for signalling within a roundabout has caused numerous accidents and damage to vehicles;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“To immediately amend the Highway Traffic Act to clarify the use of crosswalks, and proper signalling for the entrance, traversing and exiting of vehicles from roundabouts.”

I support this petition wholeheartedly, and I’ll send it down with Callum to the table.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 11, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak today, and I look forward to discussing some aspects. It’s nice to see the minister in attendance today.

We’re dealing with Bill 11, and I’m sure there’s been a lot of discussion about this. I know the government House leader will probably go into great detail about the amount of time spoken about this bill, but there are a number of aspects that I want to bring to light that probably weren’t brought into a number of other debates in the past.

Obviously, the bill provides cabinet with the power to appoint provincial representatives to sit on boards of designated air ambulance providers, of which Ornge is one of the listed ones. There was a number of aspects in there that caused concerns, and I think one of the key areas was the weakness in the structure of the air ambulance situation. It doesn’t address the oversight that should be given to the Ministry of Health to ensure that everything is done in regards to that.

In my own personal experience and my first time dealing with Ornge, I was just driving north on the highway just south of Kinmount—actually, my wife was driving—and, lo and behold, a motorcycle had pulled out in front of us, into ongoing traffic. What happened was, a truck pulled right into the oncoming traffic and had a head-on collision with the motorcycle.

We were the first on the scene. The driver of the truck couldn’t believe what the individual had done. There was a female lying unconscious in the ditch, as well as a male who appeared to have a broken arm and broken leg and was bleeding profusely from underneath his jacket and his helmet. We took immediate control of the situation, called 911, and got a great response from the OPP at that particular time, and they flew in.

Upon arriving on the scene, the OPP immediately assessed the situation and called Ornge in. It was good to see the individuals come in. They did a great job landing in a local farmer’s field, where they opened the field and proceeded to remove the individuals. By now the female had regained consciousness and seemed to be doing fairly well. Thankfully, I checked in later to find out that the individuals were doing great.

But there are many other aspects of Ornge that we don’t hear about. It was great to see the individuals—the OPP showed great respect. I remember the OPP officer saying, “Our job is a great job,” and he very much enjoyed it, but he thought the air ambulance was the coolest, that these individuals really did a great job and helped out.

But there are some other problems there that haven’t been mentioned. There needs to be some oversight to ensure there’s a coordinated effort between the land ambulance and the air ambulance. I know that many members have heard about the problems that have taken place locally in Oshawa; for example, delivery to the local Oshawa airport and then waiting. They waited and they waited and they waited. The local ambulance told me that in the time they were waiting, they would have been able to deliver the individual to the target hospital in Toronto.

The difficulty there was that while they were waiting—the air Ornge finally showed up and they proceeded on the flight, but they had waited so long that they ran out of medication for the individual on the plane and had to stop further in the region of Durham to get another supply of medication to assist the patient who was being transported to Toronto.

We need to ensure there’s oversight over some of these things, making sure individuals are well taken care of—it’s in the best interests. I mean, coordinated effort between the two doesn’t appear to be so, and I want to make sure this takes place in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the member from Simcoe–Grey, as a former minister, has certain experience in knowing how to manage these files. In his opening remarks, he spoke about the fact that what had taken place with this bill and the previous bill seemed very much like Groundhog Day. Some of the difficulty there is that in Groundhog Day, for those who recall, Bill Murray certainly matured into a different individual. He gained great capacity, he was able to change and to modify his ability to play the piano, do an ice sculpture and everything else, and was substantially different.

So I don’t necessarily agree with the member from Simcoe–Grey, in that what we’re seeing once again is very much like Groundhog Day. There is no change, there is no maturation of what has taken place in the legislation to ensure that all those problem areas are taken care of.

Now, one of the other aspects I wanted to bring forward, Mr. Speaker, is that, very much as in Groundhog Day, we try to learn from our mistakes in how we move forward with this. I want to bring forward a different perspective on this legislation potentially and what has taken place in mistakes in the past. If you look at what took place with eHealth, we had an individual who came forward, and guess what? We had Minister Smitherman, who actually left the Legislature before anything was brought forward. Then what took place was that Minister Caplan came forward as Minister of Health during the eHealth scandal.

I happened to sit on public accounts and, lo and behold, Minister Caplan had to step down.

Now we are learning that some things happened that we don’t necessarily want to unfold in the same manner. What took place afterwards was something that I think the current government wants to make sure does not happen once again. If you look at the record of Mr. Caplan at that particular time, once he left cabinet, our understanding was that there was some assurance he would be placed back in; he was only temporarily removed.

When other individuals came forward, moving into cabinet prior to him coming back, which never happened, I think he was rather upset with the system and the way the system failed that particular individual, at least the way that minister thought the system failed that individual.

What was the end result? The end result was that there were 13 new pieces of legislation, private members’ bills introduced by that particular individual. I certainly think the government has learned, “You know something? When these sorts of things happen, we want to make sure it doesn’t happen again in the same fashion.” We want to make sure we deal with this issue without upsetting somebody or having these sorts of things. How you manage a file is something that government looks at.

Certainly what has taken place—and my perspective as well—is that we need a public perception that we’re taking care of the problems in the legislation out there. We need to address this legislation. But quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the legislation, there was already protection in there. The minister had the ability to have somebody come in and do an assessment, very specifically under two sections. In two sections of the legislation there was the ability for the minister to step in. Let me see here; I could probably quote those. There were two other areas through the legislation. The minister through the performance agreement was one specific area.

Article 15 of the original performance agreement gave the minister the ability to come forward and to review or enact to ensure that everything was taken care of, as well as the Independent Health Facilities Act. Between the Independent Health Facilities Act and

article 15 of the performance agreement, the minister had clear ability to come forward and ensure that something was being done.

If we’re going to bring forward legislation that talks about making sure that everything is fixed and right, why would we bring forward legislation when there was already legislation in place that the minister didn’t act upon? That causes us some concern. We want to make sure that it’s just not a perception that we’re going forward to minimize the impact or how it’s unfolded at later dates on the Legislature and how individuals react—so that we’re bringing forward legislation that’s going to have some ability.

Some of the other key areas that have some strong concern are that the bill does not provide across-the-board protection for whistle-blowers. We want to make sure—and if there’s any doubt in any way, shape or form, why would an individual come forward and say that they have problems with this or they want to be protected? If there’s not clear and across-the-board protection, then individuals would have a reluctance to talk about those sorts of aspects.

In the same fashion that I spoke about the land ambulance and the air ambulance problems with Ornge, there’s no coordinated effort of, who’s in charge in handling what and how do you assess and how do you review to make sure that these things don’t happen? Yes, as new systems come into place—but this one has been around for some time—there are going to be some growing pains, but I certainly believe that there needs to be some fashion that they can look at this and make sure that the two are coordinated and working quite effectively together.

The other aspect we spoke about is the clear concern of how we manage an issue that has come forward and is causing difficulty, as took place with eHealth. We had a minister resign, we had a minister leave, and we had a deputy minister step down. Now we have that same public accounts reviewing that. We’re not getting the same response, quite frankly, because it could be the way that the individual who stepped down and still remained in the Legislature was in the Legislature.

We want to move forward with this legislation, Mr. Speaker, ensuring that it’s in the best interests in providing adequate protections for individuals, for whistle-blowers to come forward, and to make sure that when they speak, they are protected so that nothing can come back and haunt them at a later date.

That basically concludes a couple of the key points that are different from anything that I’ve heard in this Legislature. I just hope we can move forward with this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I listened with interest to the member from Oshawa’s remarks. I was a fan of the movie Groundhog Day when I was a child, although I’m less a fan of the remake here in the Legislature. I found the original much funnier, and it had less repercussions for the people of Ontario, obviously.

At this point, I’m hoping that this debate is going to wind down. I know that the people in Davenport continue to ask when the budget is going to be released. I’d like to know that. We know that, finally, there has been a committee struck on this issue, after almost a year and a half where nobody was asked for their opinions about the budgeting parties for this government, but we have still not heard from this government when this budget will come down.

Nevertheless, we did hear from the People’s Budget earlier today, and they set out some priorities that I think are important for people to hear. They went around and listened to people across Ontario. They said:

“

(1) Austerity is failing the people in this province, particularly our most vulnerable citizens.

“

(2) Ontarians want to live in a fair society.

“

(3) Government can do a better job of supporting Ontarians to realize their full potential.”

They recommend a number of things, from increasing the minimum wage to establishing an infrastructure fund, to implementing a fair taxation package. This is the kind of thing that makes good sense to me, and I think that the people are far in front of the government on this issue.

Speaker, rather than take up any more time here today on Bill 11, which has surely been debated to death, I would just like to say, please, let’s get on with this, let’s get to the budget, and let’s see what happens next.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett: We had valuable input from the member from Oshawa, a member of the public accounts committee.

In fact, the public accounts committee is continuing their work. This debate is far from over. We’re hearing from two Ornge executives on Wednesday: Bruce Farr, vice-president, operations, and Denise Polgar, patient advocate.

The member from Oshawa, the former Minister of Natural Resources—I spent time as a parliamentary assistant to natural resources. The province of Ontario does have a good handle on airplanes and helicopters, particularly in the north, and the businesses that have run that over many, many years. Our committee received a letter from the Ontario Air Transport Association, December 23, 2011. They indicated that Ornge “is not underfunded; there has been a complete loss of accountability....” They feel that “firing a few key executives or ‘tightening up the performance agreement’ does not fix the fundamentally flawed system that the government has put in place.”

On a positive note, they have some recommendations:

“

(1) That Ornge”—the name—“be changed to ‘Ontario Air Ambulance.’

“

(2) Ornge should not be in the ‘airline’ business. The supply and operation of fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters should [be] tendered in an open and competitive bidding process.

“

(3) Ornge’s mandate must be limited to”: operating the dispatch centre; base hospital functions; training and certification of flight paramedics; administration of contracts for services with air carriers including ongoing inspections and audits; and that other related activities should be returned to the Ministry of Natural Resources’ provincial air service.

I’ll vote for that. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Thank you very much. Questions and comments? The member for Hamilton Mountain.

Miss Monique Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think I’m happy to see the end of this debate coming very clear, and us being able to move this forward into committee, where we can make changes that we’ve been asking for. We were prorogued for four months when this bill came forward the first time. It’s before us again for a second time.

The first time this bill was being read, before prorogation, we were asking for the Ombudsman oversight. During the four months that we were prorogued nothing has changed in this bill that’s before us today again. So we’re hopeful that when we get to committee we will be able to convince the other people of this House that Ombudsman oversight for air ambulance is appropriate and move it forward.

I, like my colleague from Davenport, would love to be doing other things in this House. We’re looking forward to seeing a budget come from the government. We’re looking forward to digging down deep into that and seeing what it will be bringing for the people of our ridings. I know my riding is very excited to see that budget being tabled.

There are so many concerns happening across this province that the Ombudsman would be able to dig his teeth into. It’s really unfortunate that the government continues to wedge that oversight and that accountability and that investigation that could be used over and over again. We’ve heard how many scandals and how many issues that have been brought to life just in the short time that I have been here, and how many times have we been calling on him and he’s been completely shut out? So I’ll look forward to that happening. Thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): We have time for one last question or comment. I look to the minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Thank you very much, Speaker.

I want to acknowledge the wonderful member from Thornhill, who is always present in the House and always doing wonderful input, especially during question period. I know that he will be supporting this piece of legislation as he himself and the members on his side are anxious to see that the bill proceeds so indeed we can do it better when it comes back to the House.

As the last speaker was saying, I think we’ve had 17, 18, 19 or 20 hours of debate. I think everyone has said what we all want to say. No one is running away from making sure that the bill will continue to have a consultation at the committee level. But this will not happen unless we get the bill out of the House and we send it to committee. I would say to all the members of the House, and especially those that will be sitting at the committee level, to pay attention indeed to the content of this particular bill. I think it does contain some good guidelines, good recommendations.

If they wish to amend it and bring more recommendations, by all means, I think they should be dealt with, looked after, and debated at the committee level. When the bill comes back, I hope that, again, it will come back in such a form that all the members of the House can support it.

Speaker, one of the main recommendations included in the bill as it is now is to deal exactly with some of the concerns the members have expressed in the House. This will not happen, Speaker—I know you agree—unless we get the bill out of here. Indeed, let’s bring it out into the open. Let’s debate it. We’ll leave it to the members of the committee to bring it back, bring it better, so we can support it and move along. I thank you for your time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): That concludes our time for questions and comments, and so I return to the member for Oshawa.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the comments from the member from Davenport, who mentioned again about Groundhog Day and Bill Murray and what has taken place there, but then went on to speak about the budget; the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, who’s also doing a great job on the public accounts committee and how the Ministry of Natural Resources should take over responsibility for the helicopters and the fixed-wing planes, to ensure that that fleet remains strong and continues on in the best interests, because there’s some definite oversight within that industry.

The member from Hamilton Mountain spoke about moving forward, and the minister for seniors, as well, made some comments on that.

Some of the aspects, I think, were that we need to ensure that we move forward in a positive way and look at all the debate that has come forward; to ensure that the link between the ground and the air is taken care of; the whistle-blower protection, along with the other aspects that are there; and that legislation, when it comes forward, when it’s finalized, is acted on when there’s difficulties and problems.

Government is given the privilege and honour to represent the people. It’s who they bring to the table and how they manage those files that dictates what is in the best interests of the province. Quite frankly, we’ve seen a number of things, whether it’s power plants and eHealth and right here with Ornge, that have taken place.

To the government House leader, I just want to say one thing in closing: Finally, I was given the opportunity to speak, so as of now, now that I’ve had my opportunity to speak, I’m going to say that we’re going to move forward now, and we’re now moving to the next stage of this. We want to advance this to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Further debate?

Ms. Matthews has moved second reading of Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say “aye.”

All those opposed, please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

I wish to inform the House that I have received a request for a deferral until tomorrow at the time of deferred votes, and it’s signed by the chief government whip.

This vote will be deferred.

Second reading vote deferred.

NON-PROFIT HOUSING

CO-OPERATIVES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

LES COOPÉRATIVES DE LOGEMENT

SANS BUT LUCRATIF

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 20, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 14,

An Act to amend the Co-operative Corporations Act and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006 in respect of non-profit housing co-operatives and to make consequential amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 14, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les sociétés coopératives et la Loi de 2006 sur la location à usage d’habitation en ce qui concerne les coopératives de logement sans but lucratif et apportant des modifications corrélatives à d’autres lois.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): When we last debated this bill, we heard from the Minister of Labour. The minister is present in the House, so we now go to questions and comments with respect to the Minister of Labour’s remarks from March 20. Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I can’t recall the Minister of Labour’s comments, but I’m sure they would have been suitably partisan. Myself, on the other hand—we don’t deal in that respect. We’re dealing with the bill here, the co-operative housing bill, and I want to thank Harvey Cooper and his folks for coming here once again. They’re like season ticketholders to the Ontario Legislature. They keep track of when the debate is going on and they faithfully attend, because it’s an issue that is of significant interest to them, and they’ve shown that in their attendance here today and on all days that the debate has been going on in the House.

As we’ve talked about in the past on this bill, there are a couple of key provisions. It would allow the parties to settle these things outside of going to court, through a mediator, because we know those things can be very expensive. They can deal with disputes between landlords and tenants in co-operative housing facilities in a much more efficient manner than what is currently the case. Our party has consistently said during the debate that we would be supporting this legislation, but at the same time we wanted to give all members an opportunity to debate it to the full extent as well.

We believe that we’re on the way to that. We do have other members who do wish to speak to this bill, and we think we’ll have an opportunity to hear from them today, as is their right. It is our decision as a caucus to allow them to exercise that right. We’re looking forward to more debate today.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ted Arnott): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jonah Schein: I welcome our guests back to the gallery. They’ve been here many days in the last few months, and I think I’ve spoken to this bill many times. As you know, I’m a big supporter of co-operative housing. It’s something that we need more of. I support this bill in making things a bit easier for co-operative housing tenants, but as I said before, this is just a small piece in the puzzle when it comes to affordable housing in Ontario.

Just today, the Ontario Federation of Labour produced the People’s Budget for Ontario. These are some of the statistics that they put out: They said that 40% of Ontarians—that’s over 600,000 families—are struggling with incomes that are stagnant or declining and that Ontario’s poverty rates are rising faster than in almost every other province.

They said that between 1981 and 2010, Ontario had the second-highest increase in poverty in the country, and they said that with more than 152,000 Ontario households on wait-lists for assisted housing, Ontario has the worst record of all provinces on affordable housing investments. In 2009, Ontario spent $64 per person on affordable housing, compared to the average among all