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

April 5, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Apr-05 (PDF)

L103 - Tue 5 Apr 2011 / Mar 5 avr 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 5 April 2011 Mardi 5 avril 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

HEALTH CARE

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

ENERGY POLICIES

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

FOREST INDUSTRY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

BREAST CANCER

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

FOREST INDUSTRY

FIRE SAFETY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

PAKISTAN DAY

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

OUT OF THE DARKNESS

MEMORIAL WALK

ELECTRICITY INFRASTRUCTURE

PUBLIC TRANSIT

REGINA MUNDI COLLEGE

FOREST INDUSTRY

ENERGY POLICIES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

PETITIONS

COYOTES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

HIGHWAY SAFETY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES /

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

RURAL AND NORTHERN SCHOOLS

CEMETERIES

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CEMETERIES

RURAL SCHOOLS

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

2011 ONTARIO BUDGET

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

Ms. Smith, on behalf of Ms. Matthews, moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la protection et la promotion de la santé.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I will be sharing my time this morning with the member from Guelph, but before I hand over to the member from Guelph, I want to send a shout-out to my North Bay Parry Sound District Health Unit: Dr. Jim Chirico, who is our medical officer of health, and Monique Lugli, a good friend of mine, who’s the executive director. I just commend our medical officer of health and our health unit for all the great work that they do in our community. I know that they support us in a lot of the programming that we’ve developed over the years. Certainly, they are doing a great job in our community.

Now I hand it over to the member from Guelph.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m very pleased to be able to begin the third reading debate on Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act.

As you will all recall, this legislation was introduced last November with one principal goal in mind: to better protect the health of our people and our communities. It will, if passed, strengthen Ontario’s response to serious public health events, such as a pandemic.

The province’s experience with pH1N1—which stands for pandemic H1N1, if you wonder what my mysterious little short form is—provided us with opportunities to review what worked well and where we could improve. That was the impetus behind this particular bill, this legislation.

Local medical officers of health and the province’s health providers have been heralded for their responsiveness, collaboration and professionalism during H1N1. I’m pleased with Ontario’s response to the H1N1 pandemic, but we need to think about the future because it’s not a question of whether we’ll face another pandemic; experts tell us it’s a question of when. And when there is another pandemic, or another public health emerency, will our province be ready for it? That’s what this proposed legislation is all about. It’s about making sure Ontario is better coordinated and better prepared for the next major health-related emergency.

There were many challenges and lessons learned during the 2009 pandemic. We believe Dr. Arlene King, Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, has identified the best way to move forward in her report on the H1N1 response, which was released last June. Dr. King recommended a strong, centralized approach to public health emergencies, and she suggested that the chief medical officer of health have the authority to direct public health units in real time. We have responded with proposed legislation that would create these new powers for the chief medical officer of health, or CMOH.

The proposed legislation would give the chief medical officer of health enhanced oversight authority and give the CMOH the authority to direct boards of health and local medical officers of health to adopt policies and measures during a future public health emergency to support a coordinated response. The CMOH would only issue directives to boards of health if there is an immediate public health-related risk and a coordinated response is necessary to protect the health of Ontarians. Such directives would initially be enforced for six months, or less if the CMOH so decided.

The proposed amendments would also expand the minister’s power to use a public space, on the advice of the CMOH, for public health purposes, such as holding an immunization clinic. It’s perhaps important to note here that the existing act already provides the authority to use spaces for isolation units. That came out of SARS. But what we realized with the H1N1 pandemic is that you can need public spaces for purposes other than simply setting up isolation units. For example, what we discovered during the pandemic was that it was necessary to be able to quickly get space set up to hold mass immunization clinics.

You can imagine another sort of chemical spill where perhaps the need would be to set up a public space for some sort of decontamination. So what this bill proposes is that we expand that power to take over public spaces for those sorts of emergency public health needs.

The amendments would also ensure that the appointments of acting medical officers of health are approved by the CMOH and the minister. This would ensure consistency in the process by which permanent MOHs and acting MOHs are appointed and would strengthen the qualifications of our leadership in the province’s public health system.

Following second reading of the bill, Bill 141 was referred to the Standing Committee on Social Policy. The committee received input both orally and in writing from key stakeholder groups and organizations. These included the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the Association of Local Public Health Agencies, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and the city of Toronto.

I’m pleased to say that stakeholders who made submissions provided a number of constructive comments on the bill, and we were able to incorporate some of their suggested changes during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill at the standing committee. So the version we have here before us today, at third reading, is slightly different than the one that left here after second reading.

For example, one of the things that the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and ALPHA, the public health association, proposed was that when we talk about the criteria of risk to public health, or some sort of risk, we clarify that we mean “immediate risk” to meet the threshold to issue orders. So, in fact, we have taken that advice and, with the agreement of all three parties, we have clarified that the threshold is immediate risk. That’s consistent with other clauses in the act.

We also had some questions by both the Association of Local Public Health Agencies and the city of Toronto around the use of the term “environmental health” in the act. When you’re talking about circumstances where there would be cause to issue an order, “environmental health” was one of the things that the original version, as tabled, talked about as a criterion.

The stakeholders quite rightly pointed out that in other parts of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, the requirement is “health hazard” and that that’s the language which is used elsewhere in the bill and which is already clearly defined, already clearly understood by the public health community. Again, on consent of all three parties, we changed that wording to talk about “health hazards” rather than environmental issues.

At the clause-by-clause examination we also, in response to the submission made by the City of Toronto, made an amendment to the bill around personal liability protection for certain public health workers. This is quite a technical amendment. Currently,

section 95 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act, or HPPA, provides protection from personal liability to designated positions and employees of boards of health who are working under the direction of a medical officer of health and act in good faith—so protection from personal liability when you’re working for a board of health. The only problem is that in some cases—the city of Toronto being the one that raised the issue, but we understand that there are some other jurisdictions where the same problem applies—the board of health employees are actually legally employees of the municipality.

We’ve sorted that out so that the amendment would add the phrase “or of a municipality.” So when we’re talking about protection for liability, we’re talking now about both the direct employees of the boards of health and the people who happen to be formally designated as employees of the municipality. That will assure those people who work on our behalf during a public health emergency, who are following the directives of the local medical officer of health, or indeed the chief medical officer of health, that they are protected from any liability.

There were some suggestions made and some amendments that we did not accept. The one that I particularly wanted to mention that we did not accept and explain why was an amendment that was proposed by the NDP. Again, when we’re talking about the criteria, the existing language proposes that if we have a health emergency, either national, international or locally in Ontario, this would apply.

There was a proposal to remove “national” and “international,” and we said, “No, we don’t want to do that.” Because you can imagine a situation where, across the border in Buffalo, Niagara Falls, New York or something, there would be some sort of a chemical explosion and the toxic cloud is headed this way. Clearly, the chief medical officer of health would want to have that coordinated response for all the health units, all the areas of the province, where that might end up. That would be an international incident. We think that’s appropriate.

You can also imagine an outbreak in Florida during March break, and people returning all over our province from Florida carrying some highly infectious communicable disease. Again, we would want the chief medical officer of health to have a coordinated response all over the province. So we do want the chief medical officer of health to have that authority to deal with international and national incidents, not just provincial incidents. That was a proposed amendment that we rejected. We are keeping the power to deal with international and national health issues.

Ontario currently has one of the most decentralized public health systems in Canada. While this decentralization does give local health units the flexibility to look after local needs, we need to balance that with the need for provincial consistency and standardization, especially in times of public health emergencies. The proposed legislation is part of this government’s larger plan to enhance the way we respond to future public health emergencies.

Our plan also includes the renewal of the Ontario health plan for an influenza pandemic. The lessons we learned from the 2009 pandemic will be incorporated into the provincial pandemic plan, which is an ever-evolving document that aims to ensure our health system adjusts and operates well during the next pandemic. That, however, does not require legislation.

In addition, Ontario will continue to take steps forward to implement Panorama, a pan-Canadian initiative that will improve public health surveillance and enhance the province’s capacity to deliver immunization programs. Again, however, that does not require legislation.

I’m proud of the way this government has demonstrated its commitment to public health in Ontario. The steps we are taking will help us continue to strengthen our pandemic planning and our preparedness for future public health emergencies. The H1N1 pandemic was not as severe as it could have been. The next one could be much worse. This proposed legislation would add to the many important tools already in place and enhance our responses to public health threats.

Our proposed amendments and other coordinated steps are critical to ensuring that Ontario’s highly regarded public health system continues to promote and protect the health of Ontarians. I urge all the members in this Legislature to support Bill 141.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to respond to the member from Guelph on this important legislation. It’s my thought that in the past, as she said, there certainly have been challenges to public health with respect to—I remember the incident of SARS, and how ill-planned and ill-conceived—and out of it, I think a lot of reaction caused the government to come up with this response.

I believe being prepared is a laudable goal. But when I look at the handing out of certain medications to Ontarians in the last couple of episodes with the flu vaccinations, that was anything but successful.

I look forward to our member from Whitby–Oshawa, in her remarks, that we’re able to come up with a plan that actually works. I’m sort of disappointed in the history, but I look forward with anticipation to solutions in the future.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Jeff Leal: As we’ve moved through, we’re now into third reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Health Protection and Promotion Act in the province of Ontario. I think the member from Guelph did a particularly good job this morning giving a comprehensive summation of where this bill has been through over the last little while, and certainly providing a bit of a history in the province of Ontario.

We do know, from reading our history books, that the famous Spanish flu of 1919 started in Europe and then of course spread throughout the world, leaving millions dead in its path and a significant number of others who were ill for long periods of time. That historic event is the background for a lot of planning that has been done in public health over a long period of time, and successive governments of all political stripes have been very involved in the advancing of public health in the province of Ontario—immunization programs in our schools and other health promotion programs.

Our recent experience in Ontario over the last decade in how we coordinate the various entities throughout the province of Ontario to respond to this type of situation—I think Bill 141 goes a very long way to improve that coordination capacity throughout the province, and I think that, as we move forward, all parties seem to be in agreement here that these amendments and this bill are the right thing to do. We look forward to having it ultimately passed in the province of Ontario, which will lead to improved public health.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I do commend the member from Guelph for what I feel is a very good summation of what Bill 141 is all about, as well as the amendments that came to committee. We didn’t have very many groups presenting; we had two presentations in person and two written submissions that were made.

The bill, of course, was brought forward as a response to a report by Dr. Arlene King, our chief medical officer of health, on the H1N1 pandemic and how Ontario fared. While there was a lot of good in what was brought forward, there was still some room to improve, so the amendments that we discussed were largely in that vein. As PCs, we certainly supported this bill on second reading, and we will be supporting the bill on third reading, as amended.

I will have an opportunity in a very short time to discuss our view of the amendments and the importance of the amendments, but suffice it to say that they essentially strengthened the bill and, I think, clarify in several areas where there was perhaps a little bit of ambiguity about what the bill was intended to say. The language is clarified to make it more consistent with some of the other language within the Health Protection and Promotion Act. We are, as I said, very supportive and look forward to further discussion on this issue.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

M me France Gélinas: I would agree that the member has done a

summary of what’s in the bill. Where I disagree is, the pieces that were not in her

summary are the pieces that the NDP find most problematic. You have to realize that this bill was tabled before a full assessment of the province’s handling of H1N1 was complete, and this rush to get there before the full assessment was done means that some important pieces got—they’re kind of there, but they’re not there in a clear fashion.

One of the most eloquent examples I can bring forward is that they talk about a “public health event,” as this will be the trigger for the power of the local medical officer of health to be taken away and a coordination power to be given to the chief medical officer of health. Well, a “public health event” could be anything. If public health is having a public consultation, that’s a public health event. If they’re holding a training seminar, that’s a public health event.

I would like it to be very, very narrowly focused. I come from northern Ontario, and there is no appetite to have central power in Toronto when a serious public health emergency is happening in the north. We have not been well served in northern Ontario by made-in-Toronto, directed-from-Toronto anything. So you’ll have to excuse me for being a little bit sheepish with the direction that this bill has taken. The need for coordination needs to be balanced.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Guelph has two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the members from Durham, Peterborough, Whitby–Oshawa and Nickel Belt for their comments.

Just before I respond, I would like to introduce Dr. Arlene King, the chief medical officer of health, who is in the gallery this morning.

Thank you to the members who reminded us that, even if you think back to the Spanish flu at the beginning of the last century, and look through SARS and H1N1, as progressive public health pandemics and epidemics have challenged us, each time we are able to fine-tune the legislation and the authority to deal with those and respond to those. I actually look at that as a strength—the fact that we learn from our experience each time to inform and make the next response even better. I think that’s a great strength we have in Ontario.

I would, however, question the member from Nickel Belt, who asserted that the legislation was tabled before we had the report and evaluation from Dr. King on H1N1. I’m sitting here with Dr. King’s report, The H1N1 Pandemic—How Ontario Fared: A Report by Ontario’s Chief Medical Officer of Health, and it is dated June 2010. I will remind you that this bill was tabled in November 2010. So it was tabled five months after we got Dr. King’s response. I would submit to everyone that, in fact, we did have the opportunity to very carefully consider what Dr.

King said, and that the threshold in the bill for when the chief medical officer of health can give a directive is much higher than somebody having a conference. That’s nuts.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’m very pleased to speak this morning, on behalf of our Ontario PC leader, Tim Hudak, and the PC caucus, to third reading of Bill 141, the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act, 2010.

The clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 141 was completed on March 28, following one day of hearings on March 22. There were not many submissions made with respect to this bill, and certainly far fewer than what one would normally see in social policy committee. There were, in fact, a total of four presentations. Two were made in person: one by the Association of Local Public Health Agencies and one by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. Written submissions were received from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and from the city of Toronto.

I would like to spend some time discussing the amendments to the bill which were passed in committee and which, in my view, make the bill stronger, but I think it would be helpful, for the benefit of those people who may be following this debate, to set up a little bit of context.

Bill 141, as has been mentioned, came about in response to, and largely echoes, the recommendations made by Ontario’s chief medical officer of health, Dr. Arlene King, who I’m also pleased to see here this morning to listen to this debate. This was done with respect to Ontario’s response to the H1N1 pandemic of 2009.

Dr. King’s thoughtful report, entitled The H1N1 Pandemic—How Ontario Fared, noted that Ontario fared well compared to most other countries, but also noted that measures needed to be taken in order to ensure that our public health system would be fully prepared for the next pandemic. Unfortunately, given the nature of the world today, we know that it’s not a question of if we will be facing another pandemic; it’s when.

Dr. King spoke to this issue in her report when she noted that, “We live in a truly interconnected world, and with that interconnectedness comes vulnerability to literally any disease that emerges anywhere in the world. Because of air travel, a disease can take less than a day to travel around the globe under the right, or wrong, circumstances. A recent study, for example, found Toronto to be one of the most vulnerable cities in the world in that regard because of our high volume of air travel to and from a great number of different locations.

“Simply put, we know beyond a shadow of doubt that at some point, there will either be another pandemic, or another emerging infectious disease event like SARS, that will require a provincial response. We intend that response to be as robust and effective as it can be.”

We certainly owe it to the memory of the people who died and their families to ensure that everything possible is done to protect the health and welfare of everyone in Ontario.

It’s important to note that a lot was good in Ontario’s response to H1N1. Dr. King, all of the medical officers of health and thousands of health care professionals across the province did an incredible job under very difficult circumstances to inoculate as many people as possible within a very, very short time frame. Similarly, the state of emergency preparedness overall in Ontario was very good. The province’s Critical Care Secretariat worked with 124 hospitals to implement a coordinated surge capacity management plan, which helped to manage increased demand in critical care units.

As was noted during second reading, most of the problems encountered in Ontario related to the delivery and dissemination of the H1N1 vaccine. That is primarily what Dr. King’s report addresses and what Bill 141 is intended to resolve.

During the H1N1 outbreak, there was significant confusion in a number of areas: (1) with respect to the seasonal flu vaccine and the H1N1 vaccine and the order in which they were to be given.

(2) There was confusion about who was in the high-risk groups. In some regions of Ontario, pregnant women were told that they were considered to be in a high-risk group and were eligible for early vaccination, and others were told that they were not a priority.

(3) For pregnant women, there was some confusion about whether they should have received the adjuvanted version of the vaccine or the unadjuvanted version, although this was later clarified.

(4) The vaccination clinics themselves: There were a lot of problems with these, in that there were significant variations in the times of operation of the clinics, which led to people shopping around the GTA in order to receive the vaccination faster. Initially, the H1N1 vaccine, unlike the seasonal flu vaccine, was distributed through flu clinics. This caused a lot of confusion with the general public, particularly with a lot of seniors, who were normally used to receiving flu vaccines through their family doctor’s office.

It’s clear that the overall problem with the rollout of the H1N1 vaccination program was the lack of a clearly defined chain of command to eliminate confusion and to ensure a consistent response to medical emergencies across the province. That is what Bill 141 proposes to deliver. The PC caucus, as I mentioned earlier, supported it in second reading, and we will support it again on third reading, as amended.

I’d like to take a moment to review the most substantive amendments to the bill that were passed in committee.

Subsection 77.4(3) of the Health Protection and Promotion Act originally allowed the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to make an order to allow the chief medical officer of health to take control of premises for public health purposes in situations where there was “the risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease.” The amendment inserted changes to the clause to state that this action could only be taken where there was an “immediate risk of an outbreak of a communicable disease.” A similar amendment was made to this clause with respect to action being taken in case of an “immediate risk to the health of persons.” The issue of immediacy was also addressed in an amendment to subsection 77.4(6) of the act.

All members of the committee voted in favour of these amendments on the basis that any interference in local decision-making and actions by public health authorities should be such that there is no time for normal procedures to be followed and no time for the chief medical officer of health to embark upon normal consultation and communication practices.

Another amendment was made to

section 77.9 of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. This

section originally allowed the chief medical officer of health to issue a directive to local medical officers of health requiring the adoption of certain policies or procedures in connection with “environmental health.” This was changed by amendment to “health hazards” to ensure consistency with other sections of the act and to more accurately cover situations where these procedures might be employed.

The amendments which were passed in committee were very positive, in my view, and clearly state the circumstances under which the extraordinary powers allowed to the chief medical officer of health may be exercised in times of public health emergencies.

One quite interesting amendment which was not passed, which I would like to discuss for a moment, was recommended by the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. I think it’s rather unfortunate that we didn’t pass this one because it would have required the establishment of the position of chief nursing officers in every public health unit. Their position would be “to inform community and region-based planning, strengthen emergency response, increase buy-in and facilitate evaluation.”

This made good sense to me because many public health responses are handled by nurses in our communities, in co-operation with physicians and other professional health care providers, so it would be helpful to have a chief nursing officer to assist in planning and coordinating their response. I should add, however, that even though this amendment did not pass, all of the committee members were favourably disposed to the idea. So I certainly hope that we will be able to revisit the concept in the future.

There is one other point that I would like to make before I conclude my remarks. We noted this in second reading debate, but I believe it’s sufficiently important that it needs to be repeated. It is the fact that Ontario does not yet have a properly functioning system of electronic health records, despite the passage of almost eight years of Liberal McGuinty government and the expenditure of billions of dollars.

Why is the concept of electronic health records important in the context of the debate on Bill 141? The answer lies in the words of Dr. King herself, our chief medical officer of health, who said—and I quote from her report: “This was the largest and most rapidly executed immunization program in Ontario’s history. We underestimated the logistics of organizing and delivering a mass campaign in extraordinarily tight time frames, across a vast province, in the glare of intense media coverage and in the face of rising demand. We underestimated lineups and demand surges.

We had different plans unfolding in different communities, with the result being a different level of service depending on where you were in the province. We didn’t fully leverage the primary care physicians who traditionally deliver the seasonal shot. And in too many critical ways, we didn’t have the details we needed about how the immunization program was unfolding.”

That last point is critical. In an era where there is much talk about electronic health systems and patient records, we do not have the capacity in this province to electronically manage and track our immunization programs. This is a serious problem. We need to move to a 21st-century system if we are to effectively deal with the pandemics of the 21st century.

As much as we regard Bill 141 as an important first step, much remains to be done. That being said, we need to start somewhere, so, as I indicated earlier, we in the PC caucus will be supporting Bill 141.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

M me France Gélinas: It was interesting to hear what the member had to say about Bill 141, certainly pointing to some of the shortfalls that are still plaguing our health care system. The last one, having to do with electronic health records: From the 60-page report that was done doing the post-analysis of H1N1, we certainly realized that in the clinics—I’ll take the Group Health Centre in Sault Ste. Marie—which did have a functional electronic health record, the response on the ground was vastly improved. I would certainly support what my colleague had to say regarding the urgency to bring that kind of tool to our health care system, including our public health system.

Although we are making strides in rolling out electronic health records, we still have a lot of communication issues, and very few—none that I know of, anyway—that exist right now are able to communicate with our public health units. Our public health units are responsible for doing some of the testing for some of the diseases, and believe it or not, although they’re able to do most of this electronically—and the people at the other end, the primary care centres that are sending those referrals, have also started an electronic health record of their own—they are not able to communicate between one another—not great.

When you still get your results from a fax from the health units, you know that there is room for improvement. And the same thing for this bill: There is room for improvement.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’d like to thank the member for Whitby–Oshawa for her party’s support on this, and thank her for her very constructive comments.

Just picking up on the member’s comments around the confusion that did happen around some of the immunization protocols and who was next up in line and what the hours were, I often give my riding of Guelph as an example. We have no TV station in my riding or in Wellington county, which means that people who watch TV get their news from Kitchener or maybe London, but most likely Toronto. When they get news about what’s going on, it’s by definition going to be for the wrong public health unit that the reporter is reporting on.

So for something like this, where we all need to be on the same page, it’s very important that we have a consistent approach so that wherever the public turns for information they’re going to get the right information.

With respect to the concept of the chief nursing officer, we did not put it in this bill because that is not the subject of the bill. Just to assure members, the government is very supportive of the concept of a chief nursing officer, and in fact, we are establishing a working group in collaboration with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario and the Association of Nursing Directors and Supervisors in Ontario Official Health Agencies. They will be at the working group fleshing out what the role of the chief nursing officer should be so that when we get to firming that up, we can do it properly.

Briefly, with respect to Panorama, which is the public health system, it’s not part of the eHealth project; it’s a pan-Canadian project trying to get all the provinces to work together. Believe me, we share everybody’s frustration on trying to get 10 people to go in the same direction.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Mr. Toby Barrett: I’d like to follow up on the comments of our health critic, the member from Whitby–Oshawa. Much of the initiative, as I understand, for this legislation is to strengthen our health promotion, our public health system, with respect to anticipation of the next pandemic. We know there will be more.

We’ve had the emergence of something like 30 various viruses and bacteria in the last 30 years: Ebola; legionnaires’ disease; hepatitis C; people who spent time in Saudi Arabia in the 1980s are not allowed to give blood right now because of BSE-contaminated meat that was shipped there from Britain; H5N1, the avian flu; and of course H1N1, which, as I understand, triggered much of the need for this legislation.

Internationally there was coordination; the World Health Organization and the federal government seemed to do a pretty good job. The problem was a very logistical error and fault in distributing vaccines in the province of Ontario.

My concern with the legislation—and I don’t know to what extent the committee was able to spend time on this. We can’t fight the Second World War based on World War I, and by the same token, we can’t fight future battles based on past battles.

Anybody who’s on Twitter, for example, if you hit hashtag Fukushima—now there’s a public health issue. I don’t know whether this committee has been monitoring and studying the public health response in Japan—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments?

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: First of all, as a physician legislator, I’m particularly pleased to be able to speak to this very important bill in which we empower our chief medical officer of health, who joins us today, to better synchronize our messaging across the province of Ontario.

Some of my honourable colleagues mentioned Fukushima, and I think those of us in the medical and biological communities can perhaps, as the member suggests, use that as an example of where we very much need to have coordinated messaging.

Just as a quick case in point, the Japanese government has just announced, I think as of yesterday, that something on the order of about three million gallons of low-radioactive water has been released directly into the Pacific, and likely more pending. There’s likely going to be a slow but steady burn on the ecological front. In some of the spent fuel rods, atomic fission continues. These are very important issues. Something on the order of about 50,000 to 100,000 people have been displaced, and many more are homeless and unable to actually return to areas. That is very much, as you’ve said, sir, a public health emergency that needs a coordinated response.

Now, we certainly hope and pray that no such calamity befalls the province of Ontario. But should something on that order ever happen, whether it’s infectious or nuclear or a chemical spill or all the various things that we treat our environment to, that is precisely the point where we need to have effective, coordinated, synchronized best practices diffused on an instantaneous basis.

Of course, in the age of Twitter and Facebook and electronic communication, I think we really need to make use of all our emergency management services.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Whitby–Oshawa has two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I would like to thank my colleagues the members from Nickel Belt, Guelph, Haldimand–Norfolk and Etobicoke North for their comments.

The member from Nickel Belt is quite right in her concern with the issue of electronic health records. We hear a lot about the digitizing of records in physicians’ offices. Of course, that’s only half of the work that needs to be done, because physicians and other health care professionals need to be able to communicate with each other. That’s the big piece of work that has yet to be done so that they can communicate with each other and with public health units and be able to respond to these kinds of emergencies.

The member from Guelph mentioned the position of the chief nursing officer. I am really pleased to hear that there is that working group working with the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, because I think that is a really important position. We look forward to this position once it has been fleshed out by the working group.

Thirdly, the members from Haldimand–Norfolk and Etobicoke North both mentioned the types of issues that we might face—medical emergencies or public health emergencies—and queried whether we had considered the Fukushima situation in our deliberations. I can certainly report that, yes, we did.

In our discussions around the amendments to this bill, we deliberately tried to keep the language as open-ended as possible to contemplate all of those sorts of situations that we know about now. But then, of course, there are many other situations that we can’t even contemplate yet. We want to make sure that this piece of legislation can pass the test of time.

Though we certainly hope that we don’t encounter any of these situations in the future, such as what happened in Japan most recently, we need to be prepared for that, so the language of the act, as we tried to develop it in committee, hopefully will reflect that and will allow for us to deal effectively with any of those situations that might arise.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to start by thanking our chief medical officer of health, Dr. King, for having taken the time out of what I know is a very busy

schedule to take

part in the proceedings and listen in this morning. I think it shows her dedication to the field of public health, and I certainly thank you for it. I would be tempted to add that I wish our Minister of Health was as dedicated to public health as our chief medical officer of health, but I digress so I will stick to my notes.

The NDP voted against this bill in second reading, the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act, basically because we had serious and significant concerns at two levels. The first one was the process that was used to bring this bill and the second is some of the content of the bill.

During the committee hearings we were presented with quite disturbing pictures as to how poor the process and the consultations leading to that bill were. We heard it in many different ways from the different stakeholders who came. I would say that this is part of what makes me so worried about this bill. It is also at the core of the worry as to the hesitance I have to fully support this bill. To me, it’s another example of legislation that was rushed and kind of incomplete and a bit sloppy. I don’t understand why the government keeps doing this.

The amendments that were proposed, both by our caucus, by the PC caucus as well as by the government themselves, have cleaned things up a bit and have brought together some loose ends and some inconsistency, but in our view, in the NDP, we still see that there are some loose ends that have not been tied and some inconsistencies that still exist in a piece of legislation.

To me it is a serious problem when a bill is incomplete, when a bill has loose ends, because in many years from now, this piece of legislation will still be there. It will be read by people who were not part of those debates. A bill should stand by itself and be clear to whoever reads it. Right now, I don’t think we have achieved this.

This bill, first of all, was introduced before a full assessment of Ontario’s performance during the H1N1 was complete. Actually, the bill passed first reading a full 10 days before the Minister of Health released the findings on Ontario’s response to H1N1. We all knew that this report was coming. We all knew that we need to learn from what happened during H1N1. What did we do well? What could we have done better? What are some of the best practices that we can learn out of this?

We were all looking forward to reading the minister’s response—the Ontario response to the H1N1 report—but this bill was tabled before we even had a chance to read it or see it. When we did have a chance to read the report, we saw that nowhere in the report does it point to a widespread problem with coordination, or nowhere in the report do we point toward a lack of control by the Ontario chief medical officer of health. So why is it that we are bringing this bill forward when the report clearly states that we have done some good things and we could have done things better?

Why don’t we focus on the things that we could have done better so that we prepare ourselves for the next time rather than bring forward a bill that was not really pointed to in the report? The report does not say that we had a lack of control by the Ontario chief medical officer of health or a lack of coordination. It does talk about a need for communication, but to me, communication and coordination are two completely different functions. This bill talks about coordination; it does not talk about communication.

I suppose that in the coordination, communication could be included, but coordination goes way further than just central communication. This is worrisome to the NDP.

In fact, the ministry report makes multiple mentions of the value of local control. There are 60 pages in this report; you will find reference to the value of local control every second page or so. This points to the value of having our 36 health units, health units that know the population they serve. They know how to communicate with them, they know how they react, and they know the people who are hard to serve, hard to reach. This is what they’re there to do, and they do a great job at it. Our health units are very good. Do they have their challenges?

Absolutely, but they are champions in public health for their own communities, and they do this by bringing forward public health policy, but they also do this by making sure that they connect and they stay connected. They have the pulse of the community in the geographic area that they serve.

The report on Ontario’s response to H1N1 raised numerous issues, but none of them is addressed in Bill 141. So here we have a government that rushed the process behind Bill 141, and we still have in front of us, in third reading, a bill that is flawed, despite some amendments. I think the member from Whitby-Oshawa was certainly very good in explaining the changes that had taken place in committee and the amendments that were brought forward to make the bill stronger, but there are still some that were turned down, that were not acted upon and, to me, need to be acted upon.

Bill 141 focuses on one kind of initiative, the central control of public health units, and really, think of it as central coordination. What does that mean? Bill 141 expands the circumstances in which the chief medical officer of health would take control of what a public health unit is doing in its geographical area, either a single unit, a number of them or all 36 of them, depending on the circumstances. This is what Bill 141 is all about.

I think we all agree that, during a pandemic or another public health emergency, there is a need for central communication, and I think the report talks to that. But that’s not what Bill 141 does. Bill 141 focuses on the central control of the public health units: the chief medical officer of health taking control of a health unit. To me, this is counter to the design of our entire public health system.

What makes the strength of our public health system is that local control, the fact that they are the champion of public health for their geographical area, and every area has its own set of different circumstances that will mean that its response will have to be adapted so that the end goal of what we’re trying to do is achieved for everyone in Ontario.

But in order to get to the end goal, the steps to get there will be targeted. They will be different in the First Nations that are served by the Porcupine Health Unit than by the London Health Unit. They are all different because, although we are all Ontarians, we come with our own sets of diversities, and our health units have learned to identify and respect those diversities. This is why they are so good at what they are doing, and this is why I support the system that we have in place.

Here we have the chief medical officer of health, under circumstances that I would have liked to have very narrowly defined but we didn’t get there, who is very capable, very well-intentioned and comes to us with lots of experience in public health, who will come and will be able to coordinate from Toronto the next pandemic or the next public health emergency that comes.

What we had before was a system where all 36 medical officers of health had an opportunity to have their voice heard. The chief medical officer of health absolutely had her voice heard; I mean, she is our chief medical officer of health. We created this position because we believed we needed it, and I still believe we need it.

But then the particularity, the knowledge, the skills, the experience and the diversity of all 36 medical officers of health made that response even stronger, because you had 36—37 with our chief medical officer of health—dedicated public health professionals looking at an issue together and bringing forward all of their best will, best experience and best knowledge to attain the best of outcomes during a time of public health emergency. This is a system that I believe in, a system where everybody has a voice and the diversity of Ontario has an opportunity to be heard.

I must say that I come with my sets of biases. I come from northeastern Ontario. I have been a health care provider in northeastern Ontario for 25 years of my life. I have seen first-hand decisions made in Toronto that have not served the people of northeastern Ontario in the best of ways, decisions that were made that were so Toronto-centric that once they came out to the field we would laugh and say, “What are those people talking about? Have they ever set foot in Mattagami? How do you roll this out in Gogama? That makes no sense. This is made for Toronto. This is made for a big urban centre.”

Nickel Belt has no big urban centre. Nickel Belt is 36 beautiful little communities that have very little in common with a big urban centre, but there are still people who deserve protection in the case of a public health emergency, so I support this system.

At the core of what worries the NDP is that this valuable system that we have had in place in Ontario for all those years, where public health is locally grounded, knows their population, knows their community—all of this, under sets of circumstances that, to me, are way too broad, could be thrown out for the need for central coordination.

We already have central communication tools if we choose to use them, so if you want to improve communication so everybody knows how the H1N1 vaccine will be rolled out, etc., we already have this. We are now adding centralization power. This comes at a cost. It will always come at a cost. The need to act quickly to coordinate a response will come with a cost. The cost will be a centralized response that is not conducive to the best quality of public health care for pieces of Ontario.

Coming from where I come from, chances are that my communities are going to be the ones at the losing end. In order to improve coordination and in order to improve what we do during a public health emergency, we will have this power to have a coordinated response.

When I hear “coordinated response,” I hear “one size fits all.” This is it. We have one person, our chief medical officer of health. She is calling the shots. She is telling every single one of the 36 health units, “This is how you shall do things and this is how you will do things.” I agree that there could be some very narrow circumstances where this need for central coordination trumps everything else, but those are very narrow. What we have here is a bill that doesn’t look at those circumstances as being very narrow.

We have left them wide, so that means that when a local response by the Sudbury and District Health Unit would have looked very different to achieve quality public health outcomes, it will be trumped by a central coordinated response that won’t be in the best interest of quality public health outcomes for this particular geographical area. So, for the good of the masses, we will sacrifice the quality in some of the health units.

I would have liked the system that we’ve had in Ontario to be protected. I would have liked the circumstances under which those central coordination orders could come to be defined more narrowly. But this has not happened.

I will go into some of the quotes that we’ve had, and I will start with a quote from the Association of Local Public Health Agencies. As you all know, after second reading we had the opportunity for people to come and present. Here’s what the Association of Local Public Health Agencies had to say:

“However, I wish to clarify that public health units were not consulted about the need for an amendment to the HPPA. The need appeared to be a foregone conclusion, and we were asked to comment only on the wording of an amendment that would permit the CMOH to issue directives to medical officers of health and boards of health during an emergency situation, a power that some argue already exists within the current HPPA.

“Further, we would like to note that, historically, changes that have been made to the HPPA have occurred only after careful consideration and thorough review of multiple reports and consultations, like SARS. In contrast, Bill 141 was tabled following the recommendations of a single report that has been described by its author as ‘informal and initial.’ Despite our requests for a delay of legislative changes until the Ontario H1N1 report was released and to allow medical officers of health, boards of health and other stakeholders time to enter into a robust dialogue, the legislation was tabled.

“Basically, we feel that a more comprehensive review of the issues following H1N1 and a meaningful consultation with the field would have led to a clearer understanding of the potential areas for improvement within our public health system. Such a process may indeed have indicated a need for additional CMOH powers, but it may also have indicated alternative approaches and identified additional required modifications that would collectively further enhance and strengthen our public health system’s ability to protect the health of all Ontarians, especially during an emergency.”

To me, there are some parallels to be drawn here. You see how this piece of legislation was brought forward without consulting with the field, without consulting with the people who are our experts in public health. They themselves say that they don’t know if the legislation that will give additional powers to our chief medical officer of health is needed. They don’t know if it’s the right way to go, because there hasn’t been an opportunity for everybody in the field—not only our medical officer of health but also our board of health—to have a say in this.

Why are we taking away an opportunity to do things better, to engage people who are the leaders in the field so that they can guide us and tell us, “Here’s how you make pandemic response stronger, better, with better-quality outcomes for the people in Ontario”? We are shutting down a voice that, to me, has a lot to bring to this dialogue. They didn’t have a chance to be heard. Once the bill was made, once the idea that the chief medical officer of health needed more power, those decisions had already been made. Then we asked them to wordsmith the bill.

To me, this is contrary to everything we’ve ever done in public health in Ontario. In public health, we’ve always reached out. We’ve always worked things through from the ground up so that everybody had a chance to put in their own requirements. We were respectful of the diversity of Ontario in what we did in public health because we engaged all of those people. But this was not done for that bill, and it is a bill that will further go down the same track by giving the chief medical officer of health power to issue directives to our medical officers of health, to our boards of health.

Let’s see what Toronto Public Health had to say about Bill 141, the bill that we are talking about:

“It is our view that virtually none of any of the identified shortcomings of the response to H1N1, which has been previously conveyed as the rationale for the proposed changes, would have been solved by the existence of a directive-making power in the hands of the” chief medical officer of health, “such as the power proposed in Bill 141.

“Implicit in the proposed amendments to provide directive-making powers to the CMOH is the apparent belief that if the chief medical officer had had the power to simply direct the response, coordination would have been improved. We do not share that assessment. Directive-making power would not have altered the problems with vaccine supply and distribution, would not have clarified the role and function of local health integration networks (LHINs) in the response, or alleviated the need for local modification to address specific community needs.

“While problems of communication were indeed identified by all parties regarding the H1N1 response, we remain unconvinced that legal directives from the CMOH would have solved this issue. Moreover, the use of legal powers to deal with a communications problem is a somewhat inappropriate, blunt, and potentially counterproductive approach.

“If legal powers alone were sufficient to effect change, all boards of health in the province would at this time have a full-time, fully qualified medical officer of health as required under the HPPA, something which is demonstrably not the case.”

I find this really puzzling. Here we have Bill 141, the Health Protection and Promotion Amendment Act. We are told that we need this act so that the best practices that we’ve learned from the response to H1N1 in the fall of 2009 could be improved, we are told that H1N1 is the impetus behind this bill, yet we have the largest public health unit in Ontario as well as the report telling us that if this bill had been in force before H1N1, it would not have changed any of the shortcomings that we saw, that it would not have improved our response to H1N1. There are ways to improve our response, but none of them are covered in Bill 141.

So the rationale for Bill 141 is not there. We cannot see, in any of the reports, anything that points to the idea that if the chief medical officer of health had directive-making powers, things would have been better.

I see that you want to stand up and cut me off, so I will let you do that.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. It being close to a quarter after 10, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Kim Craitor: I want to introduce two guests—I know they’re just getting into Parliament: George Hostick and his son Jordan Hostick. They’re from my riding of Niagara Falls, Niagara-on-the-Lake and Fort Erie. I invited them up here specifically for question period because I assured them they’d be able to watch this House being respectful of each other. They’re excited about seeing that here in Parliament.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I trust all members listened to your comments.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: I have a question to the Premier. Yesterday was Premier McGuinty’s wag-the-dog moment. He tried pulling the oldest trick in the book by picking a phony fight to deflect attention from his own expensive mess on hydro.

Premier, Ontario families have seen you jack up the cost of their hydro bills now for seven years. You want them to think that when they open up their hydro bills, they should blame the Prime Minister, but the McGuinty name is all over skyrocketing hydro bills in the province of Ontario.

Premier, did you really think you could divert Ontario families into thinking someone other than the McGuinty government was to blame for skyrocketing hydro bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m really pleased that my colleague has raised this matter. I think it’s an important discussion that we should entertain, and I would ask my honourable colleague to give some sincere thought to supporting our initiative in this regard.

This is the bottom line: The federal government recently announced that it has the intention of supporting a $4.2-billion loan guarantee to help Newfoundland move ahead with a big electricity infrastructure project. The federal government says they’re interested in supporting electricity infrastructure projects if they are of national significance and if they help us reduce greenhouse gases.

I would argue, and I know my honourable colleague will want to support me in this regard, that the heavy lifting that is being done in this country when it comes to investing in electricity infrastructure and eliminating greenhouse gases is being done here in Ontario. If the federal government is going to support the people of Newfoundland, they have a corresponding responsibility to support the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Here’s the problem, Premier, and we know why you’re trying this wag-the-dog gambit: You have made an expensive mess out of our hydro system, and Ontario families are getting stuck with the bills. Instead of trying to fix the mess you’ve created, you started a phony fight about Ontario subsidizing power projects in other provinces.

But Premier McGuinty has his own subsidy scheme. Premier McGuinty has made Ontario families pay $1 billion to subsidize the export of power to other provinces like Quebec or the state of New York. While families in Belleville and Brampton see their hydro bills going through the roof, he is subsidizing power to Quebec and New York.

Premier, do you really think that you can get away with this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There is no foundation in fact for my colleague’s assertions.

I want to return to a very important principle here. During the last several years, the federal government has found—and I speak to federal governments of all political stripes; this is a non-partisan issue—its way forward to subsidize electricity infrastructure projects in Yukon, in Alberta, in Quebec, and now they’re entertaining a project in Newfoundland. The federal government is telling us they are interested in supporting projects that reduce greenhouse gases and that ensure that we have electricity projects that are of national significance.

We remain the country’s economic engine, and there is no greater greenhouse gas reduction project taking place in all of North America than here in Ontario. I invite my honourable colleague to join the people of Ontario as we say to the federal government, or any political party that would assume the responsibilities of the federal government: “If you’re going to support electricity projects in other parts of the”—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your own subsidy scheme has resulted in $1 billion being used to subsidize hydro exports into Quebec and New York state.

You say that the facts are wrong. Well, Premier, we get these from Jan Carr, who is the former head of the Ontario Power Authority. Those are his numbers. You picked him. You built the Ontario Power Authority.

You’re stuck with the facts that you have a $1-billion subsidy to Quebec and New York state. You sunk $1 billion into the smart meter program, which is nothing more than another McGuinty tax grab. Who knows what you’ve done with all the money that has been collected through the debt retirement charge?

Premier, the Ontario PCs will stand with hard-working families to say, “Enough is enough.” We need to bring an end to the expensive mess you’ve made of our hydro system.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would encourage my honourable colleague to set aside the talking points he has received from Ottawa and listen to what the people of Ontario are concerned about. They are concerned about the fact that every time we invest in these electricity infrastructure projects in other parts of the country, 40% of that expense is coming from Ontario taxes. That’s the way it works.

Again, I say, and I invite my colleague to support us in this regard, if the federal government is going to invest in electricity infrastructure projects in other parts of the country, they have a corresponding responsibility to invest in our infrastructure projects right here in Ontario. We’re doing the heaviest lifting in the country in terms of rebuilding our electricity system and cleaning it up for our children and investing at the same time in an exciting, new clean energy industry. If they’ve got money for oil and gas in the west, I’m suggesting they should have money for clean energy right here in Ontario.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, not only have you made an expensive mess out of our hydro system, but you’ve also made an expensive mess out of our health care system. Just look at the billion dollars you wasted in the eHealth boondoggle. We find out now, Premier, that two years later, you’re still making Ontario families pay the price of your mismanagement of the eHealth file.

Five days after the sunshine list came out and showed that Ron Sapsford, the former Deputy Minister of Health who was involved with the eHealth scandal, received $762,000—your response to date on this outrage? “I can’t comment on that.” Premier, that is not good enough. Two years after he left the employment, he received $762,000.

Come clean: Why did this money get taken out of health care to pay off your backroom deal?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I am pleased to take the first question. I know the Minister of Health is going to want to speak to this.

I just want to speak to the whole issue of transparency and accountability. I want to compare and contrast in terms of what we’ve done here. You will recall that the previous government hid a $5-billion deficit from Ontarians. We have a new law that prevents that from ever happening again. The previous government refused to include OPG, Hydro One, universities and hospitals under the freedom of information act. We’ve included all those and more. They had a response rate to freedom-of-information requests of 50%. We’re at 88%; that is the best ever. They took OPG off the sunshine list; we put it on.

They used taxpayer money for partisan advertising, spending more than $250 million; we made that illegal in the province of Ontario.

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier obviously does not want to answer a very direct question. This list came out five days ago, Premier, and you have yet to answer why Mr. Sapsford, implicated in the eHealth scandal, still, today, received $762,000.

I know you want to bounce this to the health minister, but the health minister refused to answer these questions yesterday. They then sent out a junior staffer who had the advice, Premier, that if Ontario families are concerned, well, they should track down Ron Sapsford themselves. What an outrageous answer. What an irresponsible approach by this government.

Families want to know, Premier: Why do they continue to pay for your eHealth boondoggle and why did Ron Sapsford win the lottery?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the opportunity. Let’s be very clear: We are shining the light. We said that in cases where someone who was on the sunshine list had been seconded from a hospital or from another organization, we would show that person on the sunshine list. We have met that commitment.

In fact, we dedicated an entire

section of the sunshine list entirely to secondments to improve transparency, so those who have been seconded show up twice on the list. The information is there.

I can tell you, we will not take lessons on transparency from the people opposite. When we introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, legislation that brings hospitals under freedom of information, legislation that prohibits using public dollars, they—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, Ontario families are looking for a straight answer. I know they’re hard to come by from the McGuinty government after seven years in office. I know you’re tired and out of touch, and I know you cooked up a backroom deal with Mr. Sapsford, but you’ve been caught out.

You’ve been caught by the fact that $762,000 was paid out to Ron Sapsford, the former Deputy Minister of Health involved in the eHealth scandal, some two years after he left government employment. He won the lottery. Who knows where he’s at, and you’re asking families who pay the bills to track him down? We have the same thing happening with Sarah Kramer.

So I ask you, Premier: Why won’t you come clean with Ontario families? Just tell us simply, just tell us in a straightforward manner: Why do they continue to pay for your backroom deals stemming from the eHealth scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Leader of the Opposition should know, if he doesn’t know, that

section 42 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act prohibits the employer from disclosing personal information other than what’s in the compendium without the written consent of the employee. If he’s asking me to break the law, I say, “No, I’m not going to break the law.”

What I am going to say is that this is a government that’s committed to getting best value for the money we spend on health care. I want to ask you: Where were you when we were fighting to bring down the price of generic drugs? I know where you were; you were at a fundraiser with the owners of pharmacies. We took a position to take $500 million off the price of generic drugs, and you were nowhere to be found. We know exactly where you were found, and I don’t think the people of Ontario are very proud of that.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, I asked about the outrageous amount of money paid to Ron Sapsford, one of the main players in the $1-billion boondoggle scandal. Mr. Sapsford pocketed more than three quarters of a million dollars in wages and benefits last year, even though he left his job the year before.

Is the Premier of this province prepared to offer a full explanation today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me say again that our commitment to transparency is complete. We have taken several steps to ensure that the people of this province have access to information, including salaries, for more people than were on the sunshine list, far more people than when we took office. Our commitment to transparency is clear.

We will not take lessons from the party opposite when it comes to transparency. When we introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act—as I was saying, this legislation brings hospitals under freedom of information: an enormous improvement in transparency. It’s legislation that prohibits using public dollars to hire lobbyists. The critic of the third party called the legislation worthless. We don’t all think that legislation is—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government likes to talk a good game about trying to rein in public sector executive salaries, but where I come from, talk is cheap. In Hamilton, people want to know why Ron Sapsford was paid as much as he was and why his compensation was buried in the records of Hamilton Health Sciences.

Again, is this Premier prepared to give us a good explanation or will he continue to duck and cover and hope it all blows over?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This information was definitely not buried. It was in the sunshine list not once, but twice. So if the research department of the third party had actually taken the time to press control-F and type in the name “Sapsford,” they would have found that information not once, but twice. The information is there. It is as clear as clear can be. Whether you have the hard copy or whether you have the electronic copy, the information is there.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government blew $1 billion on eHealth, with little to show for it. When the scandal was exposed, some folks were made to walk the plank, but less than two years later we learned that some of those same folks are still cashing in, with Ron Sapsford, the three-quarters-of-a-million-dollar man, leading the pack. Given what has happened here, why should Ontarians have any confidence at all in anything this Premier or his government says or does?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I appreciate the question and I am happy to bring the members of this Legislature and the public up to date on where we are with eHealth. We have made tremendous progress. Now almost five million Ontarians have access to electronic medical records in their physicians’ offices. Almost two million children have electronic health records. Over 100,000 remote medical consultations have taken place through telemedicine—that’s almost double what we had before. All Ontario hospitals are now filmless, so all of that digital imaging information is collected in one place, with easy access.

We are making tremendous strides in eHealth, and I look forward to talking more about that.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Minister of Health. When confronted with the curious case of Mr. Sapsford yesterday, this minister embarrassingly responded by saying, “I wasn’t part of the arrangement.” Ontario families deserve a full explanation of what happened here. Is that really the best that this government’s Minister of Health can do?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in a question to the official opposition, the FIPPA legislation prevents me from discussing that personal information of employees. I am not going to break the law, no matter how many times you ask me to. That information is protected by law.

Having said that, we are determined to get the best value for health care dollars. In the budget that we are now in the process of debating, we are instructing executives to cut their spending by 10% over the next two years. We have frozen compensation in the broader public sector, and we are continuing to bring down the expenses in our hospital executive offices.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister needs a crash course on ministerial responsibility pronto. But here’s the galling part about her unwillingness to offer a full explanation: While Ron Sapsford walks away with more than 750,000 in precious health care dollars, Ontario’s health care system is falling apart at the seams. In London last night, sick Ontarians were told to stay away from severely overcrowded emergency rooms. Since the minister won’t explain Mr. Sapsford’s circumstances to this House, will she at least do so for the families in her own riding, in her own hometown, who couldn’t access their ER last night?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The health care system is changing in many ways. It is getting stronger every single day. One of the ways it’s getting stronger is that there are far more options for Ontarians than there used to be. Emergency rooms are one option, but there are far more options, which is why we have a website called healthcareoptions.ca. I urge everyone to actually take a few minutes, go on that website, plug in their postal code and they will see how many other health care options are available right in their own neighbourhood.

I took the time to do it in my neighbourhood and I was surprised by how many places I could go to if I needed an X-ray or if somebody needed to be stitched up. Emergency departments are one option, but there are many more options, and I urge people to actually explore that website and find out what they are.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister is suggesting that Ontarians go to a website instead of an ER? That’s pretty outrageous in terms of health care options.

Here’s the state of Ontario’s health care system under this minister’s watch: Ontario families are told to stay away from overcrowded emergency rooms; some have lost their local ERs altogether; others see cuts to nurses and other front-line staff and services. All the while, well-connected health care executives continue to receive outrageous compensation packages. How can this minister justify sky-high executive salaries in the health care sector for the same people who are squandering those dollars and who are laying off staff people left, right and centre?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to remind the member opposite about one of the items contained in our Excellent Care for All Act. Part of that legislation is about improving quality in our hospitals.

One of the ways we will be measuring quality as we move forward is how patients feel about the care they received in that hospital. Also as part of that legislation, executive compensation will be tied to achieving those quality outcomes.

We are moving forward to strengthen our health care system. We’re moving forward in strengthening the quality of our health care system. Part of how we measure quality is the care that patients feel they get. We are moving forward. There are other health care options, and I believe anyone who actually would—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is also to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, in response to a Liberal softball question, you said something that caught my ear. You said, “We have established the Drummond commission to look for better, more efficient ways to deliver” health care. That’s odd, since that’s what you say that the local health integration networks bureaucrats are paid $250 million to do. Now that the Bay Street banker who reports to the Premier’s office is in charge of health care, what will LHIN bureaucrats do all day?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to say, I’m disappointed in the question. I think all of us should be looking at ways to improve the health care system. All of us have an opportunity to contribute to that debate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to quote from an

article written by Gerry Macartney, who’s the chief executive of the London Chamber of Commerce and who actually took the time to visit a LHIN and understand what was going on there. I’m just going to quote a little bit from this letter: “Chambers have historically argued the more decisions made locally the better. With the LHINs, all decisions are made in our community at open, public board meetings. Previously, decisions were made in Toronto by those dreaded”—his words, not mine—“bureaucrats.

And we still maintain local autonomy for fundraising and many other decisions as all health service providers, including hospitals, were able to maintain their boards. So here too it can be argued that LHINs reduce big government.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Premier McGuinty says that you can’t cut one cent out of the budget without Ontario simply falling apart. But day in and day out, Ontario families see that there’s plenty of waste and duplication you could eliminate. Your Bay Street banker copying what LHINs do isn’t the only duplication. You pay four levels of home care bureaucracy but your only defence is to say that you spent almost $1 billion more on home care. Of course you do: Paying all the unnecessary layers of bureaucracy for duplication doesn’t come cheaply.

An Ontario PC government will protect health care by cutting the waste and putting more money back into front-line health care. Why do you continue to spin your record of blatant untruths about what we will do?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do feel the need to correct the member opposite. The LHINs cost about $70 million a year.

What they’ve done is creative accounting. They’ve added up all the money ever spent on LHINs and come up with that number. So let’s be clear: It’s $70 million. To quote Gerry Macartney, because he was interested in that and he heard the rhetoric: “As to the cost of our SW LHIN, it allocates $2.04 billion to 150 health providers, while the LHIN operates on just $5 million. In other words, they allocate 99.75% of all funding received to those providers. Not many organizations operate at that level of efficiency.”

The other thing the member opposite refuses to acknowledge is that we have replaced two layers of bureaucracy with the LHINs. It costs no more than the arrangement under their government, but it does give people a local voice. You want to silence the local voice because you—

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. The McGuinty government is appointing Rosemarie Leclair, chief executive officer of Hydro Ottawa, as the new chair of the Ontario Energy Board. Last year, Hydro Ottawa, under Ms. Leclair’s watch, spent almost $30,000 of ratepayers’ money hosting preferred customers in corporate box seats at Ottawa Senators games. The role of the Ontario Energy Board is to protect ratepayers’ interests.

My question: How can Ontario hydro consumers have any confidence in the McGuinty government’s appointment of the new chair of the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’ve got to tell you, the NDP’s trash-a-character-a-day approach to politics in this Legislature is getting very, very tiresome—to make comments like that about Rosemarie Leclair, somebody who has been recognized around the world as a true leader in this particular sector and in others.

Let me just share with you some of the recent individual recognitions she has received. She is considered one of Canada’s top most powerful women. She has received awards from the Women’s Executive Network, Quality of Life Awards, St. Joseph women’s centre—she’s an Ottawa-honoured champion—the United Nations Association in Canada, and she was named one of Canada’s top 100 most powerful women by the Women’s Executive Network.

To take cheap shots like that at somebody with that kind of character is beneath that member and beneath this Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Howard Hampton: This is not so much about Ms. Leclair as it is about this government’s standards. While Ontario Hydro consumers struggle with skyrocketing hydro bills, the McGuinty government continues to condone excessive executive salaries and perks at municipally owned hydro companies. Municipal employees are on the sunshine list, but municipal hydro employees are not. Golf memberships and professional sports tickets are banned in public agencies but not at municipal hydro companies.

I ask again: What message does the McGuinty government think it sends to hydro consumers when a municipal hydro executive who engaged in conducting business at Ottawa Senators hockey games is the new chair of the Ontario Energy Board?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, the NDP are into this trash-a-character-a-day smear campaign that has been going on here for weeks now.

Rosemarie Leclair not only is fully qualified to serve in the position that she is being considered to be appointed to—let me just go over some of her background, just so that those listening can hear: Yes, she was president and chief executive officer of Hydro Ottawa Holding Inc. since 2005.

She served as deputy city manager for public works and services from 2000 to 2005; commissioner of corporate services from 1995 to 2000; director of corporate renewal from 1994 to 1996; director of licensing, transportation and parking—she has an incredible amount of qualifications, but more than that, she will be very well suited, having served at a local distribution company very close to Ontario’s consumers. Running that OEB organization—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is for the Minister of Energy as well. Last week, Prime Minister Harper pledged $4.2 billion in loan guarantees to help Newfoundland and Labrador develop the lower Churchill Falls hydroelectric project. Here in Ontario, that’s roughly the cost of the Lower Mattagami and Niagara tunnel hydro projects combined.

Members will know that Ontarians contribute 40 cents of every single dollar the federal government spends. Whether it’s their investments in multi-million-dollar projects—my question is around fairness for Ontario.

Ontarians remember well the state of chronic disrepair and neglect that our very own energy infrastructure was left in, in the years leading up to 2003, by the previous government. As we have been rebuilding that infrastructure into a clean, modern and reliable energy system, what are we doing to ensure that Ontarians get the best value for their investment?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for raising what is really a very important question. He’s absolutely right on this.

When the federal government pledges specific assistance to another part of Canada for a specific multi-billion-dollar energy project, 40% of that money is coming from Ontario families. We’ve undertaken the important task of rebuilding our electricity system over the next two decades. There is a cost to that. That’s why we’ve put in place the clean energy benefit that’s taking 10% off of consumers’ bills.

But I think Ontarians expect that if their federal tax dollars are going to provide special supports for electricity projects in other provinces like Newfoundland, the same level of federal support needs to be available here in Ontario.

We believe in a strong Ontario, and we believe that a strong Ontario means a strong Canada. We’re doing our part, but working with the federal government, we can do even more and we can do it even faster.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: The government’s long-term energy plan clearly addresses the need for 80% of Ontario’s electricity system to be rebuilt and modernized over the next 20 years. It tangibly lays out for Ontarians what those investments are and how much they will be over that time.

There’s no doubt that it’s a sizable undertaking, but it’s one that is absolutely necessary, given the complete shambles of a system we inherited seven years ago in power warnings, brownouts, 127% more coal in our air and a system on life support from leased generators and US coal imports. This is a situation no government should have ever let happen in Ontario. How do we ensure that sort of energy mess never happens again in our province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member paints a vivid and accurate picture of the shoddy state of our electricity system just seven years ago.

Our long-term energy plan provides what’s needed to build a modern, reliable energy system that gets us out of coal, cleaning our air and improving our health while building a global, leading clean energy economy. That’s why when Prime Minister Harper promised almost $2 billion of Ontarians’ money to subsidize a clean energy project in another province, it was very appropriate for our Premier to speak up for Ontario. Ontario families deserve the same recognition from our federal government as families in Newfoundland.

This side of the House stands up for Ontario. This side of the House is not afraid to challenge Stephen Harper for fairness. The Leader of the Opposition gets tongue-tied when called upon to stand up for Ontario against Stephen Harper. That’s why he remains silent and refuses to talk about his plan until the federal election—

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

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the finance minister. Page 71 of the budget describes the job Premier McGuinty has given to his Bay Street banker friend. It says he will come up with reforms to accelerate eliminating the deficit, examine long-term changes to how government works and explore core services and say which areas are core and which can be delivered by another entity.

In any other province, this sounds like the job description of the finance minister. Why should Ontario families have confidence in you when clearly Premier McGuinty does not?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me just take a moment on the first question to describe a little bit about Mr. Drummond and his background. He was a Matthews fellow and distinguished visiting scholar in the school of policy studies at Queen’s University. He’s the former assistant deputy minister at the federal Ministry of Finance. He served the federal government for 23 years, and his service included coordinating and planning the budget. It also included economic analysis, fiscal policy, tax policy, social policy and federal-provincial relations.

He is also the former senior vice-president and chief economist at TD Bank. Mr. Drummond is an outstanding Canadian and Ontarian who will serve this province very well.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment. I just remind members on both sides that—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Durham, how can you listen to me when you’re interjecting?

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Halton, that’s not helpful either.

We’re now past the halfway point of question period. I’ve tried to be tolerant with a number of members, but they seem to be wanting to push the envelope as far as they can. So we’ll be getting into warnings.

Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Minister, this Bay Street banker sounds amazing. He’ll do the work that you paid LHIN bureaucrats $250 million to do. He’ll do the finance minister’s job. Someone should get his name on a lawn sign; then he could be one of the elected members on the sunset review committee proposed by the Ontario PC leader.

An Ontario PC government would make a review of government spending and services accountable to Ontario families. Why have you given that job to an unelected Bay Street banker?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s unfortunate that the character assassination they aimed at us is now being aimed at the good people of Ontario who volunteer and work hard and also provide great service to Ontarians.

But let me just quote to you from somebody whom you might know of, and what they have to say about Don Drummond. It says, and this is a quote:

“Some of the leaders on this forum are quite distinguished, of no partisan affiliation, in our communities. I’m going to mention one of them: Don Drummond, who’s ... one of the most respected economists when we look at budget day here in Ontario. Who do we look to when we want an objective, informed opinion? We look to Don Drummond.”

That’s what John O’Toole, the PC member for Durham, said just last year. Shame on your cheap, cheap senseless attacks on an outstanding Ontarian—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): A warning to the member from Halton.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Essex.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew. Member from Sault Ste. Marie. Member from Willowdale.

New question.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, your government has introduced Bill 151, the forest tenure reform act. This bill is now ordered to committee. Your government, by majority at committee, refused to allow this bill to travel into northern Ontario. This has got the ire up of a number of people in the north, and I just read from one letter from Roger Sigouin, the mayor of Hearst, who says, “We plead with you to reconsider the present decision to forgo consultation on Bill 151 in the north.”

My question to you is: Why are you ignoring the pleas of a northern mayor like Roger Sigouin?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m really pleased to answer this question for Minister Gravelle. It’s important to know that when this bill goes to committee it will be open for public hearings in which the forest industry, community leaders and stakeholders are invited to provide input either in writing or in person or through video conferencing.

In 2009, our government announced the beginning of a comprehensive review aimed at the modernization of the Ontario forest tenure and pricing system, and since then, MNDMF has held consultations on forest tenure reform throughout northern Ontario. They were in Beardmore, Bower, Cochrane, Chapleau, Fox Lake reserve, Constance Lake First Nation, Dryden, Fort Frances, Hearst, Hornepayne, Huntsville, Gogama, Kapuskasing, Macdiarmid, Marathon, Midland, Parry Sound—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, the trees are in northern Ontario. Why aren’t you at least going to the place where the industry, by and large, resides? People of the north are upset about this act. They see what has happened in the consultations as not being anything remotely connected to what ended up in the legislation.

My question to you is simply this: Why are you ignoring northern Ontarians and not travelling that bill to the north?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: As I said, there were consultations held in Nipigon, North Bay, Pembroke, Sault Ste. Marie, Sioux Lookout, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins, Toronto and White River.

We conducted over 116 consultations in total, and this legislation was drafted after two years of careful and extensive consultation in which we brought officials from the ministry across the north to meet with members of the forest industry, including OFIA and the Coalition for Putting Ontario’s Wood Back to Work, which represents 200 companies representing over 8,600 employees.

We spoke with people in Timmins, the municipal association of FONOM, associations like OPFA, Greenpeace, the Ivey Foundation, and the local members of northern communities, First Nations and aboriginal communities.

We also offered a Web-based engagement tool and met with individual stakeholder groups as part of our consultation efforts.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Mike Colle: To the Minister of Transportation: For 16 long years, since the Harris government killed the building of the Eglinton subway in 1995, the people in my riding and all the residents living on the Eglinton corridor, from Etobicoke to Scarborough, have been waiting for relief from the bumper-to-bumper gridlock that has created a $6-billion congestion nightmare in Toronto.

Last Thursday, the Premier and the mayor of Toronto made the long-awaited announcement of a revised transit plan that will finally see the Eglinton cross-town transit line built. Can the minister please let us know the important details of this historic agreement with the city of Toronto?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I sincerely want to thank the member for Eglinton–Lawrence for his promotion of this project. He has been a consistent advocate for a line along Eglinton, and I’m happy to say we’re turning the corner on that.

We’ve reached an agreement on a transit plan that will see the province move forward with our top regional priority, the Eglinton-Scarborough cross-town LRT. The line will stretch underground from the Mount Dennis area in the west all the way to the Scarborough Town Centre. In fact, commuters are getting a 25-kilometre LRT that will be underground. The Eglinton portion will be underground and then it will connect with the Scarborough LRT. The Kennedy station will provide a commuter hub, a transfer hub, for the Bloor-Danforth subway line, the new LRT buses and GO Transit. That’s worth 80,000 jobs. It’s a terrific plan, and we’re moving ahead.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Minister, on behalf of the residents of the Eglinton corridor, from Scarborough all the way to Etobicoke, for this key $8.4-billion investment that will not only benefit transit riders but also create over 80,000 good jobs for 10 years and get rid of the pollution in the heart of our city.

What is amazing is that there are still the usual critics who continue to say that $8.4 billion is not enough and that this new agreement with the city of Toronto should be shelved. I can’t believe it.

Minister, how is it that these same critics who opposed the building of the York University line and opposed the building of the air-rail link from Union Station to the airport still claim to be transit advocates, when they also oppose this $8.4-billion investment in the Eglinton cross-town LRT? How can these people—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: This is the biggest transit investment in a generation. The reality is that we can’t get a straight commitment out of the NDP; we can’t pin them down on what they believe about transit. The Conservatives basically filled in the hole that was dug on Eglinton in 1995 after they were elected. So the reality is that we are playing catch-up because previous governments have not made the investments that needed to be made.

We have worked with the city. We believe in the local democratic process and we believed that we needed to work with the city. We have had those negotiations and they have borne fruit. It’s good news for the taxpayers of Ontario because this is a regional line that is going to serve the whole GTHA by reaching across the city of Toronto.

A significant part of this arrangement is the Presto card that will allow people to—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: In 2007, the McGuinty government converted the Ontario air ambulance and critical care land ambulance service to a not-for-profit corporation. As has been the practice of this government, that was done without a competitive process. Since that time, the cost of providing air ambulance services in this province has increased by more than 450%.

Can the minister tell us why costs have been allowed to get out of hand through this organization and why the appropriate accountability measures have not been put in place?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the question. I do have to say that I think it’s very important that when people need health care and they need to be transported by helicopter or by plane to get that care, we need to be there to get them the care they need as quickly as possible.

I would hope that the member opposite is not suggesting that we actually cut air ambulance services. We do know that the party is determined to cut health care. I hope this is not a signal that air ambulance is what they are planning to cut.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister came awfully close but didn’t go quite as far as the Premier chooses to do in this place, and that is to absolutely and grossly misrepresent and tell—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment he has just made.

Mr. Frank Klees: I withdraw that. The fact is, the Premier insists on speaking untruths about the intention—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Frank Klees: I will withdraw the comment and get back to the question.

We want to ensure that all of those essential emergency services through air ambulance are delivered in the most efficient, reliable and accountable way. Will the minister agree to call on the Auditor General to conduct a value audit on this organization, to ensure that in fact we are getting our money’s—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I just have to say it is still a mystery as to what exactly their plan is. They are not wanting to tell us what the plan is. But what we do know for sure is that that is the party that wants to cut taxes. Whether they cut $3 billion from the HST or $6 billion from the HST or $3 billion from the health premium, we know on this side of the House that you cannot cut taxes and fight the deficit without cutting services.

We also know that health care takes up almost half the spending in this province and you cannot cut $3 billion or $6 billion or $9 billion or whatever-the-number-is billion dollars without cutting health care services.

It is completely disingenuous to suggest that you can fight the deficit, cut taxes and improve services, so as long as that’s their plan, we will call them on it.

BREAST CANCER

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. We know that regular screening and early diagnosis are essential for surviving breast cancer. However, across the province today Ontarians have radically different access to care depending on the community in which they live.

In Sudbury, the Angels in Pink are holding their second annual fundraiser in order to buy medical equipment for breast MRI scans.

Medical procedures should be available based on need and not on the ability of the hospital to fundraise. Would the Premier agree with that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have a long, long tradition in this province of sharing capital costs between government funding and the local hospital. The local share has been used for as long as I’m aware of to help build the hospital infrastructure. I know that in communities across this province, local fundraising takes on an energy and enthusiasm in support for the hospitals that is really wonderful.

I am very happy to speak about how we’re going to be improving breast cancer screening. There was an item that the finance minister included in the budget to actually expand breast cancer screening to high-risk women aged 30 and over. We are delighted at the leadership shown by the member from Sault Ste. Marie to really focus our attention on this. Expanding—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, the minister may forget, but in London last year, patients, community members, nurses and New Democrats fought against cuts to breast cancer screening programs and breast cancer nurses in this member’s own neck of the woods. Some services were saved, but the breast screening program was closed.

Why has the Premier been making people fight so hard just to access the medical services that they deserve?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite really does need to get with the program on this. We cannot afford to defend the status quo when it comes to health care. We need to make changes to improve health care for patients.

The member is completely misinformed about what happened in London. She is right: The breast screening program changed, but it did not affect the ability of women to get screened. In fact, every woman in Ontario who is eligible for breast screening is getting that care, and I would urge all women to take advantage of the breast screening program.

What she is talking about is a change in how that service was delivered. The evidence is very clear: We have the gold standard when it comes to breast screening. I’m very proud of our investments, and the addition to the budget is much, much appreciated by the women of Ontario.

LITERACY AND BASIC SKILLS

Mr. Dave Levac: My question is for Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. As I recall, a few months back there were a few articles about the necessity of continuing support for literacy skills training in Ontario. Many community groups had come forward asking for additional funding, and there were fears that the funding would be cut off after the federal stimulus funding was coming to an end in March of this year. I had asked you before about what the government was doing to continue the support.

In our communities, this is an essential service, particularly in my riding of Brant. In fact, in the riding of Brant, I know how much local organizations have worked—such great work. Literacy Link South Central, the Brant Haldimand Norfolk Catholic school board, the Grand Erie school board, the Literacy Council of Brantford and District and Six Nations Polytechnic are valued and needed by our community residents.

I’ve said before, the investment in literacy is an extremely important aspect of who we are. I know we want to lead a knowledge-based economy.

I want to know from the minister: What have you been doing to deliver these skills that are—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for his question and publicly thank all those literacy providers across the province who provide such valuable service to literally thousands of Ontarians. I also want to thank members on all sides of this House who have been strong advocates for literacy.

The member is correct in pointing out that the federal government had provided short-term, time-limited stimulus funding which we used to help literacy providers. We were hoping that that funding would be extended because, although the economic conditions have improved, there’s still a great deal of need out there. I publicly called on my federal counterpart to continue the funding. I was joined in that, I know, by members of the Legislature and literacy providers who went to the federal government and said that the effects of the recession demand that more money be invested.

Unfortunately, all of us were disappointed when there were not additional dollars in the federal budget. But we made a commitment to continue to work with—

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

Mr. Dave Levac: Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your dedication and devotion to ensuring that literacy is a prime part of our growth patterns here. We see the funding devoted in the basic skills level programs announced in the budget of 2011, and I appreciate that.

I’ve seen first-hand how effective literacy programs are in an individual’s life. I have visited the Literacy Council of Branford and District, and I’ve met with individuals who have told me inspirational stories about dedication, devotion and hope. I want to say thank you on their behalf to thank you for doing so.

Their overall quality of life improves. It gives them the confidence to become engaged citizens. It raises their employment opportunities and provides them with an opportunity to apply for better-paying jobs even within their own companies. In fact, higher literacy rates can have a positive impact even on their health. I think high levels of literacy are associated with high levels of involvement and volunteerism.

Minister, can you please share with the rest of the House exactly what this government has done to provide continued support for our literacy groups and, indeed, for the future of the citizens of Ontario?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I couldn’t agree more with the honourable member about the importance of these literacy groups and the positive effect they’ve had in communities in terms of transforming lives. It was for that reason that I was very proud that the recent budget announced by the Minister of Finance contained an investment of an additional $44 million for Ontario’s literacy providers over the next three years.

This funding will help support literally thousands of Ontarians who are looking for additional literacy training, which will help them function in their lives, but will also prepare them for training and retraining programs, to complete their high school education, to move on to post-secondary education, to college and university.

I’ve had the opportunity to visit dozens and dozens of centres across the province that provide literacy training and I have seen lives literally transformed by these investments—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s not funny.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Norm doesn’t consider it funny.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Community Safety, a warning.

Please continue.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you’re out of touch with the north and with Bill 151. The McGuinty government has a responsibility to everyone in Ontario, not just your downtown friends and campaign contributors. You have an obligation to hear dissenting voices and not to subvert the parliamentary process—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. A warning to the member from Peterborough.

Mr. Randy Hillier: —and not to subvert the parliamentary process for your own gain.

The parliamentary assistant cancelled the recommendations of the subcommittee, which approved northern consultations on your forestry LHIN experiments. The parliamentary assistant has prevented northerners from commenting on a bill that places their jobs and communities in jeopardy.

Premier, did you direct the parliamentary assistant to remove northern consultations because you’re afraid to hear what northerners will say about your out-of-touch, failed forestry experiments?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to answer this question again. I want everybody to know how important this bill is and how hard Minister Gravelle has worked on this issue. He’s been a huge advocate on behalf of northern Ontario. I would say that his work has been stellar.

It’s important to know that the committee doesn’t meet until April 11 and when they do, they’re going to work on the existing consultations that have already occurred. I said earlier that they travelled quite extensively in northern Ontario prior to this committee going out. The consultations previously have been in Beardmore, Bower, Cochrane, Chapleau—these are northern communities—Fox Lake reserve and Constance Lake First Nation, Dryden, Fort Frances, Hearst, Hornepayne, Huntsville, Kapuskasing, Marathon, Midland, Parry Sound, Nipigon, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sioux Lookout—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Once again, the parliamentary assistant says that he’s heard enough, but northerners don’t agree. The mayor of Timmins wants northern consultation. So does the mayor of Thunder Bay as well as the mayors of Ignace, Espanola, Sioux Lookout and Iroquois Falls.

The Ontario Forest Industries Association says that your tenure experiment will kill jobs and create uncertainty, and so does the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce. Why are you the only one who thinks the north doesn’t deserve a voice on a bill that affects them and which kills their jobs?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: This wood supply competition is the largest wood supply competition ever seen in Ontario and it’s turned out to be extremely competitive. It’s important that we get it right, and that’s why we’ve taken the time to conduct a thorough evaluation.

We want our wood to work as quickly as possible. We’re offering approximately nine million cubic metres of currently unused wood supply through this competition. We maintain continuous communication with our northern partners because this is a very important issue.

I know that Minister Gravelle has worked very hard on this. We look forward to the input that we get in the travelling committee after April 11. I know Minister Gravelle will take your comments seriously and will work closely with the northern mayors to get this right. We have a lot of work to do, and we continue to accept those consultations going forward.

FIRE SAFETY

Mr. Paul Miller: My question’s to the Premier. On Friday, a retirement home fire in Timmins took the life of a senior—the 45th life lost in a retirement home fire since 1980. Like so many in Ontario, this home did not have an automatic sprinkler system. Despite the fact that the province has called a fourth inquest into fire safety in retirement homes and has gone through a recent consultation process, again will the Premier at least commit to a date for action from this consultation process?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’m glad to answer this question. First, let me just say how I think everyone in this House is very saddened to hear the news of the passing of a senior. My thoughts and prayers are going out to the senior’s family and friends. This was definitely a tragedy, but I do want to say how fortunate we are to have the emergency services, the fire and police of Timmins, who have all come together quickly to make sure that they protect the seniors who are homeless.

What we have is an investigation that’s under way with the Ontario fire marshal. What’s also very important is, we have a Retirement Homes Act that—unfortunately, that member who pretends to care about seniors didn’t even vote for the support of these seniors.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Withdraw the comment, please.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I withdraw.

What’s really important is that we have, for 20 years, talked about the Retirement Homes Act, and this government is standing up and protecting seniors.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I brought Bill 92, the Mandating Sprinklers in All Ontario Retirement Homes Act, 2010, to this Legislature to fill the gaping hole in this government’s Bill 21. This government is deliberately keeping Bill 92 from the public hearings that should have happened a long time ago, and while we wait for this government to do the right thing, another senior has died in a retirement home fire.

Will the Premier and his government finally protect the lives of vulnerable seniors and legislate mandatory automatic sprinklers in all retirement homes before anyone else dies?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: To Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I think all members of the House have a concern about this matter. You know that we have launched—and it’s now completed—a very active and comprehensive consultation with virtually everybody in the field moving forward and that all of the options that come out of that consultation are available for implementation. I want to assure the member and all members of the House of that.

We have heard from individuals who have resided in these homes, from those who own them, from fire officials and safety officials—from a large number of people. We are now gathering together all of the information we have from that, analyzing it and reviewing with them. I think you’re going to see action that will be forthcoming from this kind of consultation that will add to the many things that have already been done to enhance fire safety in the province of Ontario.

I thank all members who have raised this either through private members’ bills or in any way in this House through questions and statements. I think we’ll all be able to move forward with the results of that consultation, which, as I say, has been more extensive than any that I can think of in a long, long time.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome a number of guests visiting the Legislature today from the Ontario Environment Industry Association, ONEIA. They extend an invitation to all members to attend their 11th annual environment industry day reception being held later today in the legislative dining room. Welcome to our guests.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity on behalf of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to welcome the students and staff from Regina Mundi Catholic secondary school in London who are visiting in the east and west galleries, and a special welcome to former page Cali Van Bommel. It’s great to have you back, Cali.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Jim Wilson: The McGuinty government has led us down a path of unaffordable electricity, and opposition leader Tim Hudak and the PC caucus want to turn this high-priced disaster around. A Hudak-led PC government would treat energy policy as an economic policy instead of an expensive experiment that has caused rates to rise 75% since 2003 and a further 46% over the next five years.

Unlike the McGuinty government, which is forcing seniors on fixed incomes to pay higher prices for electricity during all peak hours, a PC government would give families the choice to opt out of time-of-use pricing.

A PC government would have a forensic audit into the debt retirement charge to see why this charge, worth $1 billion per year, plus $80,000 per year of HST, has not been retired. We won’t allow it to become a permanent tax grab. We’ll pull back the curtains and put the remaining total on hydro bills so that families can see how long it will take to pay it off, and if it is paid off, we’ll take it off the bill altogether.

We’ll scrap the Ontario Power Authority, a bloated government bureaucracy that costs ratepayers $80 million per year and an agency whose sole mandate is to drive up prices up.

We’ll ensure that the interests of consumers come first by creating a dedicated consumer advocate at the Ontario Energy Board to represent the interests of ratepayers and ensure political interests don’t trump a family’s ability to pay.

For those concerned by industrial wind and solar farms, families can count on us to build them only in places where they are welcomed and wanted and at prices ratepayers can afford.

These are practical ideas that will help Ontario families who are—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Guelph will please come to order.

The member for Ottawa–Orléans.

PAKISTAN DAY

Mr. Phil McNeely: I was honoured to attend, along with my colleague Yasir Naqvi, the Canada Pakistan Association of the National Capital Region celebration of Pakistan Day. The celebration was held in Ottawa on April 2, just last Saturday.

Sana Syed from my riding of Ottawa–Orléans was master of ceremonies. She did a wonderful job, together with co-emcee Imran Zaidi.

Senator Jaffer spoke with great emotion about the history of this nation since its creation in 1947. She spoke eloquently of the hardships recently suffered by this young nation—the devastating earthquake, the recent floods, and the Afghanistan war, which is fought as well in Pakistan.

With all these challenges, the 300,000 Canadians of Pakistani origin are proud Canadians and remain proud of their homeland.

Ottawa–Orléans is blessed with families of Pakistani origin, and we treasure the leadership of Mashooda Syed, president of the Canada Pakistan Association, Qamar Masood, president of the multicultural committee, and Saeed Bokhari, president of the Cumberland Islamic Society. They will be opening up a new mosque in June this year.

Part of the evening was dedicated to a play on the history of Pakistan, and the youth from the community certainly did an excellent job taking us from the founding of the country to the 9/11 tragedy and to today.

Several awards were presented to worthy recipients, distinguished Pakistani Canadians: Senator Salma Ataullahjan, honorary CPA lifetime member award; Serge Buy.

The evening included a fashion show, excellent Pakistani food and a musical program. All in all, this was an enjoyable and learned evening.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ted Arnott: Today, I wish to acknowledge the outstanding work done by two of my colleagues: the member for Simcoe–Grey and the member for Oxford.

The member for Oxford and our leader, Tim Hudak, have been working in co-operation with agricultural organizations and farmers for several years to push for a business risk management program.

On June 3, 2010, the member for Simcoe–Grey brought a motion forward in this House calling on the McGuinty government to show support for farmers by acting to create a comprehensive business risk management program, jointly funded by farmers and governments. The motion was supported by farmers, including the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, the Ontario PC caucus and our agriculture critic, my colleague the member for Oxford.

Unfortunately, the Liberal government defeated the motion. The member for Oxford kept the pressure on the government, and several times during question period he called on the agriculture minister to stop being a lobbyist and do the right thing for farmers. I completely believe that it was the work of the members for Simcoe–Grey and Oxford, in addition to the leadership of agriculture organizations and farmers, that led the government to finally adopt the Ontario PC plan.

OUT OF THE DARKNESS

MEMORIAL WALK

Mr. Bill Mauro: In 2005, after she lost her son Steven to suicide, Margaret Hajdinjak realized that something had to be done. Suicide happens far too frequently, and the impact on a community, family and friends is devastating. Margaret realized that these deaths are often silent because of the stigma attached to losing a loved one in this way. She believed that