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

October 26, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Oct-26 (PDF)

L060 - Tue 26 Oct 2010 / Mar 26 oct 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 October 2010 Mardi 26 octobre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

CONSULTANTS

OPTOMETRISTS

SMALL BUSINESS

PREMIER’S RECORD

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

FAMILY LAW

HOSPITAL FUNDING

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO CALEDONIA

WASTE DISPOSAL

FOREST INDUSTRY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

DALAI LAMA

TRENT UNIVERSITY

SMALL BUSINESS

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

JOHN RILEY

MARJORY LEBRETON

EAST NORTHUMBERLAND SECONDARY SCHOOL

HUMAN PAPILLOMA VIRUS

LONG-TERM CARE

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

SMALL BUSINESS

LANGUAGE TRAINING

LANGUAGE TRAINING

SMALL BUSINESS

SMALL BUSINESS

LANGUAGE TRAINING

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

PENSION PLANS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

KIDNEY DISEASE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SECURING PENSION BENEFITS NOW

AND FOR THE FUTURE ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PÉRENNITÉ

DES PRESTATIONS DE RETRAITE

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

POVERTY

The House met at 0900.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Apologies to our Buddhist constituents: that obviously wasn’t the Buddhist prayer. It was a traditional prayer.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

Ms. Matthews moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 122,

An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector / Projet de loi 122, Loi visant à accroître la responsabilisation financière des organismes du secteur parapublic.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Debate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m pleased to address the House today at this second reading of our proposed Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. This legislation, if passed, would raise the standard of accountability and transparency for hospitals, for LHINs and for other broader public sector organizations.

As you know, last year we asked the Auditor General to look at the use of consultants and external lobbyists at hospitals, LHINs and in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. We did so because we knew that the Auditor General would find things that need improving.

Speaker, I should have started my remarks with the note that I will be sharing my time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Ottawa–Orléans.

We knew the Auditor General would find things that needed improving, and the Auditor General did not disappoint. He has done his job thoroughly, and we thank him for his work.

Our government responded immediately with a significant step forward to raise the bar on accountability and transparency. Our action follows the pattern of what we have done in government to continually improve transparency and accountability. This legislation is just the latest in a series of steps we have taken since 2003, when we were told by the previous government that there was no deficit in the province of Ontario. As it turned out, there was a significant deficit. That will never happen again, because we have given the Auditor General the responsibility of signing off on our books prior to an election.

That was the first step we took. We have expanded freedom-of-information provisions to cover Ontario Power Generation, to cover Hydro One, to cover universities, to cover Cancer Care Ontario. Local public utilities were brought back under freedom of information in 2004. With this proposed legislation, we are adding to that list.

It’s clear that we have made significant progress to increase accountability and transparency in government. As well, we’ve reduced by half the money spent on consultants that have been working for government.

The Auditor General’s report shone the light on practices that are completely unacceptable and practices that do not reflect respect for taxpayer dollars. We are changing that with this proposed legislation. Our government fully accepts the recommendations of the Auditor General and we are implementing each and every one of them.

In fact, we’re going even further, to set even higher standards. Under this legislation, we’re proposing to ban the practice of hiring external lobbyists with taxpayer dollars in hospitals, other large public sector organizations and publicly funded organizations that receive more than $10 million in government funds. We’re proposing to require large broader public sector organizations to follow tough expense and procurement rules. We’re proposing to require all hospitals and LHINs to report on their use of consultants and to post online the expense claim information for senior leadership.

We’re proposing to require that all hospitals and LHINs sign attestations that they’re in compliance with the new procurement requirements. And we’re proposing to make hospitals subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, effective January 1, 2012.

I want to make it clear that although we are making hospitals subject to freedom-of-information legislation, the Personal Health Information Protection Act will continue to govern all files containing any type of personal health information. No identifying information will be released by hospitals through freedom-of-information requests.

Finally, if senior executives of hospitals or LHINs fail to comply with these tough new rules, their pay can be reduced.

The very day I introduced these measures, I spoke to hospital CEOs and hospital board chairs and I put them on notice: Change is coming. I told them they have to remember who’s paying the bills. I also spoke with the LHIN leadership and told them that the Auditor General’s findings were unacceptable and that I was deeply disappointed. I was very pleased that Tom Closson, the president and CEO of the Ontario Hospital Association, acknowledged that these practices by hospitals were wrong and apologized on their behalf.

Tom, like all responsible hospital executives, knows that we need every dollar possible going toward front-line health care and delivering the public services that Ontario families rely on.

Ontarians are waiting less time to have key surgeries and diagnostic procedures done, and they wait less time to be seen in hospital emergency rooms. They have more access to family health care than ever before, and more than 900,000 Ontarians have found a doctor since 2003. There are 10,000 more nurses and 2,900 more doctors working in this province. This increase has far outpaced Ontario’s population growth. Our investments and targeted initiatives are showing real results. It’s thanks to a concerted effort by this government and its partners.

Health care is stronger than ever before, and we’re turning our attention now to improving quality of care, putting the patient front and centre and providing evidence-based care to improve outcomes for patients. It is a concept that has been embraced by the health care community. I’m very proud of all these improvements in the health care system of this province and I’m proud that they were achieved in an atmosphere of improved transparency and accountability.

At the end of day, this action is all about respecting the hard-earned money of the taxpayers of this province. Knowing that Ontarians expect government to manage their money prudently makes me determined to get the best value for our health care investments. It’s why we’re driving quality and value into every corner of the health care system, and it’s why we’re raising the bar for accountability and transparency for the broader public sector with this proposed legislation.

When you have the responsibility of government, you can make a choice: You can choose to keep things in the dark or you can shine a light and make the changes for the better that people expect us to make. I urge all members to support this proposed bill.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Ottawa–Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I will expand on the comments made by the Honourable Deb Matthews, the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, at this second reading of our government’s proposed Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. As Minister Matthews has just said, our government fully supports and accepts the recommendations of the Auditor General in his special report entitled Consultant Use in Selected Health Organizations.

The auditor reported on practices by some hospitals and local health integration networks, or LHINs, that are simply unacceptable to our government and, frankly, to the people of the province. Ontarians have every right to expect that their hard-earned tax dollars will be invested responsibly to provide the services for which they were intended. The auditor’s report clearly shows that when it comes to LHINs, hospitals and other broad public sector organizations, there’s more work that needs to be done to meet that expectation. That’s why this government acted promptly and responsibly by introducing the broader public sector accountability bill.

We’ve already undertaken a number of initiatives to strengthen accountability and responsibility mechanisms within the Ontario public service and its agencies. The actions outlined in this proposed legislation complement those initiatives and would extend them throughout the broader public sector. Let me outline for you the measures already in place.

The government of Ontario’s policies on the procurement of consultant services require all ministries and agencies to use competitive procurement processes when they require consulting services and restrict the payment of hospitality, incidental and food expenses for consultants. In the area of lobbying, the Lobbyists Registration Act requires lobbyists who wish to lobby public office holders to register with the lobbyist registrar, who is the Integrity Commissioner. All lobbyists’ registrations are available to the public on the Integrity Commissioner’s website, www.oico.on.ca.

Failure to file required information in accordance with the act or making a false or misleading statement are offences, and the penalty is serious. Upon conviction, an individual is liable for a fine of up to $25,000.

Public service employees are guided by the Public Service of Ontario Act, which restricts post-service lobbying activities by former public servants, including those employed in designated senior positions in a minister’s office. For one year after leaving the public service, these former public servants are prohibited from lobbying any minister’s office or ministry in which they worked during the 12 months before leaving the public service.

We’ve put in place strong conflict-of-interest rules for vendors involved in lobbying activities. Firms that bid on government work in areas such as public relations, media relations and commissioned research services must disclose the subject matter of their lobbying activities over the past 12 months, which ministries they have lobbied and on behalf of whom.

Our government revised the travel, meal and hospitality expenses directive to provide stronger and simpler expense rules for employees at ministries, employees and appointees at classified agencies, consultants and contractors to ministries or classified agencies and designated persons in all organizations prescribed by regulation under the Public Sector Expenses Review Act, 2009. We have also restricted the payment of hospitality, incidental and food expenses to consultants who work within the Ontario public service.

To demonstrate our own commitment to transparency, the public has access to online listings of expenses for the Premier, cabinet ministers, parliamentary assistants, political staff and senior management in the Ontario public service. There is also a link to the expenses of the chairs; appointees; chief executive officers; presidents and vice-presidents or equivalent levels; direct reports to the CEOs; and the top five claimants at 22 of Ontario’s largest agencies.

In November 2009, the Public Sector Expenses Review Act gave the Integrity Commissioner the authority to review expense claims of senior officials, appointees and the top five expense claimants in 22 of the province’s largest agencies. This act requires these officials to abide by the same rigorous accountability and oversight provisions that apply to cabinet ministers and political staff who fall under the Cabinet Ministers’ and Opposition Leaders’ Expenses Review and Accountability Act.

Our government has also been reducing spending on consulting services by focusing on strengthening the internal capacity and expertise of the OPS, and this strategy has produced great results. Consulting expenditures have dropped by more than 50%, from $656 million in 2001-02 to $304 million in 2009-10—more than half. Since 2003, 1,519 positions in the Ontario public service have been approved for conversion to replace work previously done by consultants. I’m pleased to report that this has resulted in an ongoing annual savings of approximately $64 million.

In the context of the health care system, the proposed legislation reinforces the principles of our Excellent Care for All strategy: that accountability and wise use of health care resources mean better value and better patient outcomes. Ontarians want and deserve quality health care when and where they need it. They want better access and more choices. They want a health care system that is accountable and one that will be there for future generations.

When we came to power in 2003, we found a broken health care system. We’ve since made significant transformations to the system that have resulted in better access to front-line health care services and lower wait times. While our health care system has come a long way, we know there is a greater challenge looming: our growing and aging population. Escalating health care costs are the biggest threat to ensuring that the system will be there for future generations.

The Excellent Care for All Act, 2010, which received royal assent in June, is the first step in improving the quality and value of the health care system. This legislation means that health investments must produce evidence-based results and improve patient care. This means ensuring consistent standards, doing things because they have been proven to work and not doing things that aren’t supported by clinical evidence. Improving quality puts patients first while making the most effective use of limited health care resources for us today and for future generations of Ontarians.

That same focus on value and prudent use of limited resources prompted our reforms to the provincial drug system. Ontario is one of the largest purchasers of drugs in the world, and we deserve a better deal than the one we’ve been getting. In 2006, our government took bold steps to rein in the cost of generic drugs and expand patient access to medicine. Since that time, we’ve invested over $1 billion and added 168 new prescription drugs to the formulary, as well as 45 new cancer products.

In June 2010, we started to further reform the prescription drug system to ensure the wider availability of more affordable drugs. That resulted in a reduction in the price of generic drugs by at least 50% across the board to 25% of the price of the original brand-name drug. That’s a 50% price reduction for the generic drugs that we, the government, buy.

We also eliminated professional allowances to make Ontario’s drug system more accountable. These reforms are in the public’s interest and Ontarians’ interest. That commitment to Ontarians’ interest brought about all our reforms across the health care system and indeed across the government to enhance accountability and openness, and operate in the light of day.

Our proposed legislation will raise the standard of oversight for all broader-sector entities and require them to adhere to the same rules as the Ontario public service and government agencies. I ask all members to support this proposed legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s great to see you in the chair and it’s always nice to see a female as Deputy Speaker.

I’ll be speaking a little bit longer to this piece of legislation, because it is an important discussion for us to have in this chamber. I will make my remarks in a more fulsome manner later on this morning. But the reality is, I don’t think this bill goes far enough. I’ll go into that in a little bit. This chamber has been dealing, in the last year, with two major health care scandals that have come under this government’s watch. Those are eHealth and what many would call eHealth 2.0, which is what the auditor uncovered just last week: the use of consultants and lobbyists at our hospitals and local health integration networks across the province.

Our party has called for the dismemberment or disbandment of the local health integration networks because we feel that so much money has gone into the bureaucracy, as opposed to front-line care. To make matters worse, those of us on the Progressive Conservative side of the House believe that a lot of that money is also going to consultants to help some Liberal insiders get rich.

When you look at what the auditor has come out with and what the Ombudsman has said, I think that speaks to our view and I think it confirms the views that many Ontarians have that their tax dollars aren’t being spent appropriately at our health care institutions across this province. We’d like to see more health care dollars go to front-line care. I look forward to speaking to this piece of legislation again.

As I say to my colleague, it’s always nice for the female members to see somebody sitting in the chair who is like us.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Speaker, I find it nice to see you sitting in the chair as well. That’s just because of who you are, whether you’re female, as you are, or not. But please, Chair, will the Chair please use its authority and power to interrupt inappropriate language in the chamber, especially the incorrect use of the word “fulsome.” It’s like fingernails on a damned blackboard. I would hope that the Chair would perceive that as unparliamentary language and intervene when appropriate.

The NDP critic on this matter, our member for Nickel Belt, is literally fogged in up in northern Ontario, so during the course of the morning I will be asking for consent to have her lead deferred. I’ll be speaking to the bill.

What I find truly remarkable is that the minister, of course, now insists that we don’t need lobbyists to access this government, that this government is only a phone call away; just flip your Rolodex over to—I’m sure at some point Ms. Matthews—the minister, rather—is going to offer up her cellphone number and her home phone number so that people in fact can just dial her up or put her on speed dial and call her instead of employing high-priced Liberally connected lobbyists.

But at the same time, interestingly, people like John Matheson from StrategyCorp insist that lobbyists are the grease that makes government work. John Matheson from StrategyCorp would dispute every single thing that the minister has to say about the role of lobbyists. It will be interesting to see how powerful and effective lobbyists really are, because if lobbyists are as effective as they think they are, they will have persuaded this government to abandon this legislation before before it comes to third reading.

The committee hearings are going to be particularly delightful.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to rise and make some comments following the minister and her parliamentary assistant on the introduction of Bill 122, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act.

This act deals with a number of initiatives. Most important is the ban on lobbyists in the proposed legislation. It would prohibit certain broader public sector organizations from using public funds to hire lobbyists. I think this new legislation is well timed and something that the people of Ontario definitely are looking forward to.

Ontario’s 259 classified agencies, such as the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and Cancer Care Ontario, are included, as well as hydro entities and the broader public service entities like hospitals, schools, CCACs and universities.

There will be procurement rules within this legislation. The procurement rules would be based on existing supply chain guidelines.

There would be expense claim rules. The government would have the authority to make expense claim directives to require rules to be set and followed by broader public service entities such as our hospitals, schools and boards.

There would be public postings of expenses. The proposed legislation, if passed, would require LHINs and hospitals to comply with directives issued by the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care requiring the posting of expense claims information of designated individuals, such as CEOs, board members and senior managers, on the public website.

There’s much more to this bill in its total, but there is an enforcement mechanism. The proposed legislation, if passed, would ensure that all funding agreements between the province and broader public service organizations incorporate these new accountability provisions.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I want to join with my colleagues on this side to say how pleased I am to see you in the chair. In fact, Madam Speaker, you’re everywhere. I was watching television on the weekend, and there was this speech from the Dalai Lama. They panned the crowd, and there you were, front and centre. I said to my wife, “She’s just everywhere.” So I’m glad you’re here today, I’m glad you’re in the chair and I’m so pleased to be recognized to provide a few comments on Bill 122.

I was very surprised by the comments from the members opposite. It was a pretty historic day in the province yesterday. We saw a lot of voters cast their vote for change. I think it really sounded some bells in politicians’ ears right across the province.

As the member for Nepean–Carleton talked about, this government opposite has a lot to account for. I can’t believe that after the awful eHealth scandal, this government hadn’t been more efficient in providing some checks on our system and the fact that the Auditor General came forward and presented a second report, which we have been calling eHealth 2.0 on this side, can come again in the province.

We had so many who came forward to call us and talk to us about their concern with the $1-billion eHealth boondoggle. I can’t believe that we’re sitting in the House this morning and having the same type of discussion about the lack of accountability that the government has put in place. It’s shameful; it’s disgraceful.

I truly believe that as we move into the days and months ahead, the people of Ontario will again sound their bells loud and clear against this government.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The Minister of Health has up to two minutes to respond.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the members from Ottawa–Orléans, Nepean–Carleton, Welland, Chatham–Kent–Essex and Leeds–Grenville for their comments.

I’ve listened carefully, and I’m actually listening for some substantive response to the legislation that is before us. So far, I have not heard anyone who is opposed to the substance of this legislation.

Just quickly, I think it’s very important to note that it was under our government that we gave the Auditor General the authority to look at hospitals. When the party opposite was in power, despite their sanctimonious stance today, they did not allow the Auditor General to look at what was going on in hospitals. We asked the Auditor General to look; we asked him specifically to look at the issue of consultants. We have addressed each and every one of the recommendations from the Auditor General and we are moving forward. It seems to me that this is progress in the right direction.

Others may be more comfortable never exposing these issues to the scrutiny of the Auditor General. Our approach is to look, to constantly improve accountability and transparency, and, where the Auditor General recommends we make improvements, we do that.

This legislation addresses issues that have been going on for far too long in this province under all governments. It is under our government that these practices will stop. I think our responsibility to taxpayers has never been more important than it is today. People know that the health care system is under pressure, both demographic and fiscal. We know we have issues and that if we don’t respond today, the future does not look bright in health care. So we are taking those steps—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you. Further debate?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It is a pleasure to be able to speak to this legislation on behalf of Tim Hudak and the Progressive Conservative caucus. It is no secret that this legislation marks the beginning of the end of the 39th Parliament more sharply than any other legislation or decision made by the McGuinty government since we have approached the one-year countdown to next year’s election. It’s the culmination of scandal, a sense of detachment from the public, and a growing sense of entitlement wrapped in a mea culpa that forms the basis of what I would call this apology bill. I believe it’s also the closing

chapter of a tired, worn out, out of touch and out of gas Liberal government.

This bill is nothing more than a grovelling knee-jerk reaction, a deathbed confession, some might say, by the McGuinty government, which once again has disappointed its constituents after another auditor’s report exposed their penchant for getting consultants and lobbyists rich on precious health care dollars. This bill is the response to eHealth 2.0, where the Minister of Health has forced Ontario’s hospitals to pay for high-priced, often hand-picked lobbyists to gain access to her and her decision-makers.

Finally, this bill is another example of how this government has gotten too comfortable behind the big desks to do the small things right. The circumstances that led to this legislation have for many across Ontario become the final straw.

Had this minister and this McGuinty Liberal government truly been serious about greater taxpayer protection, greater accountability by the public sector and more transparency in our public processes, then she would have supported my bill in May, the Ontario PC caucus bill on truth in government. It was a bill that would have prevented the abuses the minister is reacting to in the auditor’s report of last week on hospital lobbyists, and I will just touch on the auditor’s report. The auditor revealed last week that one hospital paid a consultant $170,000 for expenses.

When auditors asked for the receipts, the consultant asked for another $3,000 to produce them. One consultant took a paid vacation to Japan and sent the airfare bill to Ontario taxpayers, while the whole time he was being paid his daily billing on vacation. Still another consultant expense: a bonus, a Christmas luncheon and a $300 dinner to taxpayers. Essentially, the auditor revealed that the same waste and scandal that plagued eHealth also plagues the Ministry of Health, the local health integration networks and, sadly, Ontario hospitals, where Ontario patients rely on them for care.

I’d like to say that Premier McGuinty’s promise to put a stop to this waste after eHealth and other scandals at Cancer Care Ontario, OLG and WSIB was genuine, but the truth is the McGuinty government only acts when it is to their benefit and not to the benefit of Ontario taxpayers. The Liberals only act when they are caught, and make no mistake: They have been caught time and again by Ontario’s auditor.

Hence, we are now debating the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act,

an act, by the Liberals’ own admission, that is a reaction to the auditor’s report and thus, in many cases, does little more than issue weak and unenforceable directives and, in many more cases, only focuses on hospitals and LHINs when it should go toward the broader public sector.

I also note that the bill proposes that the minister can review the LHINs. This is utterly hilarious, given that this government has already broken its own law for a statutory review of the LHINs. Let’s be clear: The Premier has broken his own law to review the LHINs and now he expects us to believe a new law, encouraging the Minister of Health to review the LHINs, will work. What was wrong with the old law? Why wasn’t it enforced? And finally, why should we believe the McGuinty Liberals now?

The point is that the Liberals won’t enforce the laws they already have on the books. Why should we believe they will enforce these new laws? We simply don’t. We simply can’t believe them, because the best indicator of future behaviour is past behaviour. The Premier used that language himself.

Furthermore, there are differences between the Liberal bill and the PC Truth in Government Act, and I argue that the Liberal bill does not go far enough to protect Ontario taxpayers. If the Liberals really wanted to span the entire so-called broader public service, they would have done so. But like so many of the Liberal bills of late, it’s nothing more than a Band-Aid solution here and there.

I believe the starkest difference between the PC caucus’ Truth in Government Act and this bill is motive. Where the Liberals propose a reactive apology bill to make amends for yet another health care scandal, the Ontario PC caucus put forward a thoughtful and reasonable accountability bill to prevent future mismanagement of tax dollars throughout the whole of government. In essence, the Liberals are trying to deliver an apology, while the PC caucus offered strong alternatives. Let me explain.

Last May, the Ontario PC caucus introduced the Truth in Government Act, which proposed five robust measures to create more openness and accountability across all of government. Specifically, our accountability legislation would have expanded freedom of information across all of government and would have ensured the disclosure of hospitality expenses, job reclassifications, as well as contracts and contributions over $10,000 at all public sector bodies.

At the time, I sought all-party support, because it was a sensible plan that would cost nothing to adopt immediately, and it could have easily been done with information the government already possesses.

Having said that, the Liberals whipped their vote and, oddly, they stood against greater accountability and taxpayer protection at Ontario’s hospitals, universities and government agencies, arguing at the time—and let me put forward a quote here. The member from Mississauga–Streetsville said that the bill was a “red-tape-bloat-and-spend bill,” while the so-called integrity czar, the Minister of Government Services at the time, said: “Our government has moved decisively to introduce greater accountability and transparency in the area of procurement. Our procurement policies ensure value for money by implementing open, fair and transparent competitive processes.”

The minister may want to reread his own Hansard. Had this government moved, as he said they did, to decisively introduce greater accountability and transparency, there would have been no abuses of taxpayers’ dollars at LHINs or Ontario hospitals by consultants. Had they done what they said they would do, and had they followed their own rules, this wouldn’t have happened.

They would also have no need for their own accountability bill if the Minister of Government Services was correct. Had they been decisive, they would have gotten it done. But they didn’t, because they weren’t decisive and they didn’t follow their own rules.

Again, it begs the question: Why should we believe them now? Only now, after being caught again in scandal, does this Liberal government think it is appropriate to bring forward stronger accountability measures.

By the auditor’s own account last week, both Liberal members couldn’t have been further off the mark. One might even suggest that they misled this House, but then you would have to contend that either of them actually knew what they were talking about, which is highly unlikely. This is why I question the Liberal government—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would just ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn.

This is why I question why the Liberal government is acting now with the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. Those same Liberals will now have to eat their own words, because their own Liberal government is now forced to finally act and put forward this apology bill for its actions, or the lack thereof, as was pointed out in last week’s auditor’s report. In fact, I believe that the Liberal apology bill introduced by the Minister of Health sells out the Minister of Government Services and the member for Mississauga–Streetsville because they have far less influence on the government benches.

For those two members—and I’m loath to say “I told you so”—the remarks made in May for greater government accountability appear only partisan as best, and at worst it looks as if this government is actually facile, very weak, and attacking opposition legislation for petty partisan purposes. That’s why their own bill, while drafted on the fly, actually adopts some of the PC caucus’s recommendations, notably to open freedom of information to Ontario hospitals.

I wonder somewhat facetiously if the Liberal member for Mississauga–Streetsville still contends that opening government to Ontarians will create “a monstrous, paper-shuffling, red-tape-creating, money-gobbling bureaucracy”, or if he is now just seeing the light.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock, please. I would ask the House to come to order, please. I’m finding it difficult to hear the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Thank you. Continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The reality is this Liberal government doesn’t want me to speak out. They don’t want any opposition member, whether it’s from the official opposition or the third party, to speak out about this because it speaks to how embarrassed they are that their government can’t get it done. The embarrassing thing here is that this Liberal government actually thinks they can speak ill of opening transparency and accountability to all Ontarians, and then once they get caught they decide they’re going to bring in legislation that will make it all better. Well, when you lose almost $1 billion in health care funding because you didn’t do your job, Ontarians are angry, and justifiably so.

Again, I think the reality is that the two members who spoke against the PC Truth in Government Act must now not want to show their faces, because they have egg all over them.

This Liberal bill stops well short of what is an acceptable government accountability plan and it stops well short of what is acceptable to Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC caucus. Let me explain my major points of contention—and I hope the minister is listening. I also encouraged her staff this morning at a briefing to adopt some of these resolutions. We will be putting forward amendments.

We believe that this bill only opens hospitals to freedom of information, not all provincial public bodies. That is the first and probably biggest criticism we have of this legislation. It only requires expenses to be disclosed at hospitals and LHINs, not all public sector bodies, and it only requires reporting on consultants and not all contracts for goods and services at all provincial public bodies. Again, I must reiterate, it stops well short of what we in the Ontario PC caucus feel are acceptable transparency and accountability measures.

This is why I feel that the bill is designed more as an apology for the Liberals who quietly masterminded a second eHealth scandal than it is for greater transparency and accountability for Ontario taxpayers.

The failings in this bill, I suppose, can be chalked up to a lack of commitment to taxpayer protection by this government and their loose regard for Ontario taxpayer dollars. If the Liberal government truly believes in protecting tax dollars, they will stop paying lip service to this bill, support our thoughtful amendments and incorporate the Truth in Government Act. As I pointed out, the Truth in Government Act had five very reasonable, achievable, robust measures for greater taxpayer protection.

We feel that had they been adopted, we would have seen greater transparency and accountability at government agencies across the Ontario public service, but more than that, it would have prevented what we saw with eHealth 2.0 or, as we like to call it, the recent auditor’s report.

Again, I just would like to reiterate: We were calling for expanded freedom of information across all of government. This bill, in contrast, only opens that up to hospitals. I think that to actually prove they want greater accountability and transparency, they would have opened it up to everything. Instead, this looks like a knee-jerk, Band-Aid reaction—

Mr. Steve Clark: They got caught.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: —given the fact that they, as my colleague from Leeds–Grenville says, got caught. We would have ensured disclosure of hospitality expenses government-wide. That’s not the case here. In fact, what will happen—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Did you do that when you had the chance?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: If the minister would maybe listen for once, she would understand that her government is only going to issue directives that don’t need to be followed. I think that that’s actually insulting. I think that if she were to be serious about this, she would firmly adopt a protocol and policy to disclose hospitality expenses.

They’ve done nothing to talk about job reclassifications within the Ontario public service whereby those who are getting a new job classification and in some cases a new salary would have that posted online for greater transparency, but they chose not to do that. They have a narrow focus based on reaction and the apology that they want to give to Ontario taxpayers.

We also suggested all contracts over $10,000 at all public sector bodies be posted online. This is happening in other places across the country. It costs nothing to do. It would allow for people across the province, whether they’re members of the opposition, members of the media or they’re taxpaying citizens to go online and see what companies are making over $10,000 in taxpayer money at various places across the province, but they chose not to do that. This is an easy, affordable and efficient way of communicating to the government.

We also have called for any contribution over $10,000 that goes to any government agency or a transfer payment agency to also be posted online to ensure that those who are receiving public dollars in and outside of government are treating those dollars with the utmost respect. But the reality is this government is not interested in having a whole debate, a full debate. They just want this auditor’s report to be buried so that they don’t have to deal with the repercussions that the Ontario taxpayers are going to bring forward.

I urge the minister—if she wants to co-operate and wants to make this bill better and one that all of us in all of the political parties could work together on, she would listen to our reasonable and thoughtful proposals in the Ontario PC caucus.

The era for accountability is not new. I had the fortune of working on Parliament Hill and I remember the days of the sponsorship scandal. I know that the Federal Accountability Act was a direct response by the Stephen Harper government, trying to move federal Parliament into a greater era of transparency and accountability. We’re four years behind the federal government right now because this government hasn’t put forward a reasonable bill to ensure that all of our agencies, boards, commissions and transfer payment agencies adhere to a certain set of rules.

We continue to see different pieces of legislation, whether that’s a Good Government Act, 2009, or a Good Government Act, 2010, which actually amends certain parts of the Good Government Act, 2009—I guess that means it’s bad government. But the reality is, they’ve not put anything forward to prevent future abuses from happening. It’s always putting something forward that reacts to an abuse that has already occurred. The question that many of us have in the official opposition, and I’m sure they have it in the third party, is, why aren’t you following the rules that you already put in place?

The Premier promised us that 22 boards, agencies and commissions would post online. As of last week, 19 weren’t up; 11 ministers hadn’t posted their expenses online either. If they’re not going to follow the rules they already have in place—and I use the LHIN example again—if they’re not going to do that mandatory review that they promised us they were going to do that was actually in law and then they just sort of hid it and ignored it and broke their own law, then why should we believe that they really want to change?

Why should we believe that the minister is going to issue a directive when all this bill says is, “She can do it; she’s allowed to do it”? Nothing says that the minister is actually going to do it. Nothing actually says that the minister is going to force government agencies, boards, commissions and other transfer agencies and hospitals to actually follow any sort of rules she’ll come up with.

In fact, it doesn’t even say she’s going to put forward rules; they’re not codified in this piece of legislation. Think about that. This bill is so that members of the Liberal Party can go back into their ridings and say, “We’re doing something about it.” But if you read the fine print, no, they’re not. They’re not really doing anything about it. They’re issuing the possibility of directives. She may do a review, she may do an audit, but it doesn’t mean she will.

It means that in a year from now, we’re still going to uncover scandal, waste, bloat, all of that, by this Liberal government, because there is no desire to truly change. Until there’s a desire to truly change and to make Ontario taxpayers believe that they’ve changed, we’re going to continue to see bills like this: bills that are a reaction, bills that show that they have a sense of entitlement and that they’ve gotten caught.

I’m not going to read the articles that have been published in the last week by columnists and by others across the province in Ontario’s newspapers. But, again, I think there was a real disappointment by many people across Ontario, and particularly by those who observe Queen’s Park, that this government didn’t do more to prevent these types of abuses, especially in this era of accountability. We saw what happened with the sponsorship scandal, the hotel Grand-Mère. The list goes on.

And the taxpaying public in all of Canada at the time decided that we could do better, that the tired old Chrétien-Martin Liberal gang had abused taxpayers enough. There was a new era of accountability, and it appears that the McGuinty government didn’t get the memo, and so we still see all these scandals.

It just troubles people to no end. One of the things I continually hear about in my constituency is this $1 billion that seems to have gone nowhere for eHealth. In fact, many people in my constituency and across the city of Ottawa are still calling for a public inquiry into what happened at eHealth. They believe that their money was misused, in part because the auditor pointed it out, but in many cases they find that their tax dollars have no value anymore.

I think that speaks to a broader problem in this government and to eHealth being a symptom of what people see as a broader problem with this government, which is that it has become out of touch. They believe they know how to spend your money better than you do. It also says that they know how to do your laundry better and all those sorts of examples.

What it all comes down to, when we look at this piece of legislation, the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, is that it’s not going to solve anything unless they do it right and unless they adopt their own rules. I think that has been the biggest and most challenging example of this government’s years in office. They were swept into office. They made 50 promises, none of which they either intended to keep or could keep. They raised taxes after saying they wouldn’t. They promised LHIN reviews; broke their own laws. They promised children with autism that they would help them and then they took their parents to court. I’m ashamed of this Liberal government’s actions on that file.

I’ll give you a story. This is how I knew how horrific this government was. In the 2006 by-election, in which I was elected, I ran against a lady named Laurel Gibbons, whose son has autism. She decided to run for the New Democrats because that Liberal government was taking her and other parents to court. She left her family—she has three children, one of whom has autism, and she decided to take on public life for that fight.

If you want to talk about accountability in the broader public sector or even accountability in the broader public, there is nothing more heinous and nasty than what that Liberal government did to those families. They’re lucky other issues took over in the 2007 election; otherwise, voter anger would have been squarely at their feet.

I must say, this next year when this Liberal government will have to go out and speak to the Ontario public will be a difficult one because they have forgotten to serve the very people who have elected them. I think that’s why we’re starting to see a critical mass each and every day of absent Liberal MPPs. In fact, we’re seeing, on average, 30 to 40 a day—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask that the member not refer to the absence of other members. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I put forward a private member’s bill yesterday that—

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The government House leader gets so testy around here. It must be very difficult to have to defend this government’s record.

I put forward a private member’s bill yesterday that was put forward the first time by a young man named George Smitherman, when he was the member for Toronto Centre. He put forward a bill that said that truancy of cabinet ministers and the Premier would require a $500 fine if they were missing two thirds of the time. I put forward that bill to highlight the fact that what we’re seeing here in this chamber is a lot of absences and it’s something we need to talk about. In fact, when you look at the Premier—and he’s been missing 69% of question periods, given what was reported today in the Ottawa Citizen. That’s why this bill—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask that the member not refer to the absence of people and get back to the government bill at hand, Bill 122. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Madam Speaker, I think it speaks to this bill because, again, if they want to talk about broader public service accountability, there have been and there continue to be pieces of legislation from the opposition that call for greater accountability of the government, whether that’s the broader public service or ministerial accountability. We put these forward. I’m only suggesting that if the government truly is serious about this, they would adopt some of the measures put forward by the Ontario PC caucus, whether that’s the Truth in Government Act or the bill that I put forward yesterday.

It’s serious. They thought it was a good idea when they were in opposition. What happened after seven years? They thought it was a great idea to promise that he wouldn’t raise our taxes twice. What happened? You promised you were going to do a statutory review of the LHIN. What happened?

This is a government that makes promises to the public and then doesn’t follow through. What makes this broader public sector bill any different? They’re coming up with new rules all the time, but they never follow them.

Again, I point to the fact that they put forward an accountability bill last year, and at the time—let me get the quote out from the Minister of Government Services, who basically said that it was all done, it was never going to happen again. Harinder Takhar, the Minister of Government Services, said, “Our government has moved decisively to introduce greater accountability and transparency in the area of procurement. Our procurement policies ensure value for money by implementing open, fair and transparent competitive processes.”

Do you know what we’re dealing with in this piece of legislation?

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Why don’t you read the bill instead of the talking points your government is telling you to read? The reality is, this government did nothing. This bill is actually dealing with procurement. If the member from wherever she’s from would read the bill, she would understand. The reality is that you’ve now got a government of MPPs who are sitting in the back and over here in the rump who are told what to do and what to say. They don’t think for themselves—

Interjections.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They can catcall all they like. The reality is, the Ontario public doesn’t buy it anymore because they never follow through with a promise. If you’re going to make a promise, keep it. But you’re incapable of that. You’re incapable. You’ve got a track record of being unable to keep a promise.

I’ve got a little sheet in my desk here. I’m going to read through them because this speaks to the priorities of this government.

Remember, he promised not once but twice not to raise our taxes. Then he immediately brought in the health premium and the single largest sales tax increase, the HST. Then he brought in the eco fees, but they backtracked on that. The Ontario public are still looking for $85 million that they were scammed out of.

I was at the time the children and youth services critic for the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. The children’s aid society, in my first year, was caught funding officials to drive gas-guzzling SUVs and take out $2,000 gym memberships as well as take trips right across the province. Remember how they promised accountability measures after that? And what happened? The scandals just moved from the children’s aid societies. Where did they move to? To the LHINs, to eHealth, to Cancer Care Ontario.

That brings us to eHealth, a $1-billion boondoggle—nothing to show for it. What came out of that? More rules on how to make government more accountable. And then we still have this piece of legislation.

We’ve got the Green Energy Act, in which the Premier reversed his decision regarding mandatory energy audits, and that was only after the public started to cry out. I guess in a sense they may have actually been considered accountable in that regard.

They had OLG scandal 1 and then they had OLG scandal 2. I can remember—you’ll probably remember this too, Madam Speaker—when, in the midst of the recession, OLG decided it was going to advertise a contest giving away German-made vehicles. Meanwhile, we make great vehicles in this province. We make them in Oshawa; we make them right across this great province. That’s what they’ve done.

We had another scandal, at the WSIB. They promised more rules.

We’ve got a deficit. I remember when I first got here how they used to cry; they used to squeal over there. A few of them on the front bench would squeal over a $5.6-billion deficit, which was caused by SARS, mad cow disease and an energy blackout. Yet when they have a $19-billion deficit because they’re spending on all their little programs that create more social engineering across the province, we’re not supposed to say a word. Well, the reality is, this is a government that taxes, it’s a government that spends, and it’s a government that has no priorities and always sets new rules because they keep breaking the ones that they promised.

We remember the tax collector severance. I could think of nothing more unaccountable than giving people $45,000 to move from one job on a Friday to another job in the same office, at the same cubicle, with the same title, on a Monday.

We now remember the Ombudsman, the one person who wanted to keep these folks accountable and wanted them to follow the rules, and who was the first, by the way, to say that the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus was right on the LHINs. They wanted to get rid of him before his report came out. You’ll remember that. They wanted to do a fear-and-smear campaign on him.

We can talk about the sex ed curriculum, which I think was appalling and was probably the greatest—

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Leal: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like you to rule on

section 23(

b) of the standing orders. The member seems to be straying into sex education and other areas that are not directly related—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Thank you, member from Peterborough. I’d ask the member to get back to Bill 122. Thank you.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I guess the reality is, I am talking about accountability. I’m talking about this government’s track record and their ability to move forward on things that actually matter to people and to keep the rules. It speaks to how they do things.

If I’m going to stand here and talk about the rules that they’re putting in place and that they never follow through on, it also speaks to their record, whether it’s sex education or eco fees; the backtracking, like G20, the secret security law, which, by the way, showed how unaccountable this Liberal government and that cabinet are.

The reality is that they’ll continue to have this discussion. We’ll be talking about another accountability bill when we find out that they have to apologize for yet another scandal that’s probably going to come down the pipe.

The reality is, again—and I can’t say this enough—they always say that they’ve gotten it done, that they’re doing better, but they’re not, because they don’t follow their own rules.

I remember, a couple of question periods ago, we were standing here. There’s a common theme every single time that the Premier speaks. He always says, “We can do better,” and it doesn’t matter what it is.

Mr. Steve Clark: He says that a lot.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: He says it a lot. But of course he can do better, and this bill can do better; the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act can do a whole lot better. That’s why we’re calling on the government to adopt the Ontario PC caucus’s Truth in Government Act. That’s why I think it would be a great idea for them to move forward on a bill that I put forward yesterday to increase ministerial accountability.

When we talk about these things, I’m sure they would want me just to talk about their bill, but we would like to enhance it and make it better. That’s why we’re talking and debating here today. But again, you want to stifle that debate, and it’s unfortunate. It’s unfortunate that you only want people to speak off of the talking points you’ve given the member from Guelph and that you’ll continue to regurgitate.

I go back to the member from Mississauga–Streetsville, how he behaved at the introduction of the Truth in Government Act, which was to get petty and partisan and call it a waste bill, when in fact it was trying to streamline accountability practices across government. That means all of its agencies, boards and commissions. It means all of its transfer payment agencies. It means all of its ministries. They didn’t follow through. Obviously, he’s going to have to go to caucus today and find out that more accountability is in vogue, that it’s the right thing to do.

This government can’t continue to spend people’s tax dollars and waste them without repercussions. That’s why we’re standing here today debating this bill and talking about more value for money. We want to open more of government to the taxpaying citizens. We want to ensure that this government, if they’re going to promise to do it, will follow through. Again, I can’t say this enough: If this government is going to continue to put forward legislation, they had better follow through on it. This is a common theme. The general recurrence that we continue to hear in this Legislature is that they make a promise, and they break a promise.

This bill—I have no hope of actually seeing them follow through on everything, given the fact that all it suggests is that the government may issue directives. Perhaps the minister could answer that question—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock for a minute. I would ask that members who want to have private conversations have them in the lounge and not in the House.

Member from Nepean–Carleton, continue.

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Again, there’s government business, and they would like to do it so that they’re not accountable, so they have to challenge the Chair—amazing.

As I move on today—

Interjection.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: They’re having a procedural discussion. I’m sure that they want to see how they’re going to respond to my remarks.

This government has continually let down the people of the province. I think that they can do better. They have admitted as much on several occasions in the last little while.

I’ll conclude by suggesting to them that they’ve got five solid initiatives in the Truth in Government Act that they can adopt. They’ve got one solid initiative that actually was conceived by their former Deputy Premier who, for all I know, might be back next year as the member for Toronto Centre; they could easily adopt that and just increase the fine. I think it speaks to where we’ve come in the province as of late, the government rot. They call it second-term-itis. They have it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Well, I was struck by the participation in this debate by the member for Nepean–Carleton. She began her comments with a fervour and darned near had me speaking in tongues, and wrapped them up in the succinct way that she always does—a very powerful and effective member of this Legislature and, indeed, an effective critic of this government.

Although it’s increasingly obvious that you don’t have to be particularly good to be critical of this government. It’s just—well, it’s easy. It’s a fool’s pastime, if you will, because there’s so much for this government to be criticized for. They lead with their chin inevitably, and they have a target that’s the size of Ontario. That’s how big the target is, and the bull’s eye is the size of the GTA, if you will.

We’re going to be speaking to this bill in due course. Unfortunately, we won’t have time this morning for the NDP to do its lead through our critic, the member for Nickel Belt, or for me to do my modest 20 minutes—and I regret that it’s only 20 minutes, because I will be addressing this bill, as I suspect every one of my colleagues in this NDP caucus will be, with great, great interest.

The bill is fraudulent. It’s a phony piece of legislation. Indeed, it’s rather pathetic because—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Excuse me; did I hear the member say “fraudulent”?

Mr. Peter Kormos: Yes, of course.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask you to withdraw that as unparliamentary.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I withdraw it, and I’ll withdraw in advance anything else I might say that will be unparliamentary in the next 20 seconds.

So we have a fraud and we’ve got committee hearings that will inevitably flow. I’m looking forward to the delightful exchange between lobbyists, who insist that they’re the grease that makes government work, and the minister, who insists that her phone is on your speed dial and just give her a call any time you want.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m reminded by my colleague from Essex of a Mac Davis song, “Oh, Lord it’s hard to be humble when you’re perfect in every way.” I think we were reminded of that song when we heard the member from Nepean–Carleton speak to this bill. We’ll have a little contest: it’s going to be “Name the minister, name the party.”

I’m reading from the Auditor General’s report on page 25: In early 1999, the hospital single-sourced a contract. It’s been worth $60 million to this company—sole-sourced. Who was the minister? Liz Witmer, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. Who was the party in power?

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop the clock, please.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I thought that we had a ruling here that we weren’t supposed to name members. Again, unaccountable.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Yes, I do correct it: It was the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

On page 25 of the auditor’s report, the auditor speaks about another contract, started in 2002 and worth $3.7 million, both contracts single-sourced. The party in power in 2002 was?

Interjections: The Conservatives.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: And the minister? The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

On page 28: At one hospital, a consultant has been engaged since 1999 as CEO. The hospital originally single-sourced the position to this consultant. The party in power was the Conservative Party and the Minister of Health was the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

On page 30 he talks about a contract dating from 2002: $51,000 to a lobbying firm. Again, the party in power was the Conservatives; the Minister of Health was the member from Kitchener–Waterloo.

It’s hard to be humble, but you’re not perfect in every way. We all hold responsibility.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Steve Clark: That was an extremely interesting attempt at a game show. It’s just a typical Liberal response: They love to talk about many, many years ago; they love to talk about the past, but they don’t want to talk about the fact that they’re getting caught—and they have to continually get caught before they actually do something. Minister, you can talk about all the quaint little game shows. We can play the 1960s game show or the 1970s game show or the 1980s game show, but the fact of the matter is, we’re talking about 2010.

Interjection.

Mr. Steve Clark: Yes, and this is the reality TV we’re playing today.

The fact of the matter is—and I’m so glad that when I looked at the itinerary today, that the Premier will be here. I’ve missed him. I’m glad he’ll be here.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I caution the member—

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m not talking about anybody who’s not here.

Mr. Peter Kormos: It’s his presence, not his absence.

Mr. Steve Clark: Absolutely.

But again, had the minister and the McGuinty Liberals been truly serious about accountability, as the member for Nepean–Carleton mentioned, they would have embraced her Truth in Government Act, which was tabled in May, and provided that accountability for the greater public service.

I want to reiterate some of the things that she did mention. I sat beside her and I thoroughly enjoyed her address. Her riding is a neighbouring riding to mine and she’s a great mentor to me. She has provided some wonderful discussions about accountability: the fact that she talked in May about expanding freedom of information across all government and the greater public service. I think that her bill back in May would have provided the accountability that we on this side of the House have been talking about.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Questions and comments?

Mr. Phil McNeely: The hospital procedures were not developed over one or two or three years. These are procedures that have come from many governments, including the years that the opposition here now was in government. Some of those procedures certainly aren’t very well-defined and aren’t followed, but they had their own auditors and their own auditors were supposed to be looking after the shop.

This government has made a change. We’ve extended the purview of the Auditor General into the broader public sector. That’s what we did, and of course we asked for this report. We asked the auditor to conduct spot audits on the use of consultants in the health sector, including the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care, the LHINs and 16 hospitals.

We asked for that because we know that the training that the hospitals have for their procedures came from people like former MPP Chris Stockwell. Chris Stockwell charged Ontario Power Generation up to $10,000 in travel expenses for his family vacation in Europe. Paul Rhodes, Leslie Noble, Tom Long and Michael Gourley shared $5.9 million—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): I would ask the member, just as we’ve been saying before, to mention the name of the riding, not the name of the member.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Madam Speaker, I would do that, but these are public figures. Paul Rhodes, Leslie Noble, Tom Long and Michael Gourley were not members. They shared $5.9 million in untendered contracts from Hydro One. That’s why we asked the Auditor General to go into Hydro One when we got here.

So, we are looking at this. We have the Auditor General going in. We are coming up with the right rules. That’s what we have to do. This will make sure that hospitals—LHINs are only four years old; they have to learn a lot of lessons in consultant procurement for sure, and thank goodness they’re not learning them from the Tories—and the 16 hospitals. This is the right thing—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): The member from Nepean–Carleton has up to two minutes to respond.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I would like a page to come forward, if it’s possible, to bring something over to the Minister of Health. It’s a piece of paper that says, “Why not blame Sir John A. Macdonald?” For honest to goodness’ sake, this is getting a bit ridiculous. If you could bring that over, just so she understands it.

At some point in time—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Excuse me, if you could stop the clock just for a minute. This is a prop and it’s out of order.

Member, please continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a simple message. This is a government that continues to blame everyone as far back—in recent months, for the issue that occurred with the tax collectors—as Premier Robarts. They blame Premier Eves, they blame Premier Harris, they blame Stephen Harper for everything. Why not blame Sir John A. Macdonald?

The reality is, the buck stops with you, Minister. You’ve been in government for seven years; over seven years. You’re changing it now because you got caught. You keep getting caught, Minister. You’re an embarrassment to this chamber, you’re an embarrassment to this province and unless you’re going to make a decision—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): Stop, please. I’d ask the member to withdraw that and ask her to speak through the Chair, please.

Thank you. Continue.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw, but the reality is, this government had an option. They chose not to do it. They chose consistently, time and time and time again, not to put forward any meaningful rules. This bill is no different. And until they’re prepared to make change and stick with it, make a promise and keep it, this government has not got the confidence of anyone on this side of the chamber. This bill is nothing more than a PR stunt because they’ve been caught again by the auditor, and I can think of nothing more atrocious.

The first thing you did that I remember as an elected member was taking parents to court whose kids have autism, and then you mismanaged, you misspent and you wasted taxpayer dollars intended for health care. That’s wrong. You’ve done wrong and you’ve got to do better. The Premier says it every day. Learn to do better.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Cheri DiNovo): It being 10:15, I declare that this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1019 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jim Brownell: I would like to introduce Colin Munro. Colin is a resident of South Glengarry, in my riding of Stormont–Dundas–South Glengarry, and he’s a second-year student in criminology and political science at the University of Ottawa. I would like to welcome him to the Legislature.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I’d like to welcome some very special guests from GlaxoSmithKline, one of our world-class pharmaceutical leaders in north Mississauga: Paul Lucas, the CEO and president; Rav Kumar, vice-president, regulatory and development operations; and Allan O’Dette, director, external relations, policy and national private markets. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to introduce Prem Sharma of Oakville; he’s a family friend. With him are his daughter Neera Maini, a chiropractor, and his son-in-law Raj Maini, an ophthalmologist. He’s a specialist surgeon trained at Cambridge University, UK. They are visiting us from Nairobi.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I would like to extend a special welcome to page Jonathan Antony’s father, Joseph Antony; mother, Viji Antony; sister Cynthia Antony; grandmother Cecilia Antony; and grandmother Karuna Nathan in the public gallery.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: We’ve got a very special school here from Mississauga East–Cooksville—actually, two—visiting today: Brian W. Fleming Public School, and joining them are teachers Jeff Rowat, Heather Childs, Ann Bick, who has been there for so many years and has done so much and is retiring this year, Shubhra Mathur, and Catherine Hooks-Hull. We also have students here from T.L. Kennedy high school. I want to congratulate them and thank them for joining us here today.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to welcome to the gallery the Ontario Long Term Care Association. They’re here today in recognition of Long-Term Care Week in Ontario and to celebrate advancing long-term care through innovation. Please join me in welcoming Christina Bisanz, Lois Cormack, David Cutler, Sheri Annable, Dan Kaniuk, Brock Hall, Gary Loder, Patrick McCarthy and Robert Zober.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce, in the members’ gallery west, my executive assistant, Julian Warrick, who has been with me for some time. This is the first time that he has ever had the opportunity to view the proceedings from the members’ gallery, so I’m very pleased to welcome him this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the Minister of Revenue, to welcome Superintendent Michael Shea from the Hamilton Police Service in the gallery today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery the Consul General and Deputy Consul General of the Kingdom of the Netherlands at Toronto, Mr. Hans Horbach and Mr. Arie Plieger. Please join me in welcoming our guests to the Legislature today. Consul General, Deputy, welcome.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL CONDUCT

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, there is one thing for which a Premier bears sole responsibility, and that is the naming of cabinet. The appropriate standard of conduct for a cabinet minister ultimately rests with the Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me say a few things on this. First of all, this is in reference to the municipal elections, particularly those that prevailed here in the city of Toronto. I want to take the opportunity to thank everybody who presented themselves as a candidate and who removed themselves from the comfort and convenience of the sidelines and put their name on a sign and their reputation on the line—not an easy thing to do.

Second, I want to congratulate all the winners. On behalf of my government, I want to let them know that we look forward to working with them. We bring a tremendous amount of goodwill. We think our shared responsibility is to work on behalf of the people we are privileged to represent and to find common ground and a way to make progress. That’s the tone that I will bring to this responsibility, and that speaks to the goodwill that I want all of my government to represent.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, it is precisely about that tone that you reference and your members applaud. All of us who stand for public office understand that debate may get heated from time to time, but I think, Premier, you agree that there is a line. Your minister has clearly crossed that line. The accusations of the Minister of Research and Innovation were offensive and they’re beneath the role of a cabinet minister. The fact that it appeared on Twitter is no excuse. The minister had the opportunity to deliberate on the words he chose. He had the opportunity to deliberate whether the message was appropriate to re-tweet as well, let alone those messages he personally constructed.

Premier, you have a very clear choice to make: You can show your disapproval, as Premier, of the minister’s libellous comments. Will you call the minister to make a full, public and written apology?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s not unusual for things to be said in the heat of the moment that some of us might regret having said. I’m not going to purport to speak on behalf of any individual who offered any kind of comment during the course of this election.

I don’t have the information in front of me but I do believe that at the end of the evening, when the results were in, the particular minister extended his best wishes on Twitter to the mayor-elect of the city of Toronto, Rob Ford. Again, I think that speaks to the goodwill and the genuine desire on the part of everyone in my government to find some common ground and find a way to make progress with the newly elected representatives, whether here in Toronto or from anywhere else across the province.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, after seven years, you’ve changed. I knew a Premier McGuinty who would have said in the past that he would stand firmly against these types of libellous and negative attacks on Mayor Ford, on me personally and on Prime Minister Harper from a member of your cabinet.

At the Liberal convention last week, you insisted that you would not run a negative campaign. You said that it was not your style. But days later, that statement is being seriously undermined by a minister who has crossed the line in making libellous accusations.

It is well beyond the pale. You have them in front of you. It is unbecoming of a minister of the crown. Sir, if you don’t call for an immediate public apology from the minister, will you then ask him to resign? This goes way across the line.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again—and I know my honourable colleague understands this—politics can be heated. It can involve a very healthy collision of ideas, contrasting perspectives and different ideologies, and by and large, that is healthy. But once in a while, people say things which they later regret. I’m not going to assign blame to any individual who offered any commentary of any kind, which they may choose to regret today in hindsight. But what I can say is that, as a government, we’re bringing a tremendous amount of goodwill to the table.

We congratulate all those who won, we thank all those who presented themselves as candidates, and we will find every way that we possibly can to build on some common ground and make progress on behalf of Ontario families.

CONSULTANTS

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m shocked that the Premier has missed this opportunity to show leadership as Premier and to set the tone for the conduct of the comments of a cabinet minister of the crown. Premier, with respect, this goes beyond ideology. These are serious accusations of bigotry, as you know. You can’t hide from this; it is in the public sphere, the minister’s comments on Twitter.

Let me ask the Premier if he will take on another test of leadership, since he has failed the first one. You have said that you will shine the light of day on the expenses of consultants discovered in the auditor’s most recent report, eHealth 2.0. The auditor’s report does not name names. If you are good to your word, sir, will you release publicly the names of the consultants who got rich off the sweetheart deals at the LHINs, the Ministry of Health and the hospitals in our province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity to thank the auditor for his work. I want to remind my honourable colleague and all of my colleagues in the Legislature here that the reason that the auditor was in fact enabled to perform this work was because, first of all, we gave him the authority to look at our hospitals; and, secondly, we then asked him specifically if he might look at these particular kinds of circumstances. He did that for us; we’re very grateful. We’re adopting each and every one of his recommendations, but we’re even taking steps beyond that.

I would also argue that this is in keeping with the practice that we’ve had as a government, whether it’s increasing the authority that we’ve given to the auditor and the Integrity Commissioner, whether it’s increasing coverage for freedom of information and the sunshine list. In each and every instance where we uncover real issues that have to do with transparency and accountability, we move forward on those; we put new rules in place. And in each and every instance, they’ve been opposed by the opposition.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, after seven years in office, you’ve changed. Your gut reaction on my first line of questioning clearly should have been to say that they were wrong, that the comments by your minister go way over the line. You failed to do so. You’ve changed.

Now, when I’m asking you to reveal exactly which consultants got fat and rich while Ontario families are waiting longer for services, waiting to get a loved one into a long-term-care home, waiting with their kid at emergency for 12 hours or more, you refuse to reveal the names of the consultants who got fat and rich while Ontario patients got left behind.

I’ll ask you once again, Premier: Will you go public and let us know which consultants got these runaway contracts?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is, again, a case when my honourable colleague is not prepared to take yes for an answer. We’ve had the auditor go in. We’ve had an independent, objective third party with tremendous expertise go in and perform a valuable public service.

The auditor specifically said—and I want to remind my colleague opposite of this—that party politics did not enter into the awarding of these contracts. He couldn’t be more clear; he could not be more explicit.

There was a real issue. It had to do with how money is being spent, money received by the government of Ontario that is disbursed to LHINs, hospitals, and other public agencies and bodies. We have made some important changes to the rules. They are in keeping with what we’ve done as a matter of principle. We believe in accountability and transparency. That’s why we’ve now broadened the rule base, which further reins in people when it comes to how they’re going to spend taxpayer dollars.

I think the auditor again did a wonderful job on this, and that’s why we’ve adopted every one of his recommendations—and we’re going beyond that.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, this is a test of your character. It’s a test of your leadership. It’s a test of what has happened to Premier McGuinty after seven years in office. This is now my sixth request to you to take a stand and to say the remarks of your Minister of Innovation were way beyond the pale.

You also have an opportunity now, sir, to reveal publicly, to name names of who got rich off the insider contracts and deals at the Ministry of Health, at the LHINs, at the ministry itself.

We had to use freedom-of-information requests to get the information about eHealth, the $30-million sweetheart deal to IBM, the incredible richness of the contracts handed out to the Liberal-friendly Courtyard Group. Premier, you’re preventing us from doing that again. Why don’t you come clean? Let us know exactly who benefited from these contracts and shine the light of day.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: One of the questions that begs for an answer is, why is it, in each and every instance, the official opposition has opposed our measures to enhance accountability and transparency?

One of the things that we have recently done is extend powers to the auditor so that he can, in fact, take a look at our hospitals and deal with the matter of consultants. There were over 150 lobbyists hired by hospitals, universities and others receiving public funds under the former Conservative government. They were addicted to consultants. There was a 244% increase in the use of consultants between 1998 and 2002. So far, we have cut this in half, and obviously there is more work to do.

Once in awhile, it would be nice to have their support when it comes to cleaning up their mess.

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. This government promised change after the auditor exposed the billion-dollar eHealth scandal. The Premier said at the time, “I take responsibility for this.” Last week’s Auditor General’s report showed that not much has changed at all since eHealth.

I’m going to ask very clearly: Does this Premier take responsibility for this mess, and will he apologize to Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to thank the auditor for the work that he’s done. The principle here that he is upholding, and one that we embrace, has everything to do with accountability and transparency.

It may very well be that taxpayers give their money to the provincial government, and it may very well be that we transfer those dollars outwardly to LHINs, hospitals, colleges and universities. But the fact of the matter is, we remain responsible for how they’re spent out there on the front lines. It became clear to us that they weren’t being spent in keeping with the modern-day standards and values of our taxpayers and our families.

That’s why we take responsibility for that. That’s why we asked the auditor to go in. That’s why we gave him authority over hospitals. That’s why we’re adopting every single one of his recommendations and even going further than that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty Liberals have let well-connected consultants and lobbyists get rich while patients line up in hospitals in places like Thunder Bay and Sudbury. Hamilton families are losing an adult emergency ward in their community.

When will the Premier simply apologize to families for squandering their precious health care dollars in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think what our families are looking for is action, and I am pleased to say that we’re taking action on a couple of counts.

First of all, when a problem arose, we asked the auditor to get in there, take a look at things and make recommendations. We’ve adopted all of those and, in fact, have taken a step further.

Beyond that, they’ve asked us to take action when it comes to improving the quality of their health care. That’s why nearly a million more Ontarians have access to a doctor. That’s why we have 10,000 more nurses. That’s why we have 200 family health teams. That’s why we have shorter wait times. That’s why we’re building 17 more hospitals. I think we have 120 major renovation expansion projects for our hospitals.

So, again, our responsibility is to continue to make progress on two fronts: One is in terms of the quality of the health care to which families are gaining access, and secondly is to take those steps, as and when required, to make sure we’re protecting their precious tax dollars, and that’s what we are doing.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While rape crisis centres in Ottawa hospitals struggle to retain the nursing staff that they need to provide services to women when they need them and while patients in Brantford face the loss of an award-winning mental health program, the Premier allows millions of health care dollars to get dished out to insider consultants and lobbyists. Why, with that context, will the Premier not simply own up to the mess and apologize?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ve introduced a new bill—I think it’s a very important bill. I think it represents real progress. I think it follows hard on the heels of other measures we’ve taken to enhance accountability and transparency.

But I think there’s an important question that remains outstanding—we’ve introduced a bill in this Legislature—and that question is, will the opposition parties support this latest in a series of measures to enhance accountability when it comes to the protection of taxpayer dollars? I think it’s very simple and it’s very straightforward. There was a problem before us and we found a way to solve that problem. It represents, as I say, yet another in a series of steps to enhance accountability and protection for taxpayer dollars, so I put it to my honourable colleagues opposite: Will they or will they not be supporting this latest in a series of measures to better protect taxpayer dollars?

CONSULTANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The Auditor General’s report found that public health care dollars were squandered at each and every one of 19 hospitals and LHINs that he audited. Things were so bad that he concluded, “The fix was in,” when it came to doling out contracts and cash. Does the Premier agree with that startling assessment? And if he does, does he also agree that families everywhere across this province deserve to know whether the exact same thing is going on in their local hospitals and their local LHINs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course, we accept the auditor’s report. That’s why we’ve introduced legislation that we are hoping the opposition will support, to address the very serious issues that the auditor found when he went in at our request.

Let’s just remember. We are the government that actually gave the Auditor General the power to look at hospitals. The auditor found that under governments of all stripes, these practices have been going on. It’s time to put an end to those practices, and that’s why we’ve introduced the legislation. These are practices that have been going on for a long time, but they will end under our government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: From expensing bar tabs, to a vacation to Japan, to million-dollar sole-source contracts, the Auditor General exposed a culture of squandered public health care dollars at 19 out of 19 hospitals and LHINs.

Will the Premier now instruct the Auditor General to conduct a spot audit at every single other hospital and LHIN, so that families across this province know that their health care dollars are going to front-line care where they belong?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When we asked the Auditor General to go in and look at what was going on in hospitals, in LHINs and in the ministry, he did it in a way that met the very high standards that we expect of the Auditor General. He found that there was work to be done to improve transparency and accountability. We are following each and every one of those recommendations.

I have spoken with the hospital CEOs and the hospital board chairs, and I have told them that this is to be taken very seriously. They need to go through all of the expenditures in their organizations to make sure that they are complying, and we are making that law.

The Auditor General can do whatever the Auditor General determines is in the best interests of this province, and we encourage him to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Ontario families have a right to know whether their health care dollars are being diverted to well-connected insiders and lobbyists. Since the Auditor General uncovered a series of problems at every single hospital he looked at, people are left wondering, is this just the tip of the iceberg? Why won’t the Premier ask the Auditor General to investigate all hospitals and LHINs to make sure that public health dollars are in fact going to front-line care in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There is no question that these practices are going on throughout the province. When the member opposite says that the Auditor General found problems at each and every hospital he looked at, that’s good enough for me. I know that we have a system-wide issue. That is why we are introducing the legislation that will prevent these practices from happening in the future. This is legislation that will apply to all hospitals. We are going beyond what the Auditor General recommended because we’re extending this kind of accountability and transparency to the broader public sector.

We welcome the advice from the Auditor General. We encourage the Auditor General to do his work and do it well. I don’t mind standing up and being accountable for the changes we are making. That’s our job, to continually improve value for money for taxpayers.

CONSULTANTS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Premier. The auditor looked at consulting contracts at University Health Network, Kingston General Hospital and Trillium health network. Documents uncovered by the Ontario PC caucus reveal that John Ronson and the Courtyard Group were handed sweetheart consulting deals by University Health Network, Kingston General Hospital and Trillium health network.

But not only have you refused to reveal this information yourself, you won’t shine a light on how much Ontario families paid your former election campaign chair. Are you refusing to shine a light on these deals to protect Liberal friends and insiders, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Auditor General specifically looked at the question of whether there were party politics at play, and here’s what the Auditor General found: He said basically that party politics did not enter into the awarding of these contracts. He went on to say, “We didn’t see any evidence that it was awarded based on party politics.”

I would suggest that the member opposite actually reflect on the words of the auditor. I think it’s only appropriate that when we ask the auditor to look at something and he comes back and reports a finding, we respect that finding. The Auditor General very clearly said that party politics did not enter into the awarding of these contracts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Ontario families have heard all this McGuinty Liberal doublespeak before. Laurie Lashbrook has deep ties to the Liberal Party, having donated thousands to your party and to the health minister herself, but it wasn’t your shining a light or leadership that exposed the sweetheart deal Lashbrook was given to spin your plan to shut down the emergency room in Wallaceburg. Ontario PCs uncovered it through freedom-of-information requests. What other Liberal-friendly consultants were handed sweetheart deals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Since the auditor released his report last week, I have tried to take the approach that this is a problem that belongs to all of us. There is no party that can say that, under their watch, these practices did not go on. In fact, it’s very clear that, under all parties, the role of lobbyists and the role of the consultants has gotten to a point where we need to end the practice. We need to end the practice, and we’re taking responsibility by ending that practice.

But to suggest that the Conservative Party is lily-white and Polly-pure when it comes to lobbyists and consultants simply does not reflect the fact. The member opposite, when she ran for leadership, had a campaign manager by the name of Andrew Boddington. His job—

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

OPTOMETRISTS

Mr. Michael Prue: My question, too, is to the Minister of Health. October is Eye Health Month in Ontario, and optometrists are frustrated. Almost a year ago, the Regulated Health Professions Amendment Act received royal assent. This legislation gave optometrists prescribing rights which would move Ontario in line with virtually every other jurisdiction in North America, yet the government has still not passed the regulations that would allow optometrists to provide their patients with the care they need.

The McGuinty government promised an expedited process but, instead, has been dragging its heels for nearly a year. Why is the minister impeding this important change?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We, as you know, have an organization called HPRAC, the health professional regulation—I should know what that stands for. They have come forward with recommendations. We have moved on many of the recommendations of HPRAC in the past so that we now have an expanded scope of practice for many of our professionals, including our pharmacists, our nurse practitioners and others.

This is work that we’re doing. We do it carefully, but we do it in a way that expands our ability to care for the people of this province. When there is an expanded scope of practice, what that means is that more people will get access to that care. We do have to do it in a responsible way, and this is something that we’re looking at very closely.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I’m not sure the minister answered that, but we’ll try again. In 2004, the McGuinty government delisted optometry services, making this essential health care service out of the reach of far too many Ontarians. Now the government is dragging its heels about a regulatory change urged by experts, optometrists and patients. These delays are costing our health care system needless money and putting patients at risk.

In honour of Eye Health Month, will the minister commit to concrete timelines for the completion of this change? Just tell us when you’re going to do it.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member for the question, and I know that this is an issue where people in the eye health world are very interested in seeing what we’re going to do.

We are continually working to improve health care. I’m extraordinarily proud of the accomplishments of this government. We have almost a million more people with access to primary care. We’ve got almost 3,000 more physicians and more than 10,000 more nurses working. We’re taking action when it comes to bringing down the price of prescription drugs. We’re also taking action when it comes to the use of prescription narcotics. We’ve introduced legislation called the Excellent Care for All Act, which really starts to shine the light on quality of care across this province.

I’m proud of our record, I’m proud of where we’re going, and I look forward to continuing to expand the scope of practice for the people of this province.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade and small business. You will know that in this province alone, there are more than 379,000 small and medium businesses; in other words, that means that 99% of all businesses in Ontario are either small or medium-sized. They employ nearly 2.9 million Ontarians. They account for $250 billion in economic activity. That makes their success vital to the strength of Ontario’s economy.

The recent global economic downturn has been hard on small business, and it makes it hard for them to do what they do best: to provide essential services to the people of Ontario and to grow and prosper. I’ve heard from a number of those small businesses in my riding. They’ve told me that they would be able to hire more people and be more productive if the government could assist. With October being Small Business Month—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to respond, and in particular to this member from Oakville, who has been a long-time supporter of small business, not just in his riding but, of course, right across Ontario in his work.

I am delighted to send greetings to all of the small businesses across Ontario. They are truly the backbone of our economy. This is Small Business Month, and in that regard, we are delighted to say that just the other day in this House, we passed the Open for Business Act. Open for business means that truly, we have taken a hard look at what we can do to make life easier for business in Ontario. We wish we would have had the support of the opposition parties. They like to talk about being open for business; the Ontario government today is actually doing it.

Yesterday, we had an opportunity to meet with the Small Business Agency of Ontario, representing all small business across Ontario. They are delighted to be at the table and engaged in making life easier—

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: That’s encouraging news for small and medium business in Ontario. Small businesses create jobs for people all across this province, and for this reason it’s important to make sure that they’re equipped with the tools they need to thrive. Some of the most important tools at a business’s disposal, whether they be a small or large enterprise, are tax breaks and incentives. It is for this reason that I rise in the House and ask the minister to explain to this House some of the ways in which government is working to lessen that tax burden on small and medium-sized businesses in this province so they are able to thrive.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: This question on competitive tax to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you for the question. This government is committed to small and medium-sized businesses; they are the backbone of our province. We are so proud of all of them.

As a former small business owner, I can tell you that this tax package makes good sense; it’s going to help small businesses. Some of the ways we’re doing that: We’re reimbursing small businesses when it comes to their input taxes. We’re cutting the corporate income tax rate from 5.5% down to 4.5%. We’re also eliminating—we’re eliminating—for the first time, the small business deduction tax, and we’re also helping small businesses right now with the transition to going to the HST. We’re helping with some transitional support.

I’m just very proud, and I want to thank all the small businesses in our province.

PREMIER’S RECORD

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Premier. It’s official: Canada’s worst government has Canada’s worst Premier. In a peer-reviewed study, Premier McGuinty ranks dead last among the country’s Premiers. It could have been because he says leadership means shining a light on transparency, but this Premier refuses to name names of who is getting rich off sweetheart consulting deals. It could be because he has backtracked so often, Ontario families have no idea what he stands for any longer. But the truth is that it is because he is the worst at managing government spending, taxes, debt and deficits.

When will the Premier stop dragging Ontario families down?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I am delighted to address this question. It is imperative that people in this House understand why Ontario, ahead of all jurisdictions in North America, is dragging the most foreign direct investment here to Ontario. If what this member says is true—it can’t possibly be true. For two years in a row, Ontario has led every jurisdiction in North America, with more FDI related to job creation to Ontario—ahead of Texas, ahead of California, ahead of New York. That is the new Ontario, and that is what we fight for in the House.

We wish we had the opposition behind us, but we don’t. They oppose every initiative for business or economic development that we have brought to this House. We will continue to fight for small business, and I expect that member in particular to be on our side.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Start the clock. The members will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Notwithstanding what the grande dame of the theatre has to say—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the honourable member—leave the clock running. Once again, I want to remind everyone about the importance of speaking through the Chair, and I say that to both sides, because it does take away from some of the confrontation that comes out in here. But we can’t start delivering personal attacks at one another. I did not feel that was an appropriate comment, and I’m going to ask you to withdraw the comment, please.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It was a compliment, but I withdraw it.

The authors of the study say that since being elected in 2003, Premier McGuinty “has been nothing short of a disaster at managing Ontario’s finances and pursuing sound long-term economic policies.”

The taxes on fuel and home energy that Ontario families now pay under this Premier have driven the consumer price index up a full point higher than the national average. He said that the HST would make business more competitive, but GDP data shows Ontario’s economy shrunk last month. He said the HST would create 600,000 jobs, but we’re up 23,000.

How did every other Premier manage to avoid the messy legacy this Premier is leaving—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let me say again to this member opposite—and I believe that this member wants what’s best for Ontario and he wants people to have jobs and he wants to see businesses investing in Ontario, so let me just use automotive by way of example.

Why, in the last six months alone, have our five OEMs—Ford, GM, Chrysler, Honda and Toyota. Why have we seen a total investment of over $2 billion in the automotive sector just in the last six months, my friend? That is very important, because it means 300 automotive supply companies that are looking at increased volumes, that are looking at getting back into business.

We know that the last two years were tough on Ontario, tougher than in any other province, but I will tell you this: Every other province is watching today the kinds of investment in automotive, in green energy, in ICT, in financial services, the likes of which the rest of the country is not seeing. We are seeing it here in Ontario because we have had good, sound economic policy, good, sound—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. New question.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, you will know that you’re in charge of a railway in this province called the Ontario Northland. Here’s the issue: If I’m a passenger leaving Moosonee and I buy a rail ticket to leave Moosonee to come down to Toronto and I miss the train, I don’t get my money back and I can’t even reschedule that train ride. Why is it that we’re treating everybody south of Moosonee differently, where a purchased ticket is good for 12 months? That’s not the case for the citizens of Moosonee.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: As the member well knows, we are very proud of the support that we have for the ONTC, and I appreciate the question. I can’t provide him with the details; I’m not even aware of that happening.

We know how important the ONTC is in terms of providing extremely valuable transportation and telecommunications services to northeastern Ontario. Certainly, the last five years, as the member would know, have been very productive for the ONTC. We have implemented a new Northlander train

schedule that’s resulted in an increase in passengers and improved the train’s performance. We’ve replaced 168,000 railway ties; there has been some extraordinary work done in that regard. Obviously, the contract to refurbish the GO Transit vehicles is very important as well.

Certainly in terms of the day-to-day operations and decisions that are made by the ONTC, I’m quite willing to pursue that on the member’s behalf. I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It appears the minister of native affairs doesn’t take seriously that First Nations people are being discriminated against and not able to use their train tickets like anybody else in this province.

My question to you, Minister, is: We’ve been dealing with the ONTC for some time. There was a promise to fix this discrimination so that any citizen of Ontario, no matter where they are on the rail line, would be able to purchase a ticket and use it within the 12 months, as is the case with the Northlander. I want from you a commitment that you are going to intervene and ensure that the citizens of Moosonee are dealt with the same as anybody else on the ONR line, from Cochrane going south down to Toronto.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: Certainly I will commit to pursue this on the member’s and the constituents of Moosonee’s behalf.

We are indeed very proud of the service provided. Our government has been tremendously supportive of the ONTC and will continue to be. Certainly, decisions such as those—I’m not familiar with the details. I will find out about it and will pursue it on behalf of the constituency you’re representing.

FAMILY LAW

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Attorney General. The family justice system is an area that touches many people’s lives. It is used by people when they’re already dealing with stressful and often difficult emotional issues like separation and divorce. Their children may also suffer from negative impacts if these issues are not addressed in the best possible way.

Over the years, I’ve heard from my constituents in Oak Ridges–Markham who have had experience with the family justice system. They feel they had little opportunity to inform themselves on the process involved and how it would impact their children. They also told me of the difficulties they had once they decided to go to court and how they found it to be an interminable process.

Can the Attorney General tell this House what our government is doing to ease this inherently difficult time and make the process more manageable for people?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Oak Ridges–Markham makes a very important point. People who come before the family justice system in times of terrible stress—very emotional—need a system that works faster. It needs to be more affordable and it needs to be less confrontational.

Last December, we launched a four-pillar approach to reforming our family justice system. The first pillar is to make sure people get more information up front about the system, so we are instituting mandatory information programs for all who come before it. Second, identify the issues and get people to where they need to be to resolve them. Third, provide better access to free legal advice. Fourth, cut out all the paperwork and reform the rules so that we have less paper, less process and better resolution for those who really need a resolution to these very challenging issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I know that my constituents will be happy to hear that the government is moving ahead on these important reforms of the family justice system.

The justice system can be intimidating and costly for people. When people are already under so much stress in dealing with family issues, they are confronted with an unfamiliar system that they are required to navigate. They lack the knowledge that would allow them to make informed choices on how best to proceed.

Can the Attorney General tell the House how this government is making the family law process clearer and helping these families to get the information they need in order to make informed decisions?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Again, a very important point: The mandatory information program is designed to get people information about the system, about resources, about how to resolve these very emotional issues in a non-confrontational way, if that’s appropriate.

Yes, we made it mandatory, because if it’s voluntary, the people who don’t need to be there will always be there, and the people who really need to be there will never be there. So we’ve made it mandatory.

We started in Brampton and Milton and we’ve already had 800 people go through. We’ll be moving to 17 more sites by January 1. We’re very excited about that. We’re looking to see how we can move to the remaining 30 sites in the province of Ontario.

This first pillar is enormously important to the speedy, effective and less costly resolution of these very emotional issues. I thank the member for the question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday in this House, the Minister of Health committed to working with MPPs in a non-partisan manner on their local health care issues, saying once again that she thinks MPPs are the best lobbyists.

That being her stated belief, will the Premier inform MPPs today precisely when the government’s long-promised 10-year plan for hospital capital projects will be publicly released?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can say that is a matter that’s still under active consideration, still being developed. But what I can say is that we’re proud of the progress we’ve been able to make so far. My honourable colleague knows that we’re building 17 new hospitals in the province of Ontario. He may know that we have over 100, I think, substantive renovation and expansion projects either under way or already completed at our hospitals. We’re making a massive investment in new capital when it comes to ensuring that families in all of our communities have access to the best possible health care.

What we want to do, of course, is build on that going forward, hence the rationale behind our 10-year plan. If my honourable colleague has any specific advice with respect to his community, obviously, that’s the kind of thing that we want to consider.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to thank the Premier for taking the question and not referring it. The Premier was quoted in June of last year in the Waterloo Region Record, saying that the list of hospital projects might be released that fall, now more than a year ago. Hospitals need to know where they are on the list so that they can plan their projects. The Groves hospital in Fergus needs the Minister of Health’s permission to move to the next stage of planning for a new hospital. Georgetown has approval for a new CT scanner but needs a small capital grant.

We now know that millions of tax dollars were wasted on lobbyists at other hospitals, money that could have gone to hospital capital projects.

Will the Premier ask the minister to convene a meeting in the near future with Groves and Georgetown hospital representatives, listen to their plans and commit to helping them succeed?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think families have come to the conclusion that we’re on their side when it comes to their health care. Whether you take a look at the investments we’ve made in hospitals—hospital funding is up 50%; that’s $5.4 billion since 2003. It’s up another 5% this year—the number of new doctors we’ve hired, and I think it’s now up to 2,700, over 10,000 more nurses, new technologies or new drugs being funded, we keep moving the yardstick forward. There’s always more work to be done. There are tremendous pressures when it comes to health care.

One of the things that will not serve Ontario families is the continuing commitment on the part of the official opposition to cut $3 billion out of health care. I don’t believe that’s acceptable, I don’t think that’s helpful, and I don’t think families will support that, either.

CHILDREN’S AID SOCIETIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Ministry of Children and Youth Services has told the Children’s Aid Society of London and Middlesex to cut the number of children it serves by 25%. Can the Premier tell us, what are the children at risk and the families in crisis supposed to do? Where are they supposed to go for help?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to have a chance to talk in this House about the incredible transformation and approach to finding sustainability that we have undertaken in the last year. We’ve put in place a commission of experts, who have travelled the province, spoken to more than 2,000 people and have met with every children’s aid society. We’re absolutely committed to making sure that our services remain steady and stable for the children and families who need them.

At the same time, it’s critically important for us to find a pathway to sustainability for these important services so the phone will be answered, the door will be open and services are available in communities for families who need them. Over the past decade, investments have been continually made into children’s aid societies, from $500 million up to $1.4 billion now. We need to find a way to ensure that those dollars are used to the best outcomes of children and families, and that’s precisely what we are committed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, it’s an incredible transformation all right: It’s an incredible transformation that expects these agencies to provide services without any resources and refuses to acknowledge that they have mandated services they have an obligation to provide.

New Democrats used freedom of information to try to get an understanding of the exact details that the McGuinty government is requesting in terms of changes, but the government—go figure—refused to give us any information. So what does it look like? We could be talking about cuts that are significant, cuts to front-line services like the closure of the Gunn, Cheapside and Argyle Street homes for children at risk, reduction in respite services at Merrymount Children’s Services and the loss of vital family support programs.

Why won’t the minister disclose full details of the proposal she has for slashing programs for at-risk children and youth in London-Middlesex?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I am shocked by a question that says that we can’t improve this system for kids in Ontario. The outcomes for kids in Ontario are not up to our collective aspirations, and it is our responsibility—and we take that responsibility seriously on this side of the House—to find a way to ensure that services are delivered in the appropriate manner, that kids get the services they need and that all of our kids have what they need.

Let’s give an example. At the Hamilton children’s aid society, funding has gone up by 24%. At the same time, Catholic children’s aid society funding has gone up by 17%. We need to find a way to ensure that children are at the centre of what we do. That is the work we are undertaking, and we are not scared of finding a new way to do this work if that means we will do better for Ontario kids.

I hope that the members opposite will start fighting for Ontario’s kids instead of saying that we have to stay with the status quo.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is for the Minister of Education. In today’s world our students are going to require the skills needed to ensure their success in an ever-changing economy. They will need to have skills that meet the demands that will be placed upon them through a competitive job market in the future.

I’m hearing from constituents that it is harder and harder to get highly skilled trade workers. What is our government doing to help train workers in my riding to support the economy?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m very happy that the member has brought to this House issues that he is hearing from his constituents. I’m sure that others in the House have heard those same questions.

I’m happy to say that our government is absolutely committed to ensuring that we have programs in our secondary schools that will open the doors to trades for our young people. That is why our government has implemented the specialist high skills majors program. In the province of Ontario, we now have some 28,000 students in our secondary schools participating in these programs. These programs are being offered in disciplines like agriculture, business, the environment, health and wellness, aviation, sports, and the not-for-profit and energy sectors. We have participants from the communities, who are very happy to understand that there are—

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

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: A follow-up to the Minister of Education: Keeping students engaged and interested in school is of vital importance. Without an educated workforce, all of Ontario suffers. We need to keep investing in our most precious resources: our children. Our government needs to ensure that all students are receiving the attention they need and are being engaged in the classroom.

Minister, what effects are these programs having? What can I tell my constituents about how these initiatives are having an impact?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I think it’s important for everyone in this House to understand that our government is providing a range of programs that will enable students at the secondary level to be successful, so that they can go on and graduate and be trained for a post-secondary career. Our initiatives include the expanded co-operative programs and dual credit programs, in addition to our specialist high skills majors programs.

As a result of our focus on enabling secondary students to be more successful and to meet a very high bar of achievement, the graduation rates in Ontario have increased from 68% in 2003 to 79%. Fully 79% of secondary students are now graduating. This is good news for the students, it’s good news for our communities, and