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

April 29, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2014-Apr-29 (PDF)

L133 - Tue 29 Apr 2014 / Mar 29 avr 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 29 April 2014 Mardi 29 avril 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Jonathan Jenkins

Immigration

Legislative pages

ORAL QUESTIONS

Taxation

Taxation

Transportation infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure

Health care

Transportation infrastructure

Youth employment

Power plants

Transportation infrastructure / Infrastructure de transport

Hydro rates

Horse racing industry

Transportation infrastructure

Cancer prevention

Agricultural college

Members’ privileges

DEFERRED VOTES

Employment Standards Amendment Act (Leaves to Help Families), 2014 / Loi de 2014 modifiant la

Loi sur les normes d’emploi (congés pour aider les familles)

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

Organ and tissue donation

Healthy schools

Advocis

Armenian genocide anniversary

Toni Ariganello

Kimm Fletcher

Volunteers

Donald Willard Moore

North Bay Battalion

Leonard Braithwaite

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

Loretto Ladies’ Colleges and Schools Act, 2014

Wireless Services Agreements Amendment Act (Paper Billing Statements), 2014 / Loi de 2014 modifiant la

Loi sur les conventions de services sans fil (documents de facturation papier)

PETITIONS

Credit unions

Credit unions

École élémentaire catholique Alain-Fortin

Hydro rates

Long-term care

Use of digital technologies

Workplace insurance

Alzheimer’s disease

École élémentaire catholique Alain-Fortin

Credit unions

Long-term care

École élémentaire catholique Alain-Fortin

Hydro rates

OPPOSITION DAY

Taxation

Royal assent / Sanction royale

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

Renewable energy

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2014 / Loi de 2014 sur le renforcement et l’amélioration de la gestion publique

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 20, 2014, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 151,

An Act to amend various Acts / Projet de loi 151, Loi visant à modifier diverses lois.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a pleasure to get up and speak about Bill 151, Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2014. Obviously, this is, quite honestly, a very political bill. It consists of five complementary, unrelated housekeeping changes of the sort that usually appear, quite honestly, as minor schedules in a budget bill. There is some question also about the effectiveness of these changes. I’m looking at some of the government members, and I think that they probably have some thoughts on this as well. These are housekeeping measures that are simply a function of new developments, rendering legislative language obsolete.

You must wonder, actually, in this day and age, in this time, how it would be, with all of the issues that are facing this province today, with all of the issues that are facing the economy, the health care system, long-term-care facilities, the education system—just yesterday we heard that there was a report from People for Education which cites a disturbing trend of special-needs children being sent home because they don’t have the resources to deal with some of the complex needs that are facing our education system every single day.

There is, of course, the dreaded gas plant issue. Just this morning, your own Minister of Transportation is facing the gas plant committee—and it should be a very interesting session, I would imagine; I’m sure that they’ll get a word in edgewise eventually.

But in the grand scheme of things, where we are right now in the province of Ontario, there is obviously a lack of trust and there is a level of cynicism that exists in the broader public of the province of Ontario.

Schedule 1 of this piece of legislation amends the Courts of Justice Act “to add proceedings under the Civil Marriage Act (Canada) to the list of proceedings that are within the jurisdiction of the Family Court. The

schedule is also amended to permit additional family law proceedings to be added to the Family Court’s jurisdiction by regulation.”

Schedule 2 of this bill deals with “the provisions of the Pension Benefits Act dealing with joint and survivor pensions and pre-retirement death benefits.… The amendments relate to how the definition of ‘spouse’ in subsection 1(1) of the act applies in those provisions for the purpose of determining eligibility for benefits.…

“Amendments are made to the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004”—this is a small piece of the act in the grand scheme of things and where we are with regard to health care—“to protect the directors, officers, members, employees and agents of the Ontario Medical Association from civil liability for their good faith actions in negotiations with the government of Ontario concerning insured services and physician payments.”

Just yesterday, for some reason, Bill 78 was up on the order paper, which dealt with the eHealth issue dating back from 2009, when the auditor came forward and said that there was a complete and utter lack of transparency and accountability with regard to the way the contracts were distributed and honoured and processed by the government with regard to the electronic health file. It’s a strange issue to bring forward during budget week, when you’re bringing forward, I think—and I think the people of this province actually think—one of the major black marks in a long history with this government.

Actually, I think it was one of the first scandals that came through this House, and so it is strange that, as a whole, the government would be bringing forward, in a very pivotal week for the province of Ontario, an issue that has such negative ramifications for them. It actually gave the opposition, I think, a very good opportunity to go through some of our concerns with regard to Bill 78.

Bill 151, though, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act, has:

“The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act is amended by adding two substantive sections,

section 15 dealing with the collection and use of personal information and

section 16 dealing with Ontario education numbers.”

There is a lot of work that needs to be done, actually, on the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act, and of course every day we do talk about the importance of post-secondary education, the importance of access to post-secondary education. This small part, essentially housekeeping changes that usually appear in minor schedules, is in a major budget bill. It does leave more questions than answers, this piece of legislation in particular.

The

schedule also creates a stretcher transportation services

section of the Highway Traffic Act. I have to say that again: This

schedule creates a stretcher transportation services

section of the Highway Traffic Act. Under this section, ambulances “must contain prescribed equipment and meet prescribed inspection and maintenance standards. They must be equipped with communication equipment to allow contact with ambulance, police or fire department emergency services.”

So you see, in schedules 1 and 2 there are minor changes to the medicare act, minor changes to the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act, and then you throw in some sort of rule about having stretchers and equipment in ambulances. All of this is contained within Bill 151, and it does leave more questions. I mean, the Clerks must be saying, “Who writes legislation like this?” And I know that the Liberal government has, on the whole, a very poor record of creating legislation that is effective. We’ve seen that over and over and over again. Certainly it begs the question: Why is Bill 151 before us at this time in the history of the province?

Each and every day, we have an opportunity to look at the finances in the province, and that is our job collectively as the opposition parties. We’ve seen that the projections for the deficit reduction are way off mark. We have seen job strategies that can barely be called job strategies.

Just in my riding last week, there was almost $1 billion worth of funding announcements, which—I mean, if you’ve got it, great. And then the member from Kenora–Rainy River got $1 billion yesterday, too. In my riding, we had over $800 million announced with regard to developmental services for those adults who need resources, need support as they transition into the community, and as their parents age—because they’re aging and they can’t take care of their high-needs children. This is a long-standing promise, though, from this government.

For them to come into the Waterloo region last week and make this grand announcement that this money will flow, when it was supposed to have been flowing almost four years ago—I myself have been working with a wonderful group of parents in my riding, three mothers, and they’ve actually bought their own group home. They’ve just given up altogether on any hope of getting any resources.

So they joined together, they pooled their resources, they bought their own group home, under the promise that this government was going to provide some respite for them, for their boys, who are adult sons with autism, and they’re high, high needs. This announcement came last week, and in many respects it’s quite emotionally manipulative. It really is. It’s holding out that carrot, a little bit of hope after 12 years.

And then of course there was the announcement that we’re finally getting the last part of the cancer care centre in Kitchener–Waterloo. Then there was of course the $120-million announcement for OpenText, one of the most successful software companies in Canada, and the promise of 1,200 jobs.

Missing in that whole equation, though, is the transportation, the transit file. It’s unfortunate that the Minister of Transportation is in front of the gas plant committee this morning, because it’s the missing link. It is a major job creator. The promise of two-way all-day GO to Kitchener-Waterloo is something that the people of my region are starting to lose faith in, especially when the Premier does come to the riding and promises two-way all-day, except she forgets that two-way all-day means that people from Toronto can get to Kitchener-Waterloo. Almost 10,000 people commute every day to Kitchener-Waterloo.

There are good jobs there. The start-up community has done a wonderful job in trying to make sure that those young entrepreneurs, who have quite honestly lost hope in the broader scheme of this province’s economy—they’re not looking for those jobs anymore. They’ve just decided, “You know what? We’re going to create our own jobs. We’re going to create our own economy.”

I will say, though, that the $5 million that did flow to agencies or organizations like Communitech was really well spent, because it fostered almost 1,000 start-ups in our region. I think that we do need to have a look at that $120 million: Where are the strings? Where is the accountability?

Of course, we have a very different vision for the economy. New Democrats think that accountability with regard to dollars spent around job creation is incredibly important. We favour targeted tax credits, so if you do create a job—and I know that OpenText is going to create jobs. In fact, they have created jobs, because they’re a mature, successful company with a strong business plan. They would get tax credits for creating those jobs. This has proven to be very effective in other jurisdictions, and for some reason the government has chosen—

Hon. Ted McMeekin: That’s not true and you know it.

Ms. Catherine Fife: No, it has, actually. This government has not even chosen to engage in that conversation, because I think they sometimes think that it’s still a minor majority.

We, of course, favour tax credits for innovation, which obviously is a connection piece for the manufacturing economy, to ensure that we start making stuff in the province of Ontario. But that means you need to commercialize research and you need to get those ideas onto plant floors, because this province has the ability to capitalize on the knowledge economy. Yet here we are not honouring tax credits, not even talking about supporting those researchers who are often connected to training and universities, and they’d love to see some sort of uptake on the commercialization of research to create jobs.

They would love to be part of that equation. They would love to be part of that conversation. Obviously, this government is very good at the conversation piece.

Job creator tax credits, the innovation research tax credits, capital so that when companies invest in buildings and structures which hold jobs here to the economy—I think that actually makes a lot of sense, and they’re looking for that kind of assistance; they’ve told us. Small and medium-sized businesses are asking us for support, and they want to know what the playing field is like. They want to know what their role is in this economy, and they want to know how the government is going to play their cards as well—so the job creator tax credit, the research innovation tax credit, capital investment, and then of course training and retraining.

So here we are, talking about 151, the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. Quite honestly, there’s very little interest in this piece of legislation. Of course, you have to support it; it’s housekeeping. This is something that should just come before us as a matter of rote. It’s an administrative bill, yet you have this nice name: Strengthening and Improving Government Act, 2014.

It does lend itself to question what is happening in this place. I know, having spent last week in the constituency and knocking on some doors, people—of course, they would love to see

schedule 1 amended in the Courts of Justice Act. That’s a top priority for them, Madam Speaker.

You know what they’re concerned about? They’re concerned about their hydro rates. I knocked on a door last week and there’s a mother with a family of six, because her parents are living with them, and she’s doing laundry every hour and a half throughout the night because she’s trying to save money, because it is a huge cost to them in their household budget. They quite honestly are looking at this place and the people who come here each and every day and they’re wondering what we are doing here.

If I were to go back—and clearly she was up all night, so she’s not watching—but if I was to go back to her and say, “This is what I talked about in the House this week: amending the Courts of Justice Act to add proceedings under the Civil Marriage Act to the list of proceedings that are within the jurisdiction of the Family Court”—first of all, I’d have to explain everything that this actually would mean. But again, it’s not a priority.

Schedule 2—this is another thing that I was talking about—deals with the “provisions of Pension Benefits Act dealing with joint and survivor pensions and pre-retirement death benefits ... determining eligibility for benefits.” In the broader context of pensions in the province of Ontario, this is something that obviously could be dealt with very simply. It shouldn’t be a huge debate issue in the House today.

And if I told her that we’re also going to be talking about, “Amendments are made to the Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act, 2004, to protect the directors, officers, members, employees ... concerning insured services and physician payments”—if I were to tell her this, she would say, “What are you talking about? Why is this a priority?”

Do you know what she’s concerned about? She’s concerned about finding quality child care in the province of Ontario. She’s concerned about the safety of children in unlicensed private child care centres.

She’s concerned about her child going into the education system and making sure that they have resources for special education, because this is the big thing that parents have finally realized, and I hope the government realizes it one day: when you have five children in a class of 21, and they have special needs, and you have a teacher who doesn’t have an educational assistant or resources to deal with those five children, it affects the entire classroom.

It affects the entire quality of that education system, because those five children deserve the attention and they deserve the resources and they deserve an opportunity to be successful, but so do the other children in that classroom. That’s what people are concerned about.

I do think that the people of this province realize sometimes what is going on here, that you can bring a piece of legislation called Strengthening and Improving Government Act, and in a very simple way I can explain to the people of this province that the government has many issues, and there are pressing issues that we should be talking about each and every day in this place, yet here we are talking about making sure that ambulances have stretcher transportation services under the highway act. It really does leave a huge question of confidence in this government, quite honestly.

Clearly we’ve seen—even yesterday afternoon we saw three pieces of legislation cycle through this House: the family care act, which, unbelievably, the government got up and said, “Why are you delaying this? Why are you delaying this?” And then they deferred the vote when obviously everybody in this place is going to be supportive of it. We dealt with the eHealth file, Bill 78, which is incredible. I’ve already talked at length about that. It just leaves the question of who was running the show?

I know that you have serious issues of trust. The people of this province have huge questions about competency, and they see the announcements. They see the electioneering that happened last week. They see the dollars: It was the $1-billion week last week in the province of Ontario. In my riding, $1 billion was announced, and $1 billion was announced in Kenora–Rainy River. There is money flowing out of this place, and the people of this province understand that you don’t have it. But they also know that it’s their money, and you are spending it; you’re making promises to spend it under certain conditions. As I said, I find it incredibly, incredibly manipulative.

The entire objective of this legislation, Bill 151—these are rational amendments to various pieces of legislation. Here we are at second reading, and from a priority perspective, it does leave one shaking one’s head. These are housekeeping measures that are simply a function of new developments rendering legislative language obsolete. For example, the changes to the Pension Benefits Act are required because of a court decision that muddied the waters somewhat on survivor benefits.

I was having lunch with some lovely ladies yesterday, and they were talking about the way regulation actually cycles through this place. They were wondering about the layers—because we did see that the regulations book is now 3,500 pages long. So we’re really good at creating new legislation and regulations, but we’re not very good at throwing out the old stuff, at having a fresh look at how to do things in this place. Of course, there have been pieces of legislation which promise to cycle through one reg every year per ministry. I think we should set the bar a little bit higher.

I understand why the government would want to set the bar really low: so they can say that they overachieved. I think that’s the language that we hear so often.

Today in this House, there is a great number of issues, from the energy file to the health file to jobs and the economy, and we’ve seen very little action on these issues. We’ve seen lots of announcements outside of this place. To date, we still have no comprehensive jobs strategy from this government.

Last week, I was in the riding. People are getting frustrated; they really are. They are frustrated by the lack of progress. They see that a minority government can be good for them. I will say that, Madam Speaker: They recognize that in a minority setting, there is a possibility of putting people first.

I think actually that we were able to do that very well in the first budget session and the second budget session. I’m not sure why the PC caucus has chosen not to read budgets before they say no to them. I think they’ve probably done that again this time. When you read through budgets, you actually have an opportunity to strengthen them and to make them more effective. In the first budget session, we were able to increase the fairness tax: 2% for those people who make over $500,000. That generates almost $470 million a year.

Mr. Mike Colle: Tax the rich.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s a fairness tax. You agreed to it; thanks very much.

Then we also were able to secure some stability funding for the transition of child care. We negotiated that with the government. We actually made them do what they said they were going to do, which is a new position for us. That funding actually became annualized.

Just as a little refresher course for the government: The instability of child care in the province of Ontario happened because they implemented the full-day kindergarten program without thinking of the negative impacts that it would have on the child care sector, which was already fragile, which was already vulnerable, because there was no comprehensive vision for child care in the province of Ontario—that despite the fact that when you invest $1 in the child care sector you get a return, depending on the research, of between $3 and $7. It is a huge economic driver, particularly for women.

So when the government brought in full-day kindergarten and rolled that out in five years—of course we are supportive of FDK. We do think that it will make a difference. There are some quality issues that we’ve seen rectified over the years, but it’s an ongoing learning challenge.

When that full-day kindergarten was brought in, the government just sort of turned their back on the child care sector altogether, and so we negotiated that stability and that transition funding as they coped with losing the preschool children in their centres, which it was actually using to subsidize the rest of child care. I won’t even get into the special-needs issue with children in child care or in FDK because it’s heartbreaking.

Yesterday’s report from People for Education is a red flag for all of us in this House to recognize that every child—the whole principle of public education is that it levels the playing field, that it creates opportunities for everyone, despite your socio-economic background, despite the social determinants of health. What happened here is that there was a push, a political push, for FDK—fine. But then build in the supports for the rest of the system. Child care, which was already vulnerable, which was already unstable, paid the price for that program.

What we did in that first budget session was ensure that there was some transition funding that at least buffered the child care sector as this government rushed through with their own agenda. So we did child care and we did ODSP in that first session.

Some people say that budgets are moral documents, that they tell the real priorities of governments. On this side of the House, we also think that when you follow the money, you follow the real priorities. When you’re talking about strengthening and improving government, there should definitely be some priorities listed out in a piece of legislation like this with this great title—because you’re very good at the titles and the ribbon cuttings and the announcements, as I’ve already said, which sort of indicate the priorities.

If you’re trying to be all things to all people, which you were in my riding last week and throughout the various election announcements that have happened, it seems to me that those priorities need to be very clear to the people of this province, and I think they are.

In the last budget, just one year ago, we obviously were able to bring a new lens, if you will, to the budget process in that regard. In the last budget process, we were able to make sure that there was some ultimate fairness on the insurance file. Some people, whenever I have a chance to talk to them about that file, are very interested in it because it affects their bottom line in their households each and every day, particularly for seniors who are in the Tim Hortons on Saturday morning and they’re now paying more for insurance than their car is worth. They’ve never been in an accident, but their insurance continues to go up.

Last night, I had a really great conversation with the insurance brokers at their reception and said, “People want to see those savings come back to them, because that was what was promised. That was what was sold to them when Dwight Duncan stood up in this House and said, ‘We’re going to standardize those payouts, those premiums, those benefits, and those savings are going to trickle down to the consumer.’” Well, you know what? You have to hold the line on that. If someone in this House is going to get up and say that, you have to make sure that they’re going to follow through. So we did negotiate that through the last budget.

We were able, obviously, to also secure a youth employment strategy. Nothing in this piece of legislation will address youth employment, but we made sure that there was some funding there and the government topped that up, and we’re tracking that to make sure that those numbers that you keep talking about are real numbers.

I, myself, met with London city council yesterday with my fellow MPPs and learned that London has one of the highest rates of youth unemployment in the province of Ontario. They want to be part of the solution, so they came to this place, and they’re willing to come to the table with some money. They want the province to partner, and they need the federal government to also partner. Congratulations to them for taking up the leadership. But youth employment was a focus for us in the budget session. We pushed the line. We pushed the agenda on that. The government had talked about it for years and years and years.

Hopefully that plan is working. But we are tracking it, because obviously there are some serious trust issues that we have with this government.

On the whole, though, when the government brings forward Bill 151, Strengthening and Improving Government Act, one has to wonder why this is actually before us; because there is this rumour that—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Excuse me. I just ask that—conversations have reached a point where they are interfering with the speaker. Thank you.

You may continue.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

In the last budget session, just to remind you, we were able to negotiate auto insurance. We were able to bring in the youth employment issue. Of course, on the grand scheme of finances in the province of Ontario, we hoped that financial accountability would be a priority of this government, which is why we modelled the budget officer for the province. We definitely think that a Financial Accountability Officer could help all of us.

It was really interesting, because at the time, the media said to me, “Well, you know, this will be for you as well if you form government.” I said, “Good.” Every government has proven that they need a sober second thought or a sort of evidence-based, decision-making role from a third party, if you will.

For instance, if we had had that Financial Accountability Officer prior to the PC caucus selling the 407, they would have had some information which may have challenged the way they sold the 407, because as all of us drive on that highway—because we have to, because we must—we are paying for it. We are paying for it each and every day.

Ms. Cindy Forster: And if we had had it around before they did the OLG modernization—

Ms. Catherine Fife: Oh, my goodness. Don’t even get me started on the OLG. Although it is great that the OLG—the headline is, “OLG Reboot Slammed by Auditor General.” I mean, it’s just another example of where the Liberals pushed and rushed through something. If this idea had been run by the Financial Accountability Officer, I’m fairly certain that we wouldn’t be in this place.

The auditor called the plan devised in 2012 “overly optimistic.” Maybe if the Financial Accountability Officer could have had a look at that plan, looked through the logistics, did some long-term economic forecasting, we would have definitely seen that this plan would actually hurt the people of the province of Ontario, particularly our rural sections.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Five hundred people out of work at St. Kitts and Fort Erie.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Five hundred people out of work at Fort Erie, and we saw that in the Niagara Falls by-election.

This is the thing: When you create legislation which has no teeth, which is not focused on the people who we’re serving, it has a negative trickle-down effect. We have seen that time and time again.

When we look at Bill 151, Strengthening and Improving Government Act, they actually have the gall to say that Ontario is enhancing government efficiency and responsiveness. As I’ve already pointed out, it makes one amendment to the Highway Traffic Act to strengthen non-emergency transport services for medically stable patients—they’re making sure that people have stretchers. The Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities Act would be amended to enable the government to collect information about post-secondary students’ enrolment. This is something they should be able to do already—

Interjection: Right now.

Ms. Catherine Fife: —right now.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: We’re concerned about how far they’re going to go.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Absolutely. There’s always a concern about how far you go. We even heard that yesterday with Bill 78 with regard to the collection of private information of patients with eHealth. Once again, I can’t see why they brought that forward. I don’t know who’s running the show.

Mr. Jonah Schein: Catherine, you should just contract all of this out.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It could all be contracted out. We could just sell the entire government down the river. How about that?

The Commitment to the Future of Medicare Act: This is the third part of the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. This would be amended to provide representatives of the Ontario Medical Association—OMA, a great association—with immunity from legal action for acts done in good faith during negotiations with the government. It’s interesting that right now—I think they’re in negotiations right now with the government. The timing is just excellent, don’t you think?

The fourth piece is the Pension Benefits Act, which would be amended to clarify spousal entitlements to pre- and post-retirement death benefits. Again, this is literally a housekeeping issue. This is not something that is a huge, pressing issue in the province of Ontario. It doesn’t address the unemployment rate. It doesn’t address the fact that we have some serious issues in health care. I’m almost speechless.

Ms. Cindy Forster: I’m speechless about the stretcher transportation services piece.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I know.

So you see, in this piece of legislation, these are housekeeping measures. In the broader sense of the province of Ontario, members on this side of the House—our member from Nickel Belt has been vigilant and fierce in her advocacy for change in the health care system. I know that all of us have stories that we could relay back to this place about the weaknesses and the failings in the health care system.

Last week I met with some personal support workers, and I understand that the Minister of Health is going to be making a very timely announcement again, just to be consistent, I’m sure. It could be another billion dollars or maybe just $500 million this time, but they are certainly deserving of more, because the women I met with, who are members of SEIU, talk about the fact that they have very little money for mileage when they go from patient to patient.

There are serious health and safety issues that they face, travelling from patient to patient and also dealing, unfortunately, with people who have dementia, so there are some safety concerns. This is primarily a female-dominated field. They’re given 15 minutes for some serious medical issues like changing colostomy bags, for instance. The registered nurses of Ontario have said that they couldn’t do their job without these incredible champions for patient health. That’s what personal support workers are. They’re at the bottom of the health care food chain, and I’m hoping that there can be some change.

We certainly are going to be building support for them because we recognize that they are deserving of greater support.

More importantly, when you support personal support workers, you support patient care, and there’s a direct correlation to that. We can talk about electronic health and we can talk about Ornge—it all comes down to people in the health care system, and if you’ve ever been in a hospital—I have a family member right now in the Peterborough regional hospital—it comes down to the quality of the people who are working with you. That’s what our focus is.

Actually, just to return back to the whole budget discussion, that’s what we’ve tried to bring. We’ve tried to bring the lens of the people of this province into the budget session, first in 2012 and then in 2013. The people of this province have responded very well to us in that regard and we know that because we’ve won four by-elections. I’m just getting that in there for good measure.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Four. Four out of nine.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Four. Here we are on Tuesday morning, April 29, talking about Bill 151, Strengthening and Improving Government Act, which, as I’ve already pointed out, is generally a housekeeping piece of legislation. It does not address the big questions, the big issues that are facing the province of Ontario. I just think that we should be more ambitious for ourselves; we should set the bar higher for ourselves.

I know that the government is distracted and I know why they’re distracted. There’s everything from the gas plants issue—it’s still playing itself out, and as I’ve already said, the Minister of Transportation is in front of that committee this morning. I’m sure that will be amusing for some people, but we don’t think it’s funny on this side of the House. We think it’s pretty serious when you waste $1.1 billion when there are such pressing needs in the province right now.

Yesterday was the National Day of Mourning. I attended a memorial in Kitchener–Waterloo and I can tell you that the numbers of people—I think 373 people lost their lives last year in the province of Ontario. You should not go to work in the province of Ontario in 2014 and not come home. Your shift should not be something that ends your life. We are looking for compliance and we’re looking for stronger regulations. We fought this throughout the early fall, and we made sure that that fall prevention training standard actually could come into play.

But you shouldn’t have to shame the government into doing what they said they were going to do back in 2009. That should not be the way that this place works.

We’re very disturbed by the way that legislation is coming before the House and what the government is showing to be a priority. Housekeeping bills should not be what we are talking about on April 29, 2014. It just shouldn’t be that way.

We are obviously seeing, though, a level of desperation, I think, in the way that these funding announcements are coming out. I understand the discomfort—I do; I really do—and I understand that there’s a genuine sense of panic, a little bit, on the part of the government.

With the Ring of Fire—I was sitting up there in 2007, when Mr. Dwight Duncan stood in that place and said that the Ring of Fire is going to change the economic future of northern Ontario.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Seven years ago.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Seven years ago. Of course, I knew very little at the time about the Ring of Fire at that point, but I thought, “Well, the resources that are available to us, the resource economy in our northern jurisdictions—those people want to go to work.” They want to go to work; they want to be part of the solution, as do our First Nations.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Sit down with a First Nations chief.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Oh yes, the First Nations who have to take you to court. The First Nations should not have to take you to court to get justice in the province of Ontario.

Mining and job creation can’t happen without infrastructure. I can see that there’s a level of frustration, because on almost every file there is, when you peel back the layers of this government, a level of incompetency which is shocking—especially to a new member like myself, because I came from a different jurisdiction where there were distinct lines of accountability, there were processes and there were laws that you would follow.

Yet, here we are in the province of Ontario, waiting seven years for what should be an economic success story for our northern communities and for our First Nations, and group after group has had to take this government to court. That’s where this is—where this government refuses to do the right thing the first time, which is why we are looking at this piece of legislation—Bill 151—and wondering what is in this that strengthens and improves government. Honestly, what is actually in this legislation which will strengthen and improve government?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Not much.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Almost nothing. Why is it before us? That is the big question in this place today. Why is Bill 151 in front of us at this time and in this place?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There’s nothing else that’s important, I imagine.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Well, it is about priorities.

It was really sad for me—and I know that everyone feels this way—that the Milton mother who came to this place, who was only 41, couldn’t get Ontario to follow three other provinces and cover Avastin, and she lost her life.

This weekend, I participated in the Ride ‘n’ Stride for cancer research—the research said that Avastin would prolong her life. One of the speakers this weekend said that cancer research provides hope and time, and sometimes that’s the most important thing that you can give somebody.

Those are the emotional stories that come to this place. These are the human stories. She lost her life. She lost her battle with cancer. There are certain names that I have for cancer that I cannot say in this place at this time, but she came to fight for it, and she did a great job of raising the issue of how certain drugs are funded by the province of Ontario and certain drugs are not. I hope that we all share in the concern with how that happens.

Let’s work together to actually fix that. I would think that that would be more important than amending the Courts of Justice Act to add proceedings under the Civil Marriage Act.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Or more useful.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I would think that it would be, and I would think that it would perhaps be a little more important than

schedule 2, which deals with provisions of the Pension Benefits Act dealing with joint and survivor pensions and pre-retirement death benefits. These are housekeeping issues that are before us.

I guess, though, on the upside, it did give me an opportunity to talk a little bit about what we think the priorities are in the province of Ontario.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Organ donation is an important issue, too.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Absolutely. We’ve seen a lot of health-related issues come before this House. Health is $52 billion—that’s the budget for health care. Clearly there is a small shift to refocusing on health and early intervention and prevention of disease, but not enough. We even see, on the file about organ donation, for example—this came before us just before the House rose; there have been very political, very high-profile stories around organ donation. This is clearly an issue that we can do better on in the province of Ontario.

We were told that organ donation was up; today we hear that organ donor numbers are on the decline. Ontario posted statistics online in the hopes that data comparisons would improve the process and save more lives.

We could be talking about how to streamline the organ donation process here. It’s so funny that this is in the paper today, because I was thinking about a young boy in my riding this morning who, at the age of 13, passed away. His parents were able to donate some of his organs, and it gave them some level of peace, I would say. In fact, it actually gave the entire community who were mourning with them a level of peace as well. So the potential for having organ donation take a front-and-centre conversation through a piece of legislation, which might be useful—we would welcome that opportunity to talk about the real issues in health care, around the selling of for-profit plasma, for instance.

Ms. Cindy Forster: They’re being sued for that too.

Ms. Catherine Fife: They’re being sued for that too.

So this is really the point: that you should make sure that when you bring forward a piece of legislation—and I hope to have this opportunity some day—you craft legislation which actually can be effective, which, when you bring it to this House, there has been some consensus on. In a minority government, we do have to listen to each other. I know it’s painful for some people, and I’m sorry about that sometimes, but on the whole, though, I think that when the government brings forward a housekeeping bill the week that a major budget—I think one of the most important budgets in the province of Ontario—comes down, we would be talking about financial issues.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Two-way GO train.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes. Two-way GO train; reforming the OMB.

Ms. Cindy Forster: All-day.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Two-way, all-day from Niagara.

All of those transit options that have been in your bailiwick now for almost 12 years—when you had a majority government you didn’t even have to deal with us. You could have done the right thing when you were a majority government. Instead, you know what you did? You did eHealth, you did Ornge and you implemented full-day kindergarten without thinking about the negative impacts that it would have on the child care sector. You spent a great deal of money fighting the people you should have been working with, like the Ring of Fire.

So here we are. These are housekeeping measures before us. We have a very different approach to this place in the third party. We recognize that it’s a minority government, we recognize that we should listen to the people we are serving, that we should put their interests before our interests as a political party and as individual politicians, and we bring a level of integrity to those conversations, I think, which is very much needed in the province of Ontario.

I understand that the government is frustrated by this debate, but you should not have brought Bill 151 and opened the door to—this is a vacuous piece of legislation.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Pretty well nothing.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Pretty much. I mean, why would you bring it forward? But that is a question in the grand scheme of things in the province of Ontario, when the economy is lagging, when youth unemployment is so high, when we have some systemic issues in the health care file, when the energy file is a complete and utter mess, when we see, in education, principals having to send home the most vulnerable children because they can’t have access to resources, and closing community schools, which are the hub of the community—the file goes on and on and on and on.

That begs the question—that’s the word I was looking for the entire morning. That begs the question: Why would you bring Bill 151 before us and call it the Strengthening and Improving Government Act when it doesn’t do that? It doesn’t do that. Nobody on that side of the House can say that this strengthens government, not with a straight face. I can’t even say it with a straight face.

So here we are: gas plants, eHealth, Ornge, chemotherapy drugs—

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Hey, get over to your side. Don’t heckle me from the PC caucus.

Hon. Mario Sergio: You’re heckling your own member.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: She likes it. It’s interactive.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Yes, we work together over here. I know there are some issues with regard to that over there.

So here we are: We are talking, on April 29, about the Strengthening and Improving Government Act. We’re talking about some minor housekeeping issues. Our point, in the NDP caucus, is that we should be talking about the real issues that are facing the province of Ontario, and there’s no shortage of them, quite honestly, Madam Speaker.

I think that the work before us and the challenge before us is to ensure that we get this economy back on track. For us, it is one of the major priorities. We see the economy very differently than this government, who do like to choose winners and losers, which does have a negative impact on how we attract businesses to the province of Ontario. It’s just the reality that it is.

We see infrastructure investment as a key component of building the economy. We see transit as having a major impact. For the life of me, I can’t understand why this government has not got Metrolinx’s budget around their commercials, around their advertising, telling us—the people who are paying for those commercials—what a great job they’re doing. It adds insult to injury.

So we see infrastructure, we see transit—we see prevention in the health care file as a key component. That’s why our member from Nickel Belt so strongly advocated on banning tanning beds, especially for youth. We forced you—it will not be our legacy. Our legacy will be that we—

Interjection.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Only 1% of the health care budget is spent on prevention—1%. How is that a strategy? How is that an idea that even works? Somebody over there must recognize that 1% of $52 billion on prevention is not the best strategy. If someone just raised their little hand in the Liberal caucus meeting and said, “Listen, why don’t we spend 2%?” Just push the envelope a little bit. Let’s try to be better together.

We see the economic file as: infrastructure, transit, prevention and health care. We see some significant changes that can happen in the education file, for instance, in post-secondary and training.

Certainly, on the energy file you could take another hour and just brush the surface of the energy revisions that need to happen. Serious reform needs to happen on the energy file. You see CEOs getting millions and millions of dollars in salaries, and you see the taxpayers, the consumers, the citizens of this province paying the ultimate price for that incompetence. People are getting frustrated, and they’re getting frustrated with really good reason, I think.

The social infrastructure of this province has been a huge draw for businesses. I just want to make that point on the economy, because we are incredibly focused on jobs on this side, in the NDP. The social infrastructure draws companies, draws investment into the province of Ontario, so we need to make sure that health care is working. When there’s scandal after scandal after scandal in health care, that compromises and undermines confidence in our economy. When you see the energy file, when you see the hydro bills of companies, manufacturing and businesses continue to rise, despite these so-called smart meters, there’s a level of frustration which is very real.

So when we came forward with our ideas—we really had hoped that the Liberals would listen to our job creator tax credit because that idea came from the people whom we serve in the province of Ontario, those businesses that say, “We’re willing to invest. We’re willing to train. We’re willing to be innovative and rise up to the new economy, but we want to see that the government wants to partner in that.” The job creator tax credit, the tax credits for capital, the tax credits for retraining and training—they like those ideas. It’s very clear to them.

They see where the role of government is in the economy of the province of Ontario. We like that, too, because it’s a level of transparency and a level of accountability with public tax dollars, and the public recognizes that small and medium-sized businesses create the majority of new jobs in the province of Ontario.

There’s no better example of that than Kitchener–Waterloo, with the start-ups and Communitech and the Accelerator Centre, and these youthful entrepreneurs who have done the research and are willing to commercialize the research and then are willing to create the jobs. They are willing and able and ready to be part of the equation on the economy, and, quite honestly, a lot of them inspire me.

But that has nothing to do with what’s before us right now, with Bill 151.

Interjection: That’s right.

Ms. Catherine Fife: But you call it “strengthening and improving government.” When I think of strengthening and improving government, I think of governments that are actually willing to put forward policy and legislation which works for the people. That’s what I would think if I was just reading the title—

Ms. Cindy Forster: Who thinks up these names anyway?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I don’t know. A poli-sci 101 student came up with that: Strengthening and Improving Government Act.

This bill consists of five completely unrelated housekeeping changes of the sort that usually appear as minor schedules in a budget bill—usually. Maybe you could have thrown this into the budget: minor schedules in a budget bill. Instead, on April 29, we are talking about housekeeping instead of the real priorities of the province of Ontario.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the time to share some of our thoughts on a piece of legislation which doesn’t serve the people of this province. Just to confirm, we can be stronger, we can be better, and the people of this province need us to be that way.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments? The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, I listened to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, and for the most

part I was scratching my head, because she was talking about things that, in my view, are not related to the bill in front of us. So in my little time, I do want to talk about the bill, and I want to take great exception to what she said about there being nothing real here, “nothing for the people,” she said.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: She didn’t talk about the bill.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: She didn’t talk about the bill; that’s right.

I’ll give you a real example of how this is relevant to the people of Ontario, and there are many examples in here.

The changes to the Pension Benefits Act to clarify spousal entitlement: That’s a real issue. Strengthening partnerships with the OMA: That’s a real issue. Better informing decision-making in post-secondary education—these are our future business leaders and maybe politicians of the future: That’s important.

But the one that’s really real for me, and I think for other people, is the one under the Highway Traffic Act, and I’ve spoken about this before. It’s to improve the safety and reliability of non-ambulance transportation in Ontario. Now, these vehicles, which are former ambulances, are used more and more for real people in Ontario for medical transport between hospitals, long-term-care homes and back. They are being used for my husband on a monthly basis, from my home to specialist medical appointments.

These vehicles need licensing and regulation. They provide a great service, and the staff who transport my husband are fantastic. However, there’s a lot of confusion about these vehicles, about who pays for what and what the qualifications are, and the Ombudsman spoke to this. This is a real issue. This is something that seniors and sick people need to have addressed now, and even more in the future.

So to say that this bill does not address real issues is completely, completely wrong.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened—I interrupted my listening from time to time and went for a coffee. An hour is a long time. Congratulations for lasting, but you didn’t use all the time. You had six minutes left, and you could have really gotten down to some serious investigation on Bill 151.

Now, I am saying that I am looking forward to our speaker that’s coming up very shortly. The member from Dufferin–Caledon will be leading off for us, and I look forward to that.

The bill has a couple of sections that, as I said—looking at the bill itself, I think there are five sections. Yes, there are five sections to the bill. The one that intrigues me is the one under the Ministry of Finance: the provisions of pension benefits. That’s an important aspect, and I expect maybe in the government we’ll hear something about the new pension plan for Ontario. I don’t know how it’s going to be funded. We’ll all be waiting for that.

But there’s another

section here under the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities,

schedule 4. It looks like in this

section here they’re setting up another discussion panel, but what’s really missing is that they don’t really have a coherent plan here. There is a lot of tinkering, a lot of minor amendments to a bill—a number of bills, actually. The Courts of Justice Act is amended, dealing with spousal entitlements; there’s a

section on that. This bill is a lot of administrivia, but there’s really no plan, especially under

schedule 4, which I mentioned. That’s the part where I’m most troubled about young people in post-secondary education and what they’re actually going to do after they graduate. There are really very few jobs for young people today after they’ve finished spending $10,000 or $20,000 or $30,000 or more on their education. They come out and find that there are no real jobs. When you look at it, everyone can’t work for the government. We know that. You have to have somebody who is actually adding value to something, whether it’s in the resource sector or in—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The time is up. The member for Trinity–Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to congratulate my friend and colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo for doing a lead that she wasn’t assigned to do. Imagine, at the very last moment she does a lead of almost one whole hour—that impressed me to no end.

She spoke well about the title, which is something the Liberals have borrowed from the Conservative Party over the years. “Strengthening and improving government”—please, a little more frankness about what you do. Those kinds of titles are very deceptive in terms of what you do with these things. They are housekeeping measures, and some of them are useful. The Pension Benefits Act is required because of court decisions. Some of these things are useful, although the member from Kitchener–Waterloo makes an incredibly good point about things that are so important to so many people out there.

While these are housekeeping matters that are useful, they’re not the most critical ones we should be dealing with, especially in the dying days of a Liberal government, I say to you.

I’ve got to tell you, the Council of Ontario Universities makes a number of suggestions. They declare that they have amendments about the disclosure of students’ personal information. They have four amendments, one which includes a provision that a specific Ontario education number will be used in research and analysis as the identifier of an individual, anonymized record. They also say that collection of personal information concerning aboriginal status should not be permitted.

There are a number of these amendments that I think are useful to look at, especially as we send this to committee, including the collection of personal information on the use of student services—for example, disability and accessibilities services, health services and counselling services—should not be permitted. These are useful suggestions that we should be including in this debate as we send it to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: I appreciated the clarification from the honourable member there that the member from Kitchener–Waterloo was filling in. I’m relieved to hear that, because it does help me understand why she drifted entirely off the legislation. One of my favourite books is Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms, and I think the member from Kitchener–Waterloo could well write the sequel because I think she probably broke both her arms patting herself on the back in her designated pre-campaign rant, which is just something I note in passing.

We have a lot of things in this bill. The member from Durham, my good colleague opposite, has mentioned some of the more useful things. The bill itself is in response to a number of requests from people in the sectors that the bill speaks to to clean up some of the ongoing problems that are there. I have no dispute that it’s a housekeeping bill, and if everybody agrees it is, let’s just pass the darn thing and get on with some of the things that the member from Kitchener–Waterloo and many others in this House would like to address. I’d be quite keen to do that.

The one thing I did find interesting about the member opposite—

Interjection.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Well, we’re working really hard on the developmental services sector. It will be interesting to see, when we vote on the budget, whether you stand in your place and actually vote to invest the kinds of resources that folk in the developmental services sector need, because you were investing zip when you were in government.

All that aside, Madam Speaker, she did mention worker safety. Worker safety is front and centre in this bill, albeit a housekeeping bill, and we should get on with it as quickly as we can.

Other than that, God bless her.

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

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to thank the member from Durham for his comments and, of course, the member from Trinity–Spadina for his comments.

I take great exception: The Minister of Consumer Services mentioned that this ambulance

part is important—of course. Under this subsection, ambulances “must contain prescribed equipment and meet prescribed inspection and maintenance standards.” Why isn’t it already happening right now? Why isn’t it already happening?

When you designed the air ambulances, why didn’t the government make sure that people can do CPR in those air ambulances? What about that?

So there are good reasons to actually question the competency of this government. And I do find that, over the last few months, there have been more personal comments made, more and more and more.

When the Minister of Community and Social Services announced the $800 million in Kitchener–Waterloo last week, the parents came back to me because they don’t have any confidence in this government to do the right thing. They said, “You know what? We had some questions.” They wouldn’t take their questions. There is a huge lack of trust. The government was promising that they are going to end the wait-lists. You know how they’re going to end the wait-lists? They’re going to kick kids out of service. That’s what I heard from those parents.

That is shameful, to come out before a budget and make a huge announcement that you should have been doing already. You should have been doing it already.

So here we are today talking about housekeeping issues. Individually, they are important, but these are not the priorities of the province of Ontario. Making sure that people actually have the resources in health care and education, making sure that we have a jobs strategy and making sure that businesses know what the rules of engagement are for this government, those are the real priorities. We have to make sure that the people in this province can get back to work. Yet you bring Bill 151 before us, and you say that these are your priorities. Get your act together.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1007 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. John O’Toole: I would like to welcome a very good friend of mine, Michael Patrick, who is the new PC candidate for the riding of Durham. He’s here to observe question period. Welcome, Michael.

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: —from a few other introductions, if I could. I’d like to introduce a group of members of Advocis, who are with us here at Queen’s Park today. From Whitby, there’s Jack Snedden, Louisa Majoros, Wayne Daley, Ron Fennell; from Oshawa, Mike Capesky; from Bowmanville, John Willoughby; and from Pickering, Don Turnbull. Welcome to Queen’s Park. We look forward to meeting with you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please.

It looks like we have quite a few introductions, so I’m going to ask everyone for their indulgence, to make your introductions as quickly as possible, and I’ll try to accommodate everyone.

Introductions?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’ll just build on the introductions from the MPP from Durham without repeating and add Claude Rochefort. I don’t know if he’s here today, but he’s also from the Durham

chapter of Advocis. Welcome to all from the Durham chapter.

Mr. Michael Harris: I’d like to welcome a good friend from Kitchener–Conestoga, Dennis Yanke, who is here with Advocis as well. For those who get a chance to meet with him today, please ask him about his book.

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I’d like to welcome Chris James, who lives and works in my riding of London West and is here today with Advocis, and who is accompanied by Kusum Sen, who is also with Advocis. Welcome.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I want to welcome Advocis and their representatives from across Ontario. I want to especially recognize Michael Vagnini and Phil Sawyer, who are from Sudbury—great examples of what financial planning should be all about. Thank you very much for attending today.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I’m pleased to welcome Dawn Kennedy from Bruce county today.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like the assembly to welcome two guests from the Kingston area who are with the

chapter of Advocis in Kingston: Will Britton, the incoming president of the local chapter; and Ed Bettencourt, the past president of the local

chapter for Advocis in Kingston.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Jeff Elliott, who is the father of page Ethan Elliott, in the west gallery today.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I just want to introduce William Burtch, a constituent who is here in the Legislature with us somewhere. I haven’t seen him yet, but he’s here with us somewhere.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: On behalf of New Democrats, I just want to welcome Advocis. My nephew John DiNovo is a long-time member. Welcome back again to Queen’s Park, all of you.

Mr. Norm Miller: I wanted to introduce Richard Borland, who’s down from Muskoka for the Advocis Queen’s Park day. I hope he has a great day.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I want to welcome a few friends from Ottawa who are here: Kris Birchard, who’s the chair of advocacy from Advocis; and David McGruer, also from Ottawa. I also want to welcome David Juvet, who is the vice-chair of the board; and Roger McMillan and Linda Gratton, who are the co-chairs of the Ontario provincial advocacy committee for Advocis. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to welcome a friend of mine, Andrew Johnson, who is here with the Advocis group. I look forward to meeting him later on.

Hon. Jeff Leal: It’s my pleasure to introduce a number of financial advisers from Peterborough who are here for the Advocis lobby day at Queen’s Park: Linda Gratton, Mimi Rogers, Doug Boden, Crystal Wilkinson, Dave Jolley, Jay McMahon, Alex Fischer and Dwight Hickson.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: On behalf of the member from Simcoe North, whose page’s mother is here—Mary Lou Doleweerd—as well as the grandfather, Francis Smith.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It’s my pleasure to welcome three Advocis representatives who are here today from Waterloo region: Darren Sweeney, Alan Anderson and Roger Jankey. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a group of people here this morning to witness our vote on Bill 21. From the Heart and Stroke Foundation: Cristin Napier, Krista Orendorff, Sumi Shan, Mark Earle, Matilda Won Yong Choi, Brian Kellow and Tendai Nzuma; from the Canadian Cancer Society: Florentina Stancu-Soare, Joanne Di Nardo and Kelly Gorman; Alzheimer Society: Delia Sinclair Frigault; and Ontario Caregiver Coalition: Lisa Levin.

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Today I’m delighted to recognize a constituent of mine who is here on behalf of Advocis: Paul Higeli; as well as a very good friend of mine, Nithy Ananth, a good Liberal from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Ms. Laurie Scott: I would like to introduce Linda Gratton from Freedom 55 Financial who is here today at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Frank Klees: I would like to join with my colleagues in welcoming representatives of Advocis. I’d like to extend a special welcome to someone who I’ve been supporting with my premiums for the last number of years, Mr. Roger McMillan of McMillan Financial.

Hon. Mario Sergio: We have in our Legislative Assembly today a delegation from sunny Dominican Republic. We have Deputy Rubén Luna, Andres Rodriguez, Yoneidi Santana, Angela Candelario and Henry Samuel. They are here seeing how we are behaving ourselves today. I hope they will enjoy their stay.

Remarks in Spanish.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to welcome a couple of Advocis members from the Quinte region: Jane Simpson and Shannon Neely, along with the director of government relations, Peter Tzanetakis, who informs me that there are 100 financial advisers here—I think they’ve all been introduced.

Bill Cook is a retired teacher from Hastings county through Thunder Bay; he’s here as well, and I’d like to welcome him to the Legislature.

Mr. Michael Mantha: I want to introduce a good friend of mine today on behalf of Advocis: my friend Eric Barton from Sault Ste. Marie.

Jonathan Jenkins

Ms. Andrea Horwath: A point of order, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party on a point of order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I seek unanimous consent for a moment of silence in this House to mark the passing of Jonathan Jenkins who was an exceptional journalist, a press gallery member, and I’m sure we all know that his wife Nancy and his children Dexter and Maizey are going to be suffering today and for many, many weeks to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The leader of the third party is requesting unanimous consent for a moment of silence. Do we agree? Agreed.

I would ask all members of the House and those in the galleries to please rise for a moment of silence in respect.

The House observed a moment’s silence.

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

Immigration

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Premier on a point of order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you’ll find that we have unanimous consent to put forward a motion without notice. It reads thus:

This House condemns the distribution by the group called Immigration Watch Canada of hateful material toward the Sikh community in Brampton; and reaffirms the positive values of tolerance and inclusion that are the hallmarks of modern Ontario society; and that the question and the motion be immediately put without further debate or amendment.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We first need the unanimous consent, so I would ask: Do we agree with the motion to be put forward without notice? Do we agree? Agreed.

The Premier believes that this House condemns the distribution by the group called Immigration Watch Canada of hateful material toward the Sikh community in Brampton; and reaffirms the positive values of tolerance and inclusion that are the hallmarks of modern Ontario society; and that the question and the motion be immediately put without further debate or amendment.

Do we agree? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

Legislative pages

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): At this time, I would like our pages to assemble to be introduced to the House.

Ashley Bowes, Oshawa; Caitlin Boyle, Brampton West; Thomas Brassard, Thunder Bay–Atikokan; Gabriel Chemla, Etobicoke–Lakeshore; Kaitlyn Doleweerd, Simcoe North; Kaia Douglas, Peterborough; Ethan Elliott, Perth–Wellington; Meaghan Frank, Essex; Lavanya Gunentherathas, Scarborough Centre; Emmanuelle Hébert, Mississauga South; Frank Hong, Willowdale; Daniel Hoogsteen, Burlington; Émilie Lebel, Timmins–James Bay; Ayesha Mir, Don Valley East; Zahra Mohamed, Markham–Unionville; William Qin, Mississauga–Brampton South; Victoria Recagno from Oakville; Brendan Sheppard from Barrie; Ethan Walker, Wellington–Halton Hills; and David Zhou, Scarborough–Agincourt: Our new pages.

Applause.

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

Taxation

Mr. Tim Hudak: I just want to add that I appreciate the moment of silence from the leader of the NDP. Our thoughts and hearts are with Jonathan Jenkins’s wife, Nancy. I say to his kids—hopefully they’ll see the Hansard someday—I think the highest praise we can give to a journalist is that he was tough, but fair. Every time I talked to Jonathan, there was nothing that dominated his heart more than his pride in his son and daughter. He’s watching over them. He’s damn proud.

Applause.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I just want to say it’s great to have my deputy leader back in the House today—

Applause.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m going to ask one of the pages to bring over a document to the Premier entitled Transit in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. There’s a briefing that the Premier received.

Premier, I don’t know if you’ll have time, but I’m going to refer you to page 26 of the document that you were briefed on. The finance ministry officials say that the greatest negative impact on job creation—in fact, it will cost jobs—are payroll tax increases. Again, that’s page 26. I’ve highlighted it to call attention to that particular bullet; geing a son of two teachers, it just happens.

On page 26, it indicates that payroll taxes will cost us jobs. Do you agree with finance officials that an increase in payroll taxes will cost us even more jobs in our province?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just want to add my personal condolences to the family, friends and gallery colleagues of Jonathan Jenkins and wish them all well. It’s a very hard and sad time.

And I want to welcome Christine Elliott back and just say that your strength is remarkable. It’s wonderful to have you back.

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To my friend opposite, if what he is asking is whether I believe that bringing in a plan that will allow people to save for their retirement and have retirement security when they are ready to leave the work world, I would suggest that that is absolutely necessary.

We have been very, very clear that an enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan would be our first choice, but we believe that it is our obligation to make sure that the people of Ontario have the ability to have a dignified retirement.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, Premier, I believe our first obligation is to make sure people have a chance at a well-paying job in our province. I think that’s what our number one job should be.

I’ll tell you a quick story. I was in Brantford recently, and I met with Scott, who is a construction employer. He had—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —nine people on his payroll. That was in 2003, when the McGuinty-Wynne government began. I asked him how many employees he has now, and he said none—nobody on the payroll except himself. I said, “Why?” He said, “Just more red tape. The energy bills have tripled in this province, and payroll taxes mean I can’t hire.”

The Ministry of Finance officials indicate that for every $2 billion in increases on a payroll tax, that will cost us 18,000 jobs.

If you do bring in an Ontario registered pension plan, or an ORPP, that is going to be a tax increase that will cost us 150,000 jobs. Premier, do you agree with the finance officials’ predictions?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It’s a very interesting question coming from the Leader of the Opposition, because we just lowered payroll taxes: the employee health tax. We reduced that tax to small businesses. It was a tortured process to get the Leader of the Opposition and his party to acknowledge that that was a good thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

I know what he is talking about. He’s talking about retirement security. He’s talking about our belief and our proposal that we need to bring forward a plan to make sure that people in this province have the opportunity to retire in security.

We would love to have had the support of the Conservatives at the federal level. We would have loved to have had the support of Stephen Harper, which was called for by governments—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member for Northumberland–Quinte West, come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —across the country. We haven’t got that, Mr. Speaker, so we are going to move forward. We will be bringing forward a plan in the budget on Thursday to make sure that people have retirement security in this province.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order, second time.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Look, here’s the difference between you and me: I want Scott to have the confidence to hire again. I want to see him hire back those nine employees and then more. I want to see that across the province. That’s why we stand solidly behind my million jobs plan to create a million well-paying jobs in our province, to get people back to work.

So let me see if I understand this, Premier. You said that you need to lower payroll taxes to create jobs. That’s the bill you brought forward that we supported. But now you’re saying you’re going to increase payroll taxes by $2,500 a person. That means that if Scott wants to hire somebody, he has to pay wages plus $2,500, and somebody on the payroll will have $2,500 less in their pockets. It’s pretty hard to make ends meet today when you can’t pay your hydro bill. Imagine a $2,500 reduction in your paycheque.

So which is it, Premier? Do you believe that lowering payroll taxes creates jobs, or do you believe increasing payroll taxes creates jobs? Honest to goodness, you look like Dalton McGuinty. You don’t want to have it both ways, do you?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the document that he passed across the floor has nothing to do with retirement security. It was a discussion on a totally different subject. What we have said is that we believe there is not enough saving. We know there is not enough saving that people are capable of; that people are at risk of struggling in their retirement. So we are going to bring forward a plan that will allow people to have that retirement security.

The Leader of the Opposition talks about creating jobs, but everything he has brought forward would cut jobs: education jobs, health care jobs. He does not want to partner with business in this province. He is against partnering with OpenText. He is against partnering with Cisco. He is against partnering with food processors. He is against partnering with the auto industry. That opposition would reduce jobs.

Taxation

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Look, I know you gave $120 million to OpenText, one of the wealthiest corporations in Ontario. They just gave a big increase to their shareholders. Honest to goodness, that’s like giving out food vouchers in Rosedale: It doesn’t make economic sense.

Interjection: Been there, done that.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Oh, that’s right. You already did that after Christmas. I guess in that you’re consistent.

But, Premier, back to the topic. These are your own finance official’s documents. You will recall the briefing, I’m sure. Page 15, interestingly, points out that the worst tax increase to slow down the economy is a business tax increase, which is the hallmark policy of the third party. Your hallmark policy seems to be increasing payroll taxes.

Again, on page 26, your own bureaucrats said that a payroll tax increase will lower business investment, will relocate businesses to other jurisdictions, will reduce work effort and will cause an out-migration of people from our province.

So what is it exactly that you like so much about tax increases when your bureaucrats say it will cost us 150,000 more jobs in our province? I want to see more jobs, not fewer.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My understanding of a tax is that it would be money that would go into the provincial treasury.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland–Quinte West: second time.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that that is not what we’re talking about. What we’re talking about is putting in place the capacity for people to save for their retirement.

People who are 20 and 30 and 40 right now are not able to save enough for their future. That’s the reality, so we believe, as do many leaders across the country, that having an enhancement to the Canada Pension Plan would be a very good thing.

Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister, is not interested in doing that, so it is our obligation to make sure that the people of Ontario have the capacity to save for their future and have a secure retirement.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: There’s a basic fundamental of economics that the Liberal Party seems to be ignoring: It’s not where the tax goes to; it’s where it comes from. If you put a tax on payroll, that means it costs more to hire somebody. As your finance officials point out, that will mean 150,000 fewer people working in our province. It also means that money comes out of your paycheque. That means that families will have an average $2,500 less at the end of the year. That’s a tax increase that your own officials say will cost us 150,000 jobs.

I want to ask you this, Premier: If your plan is putting 150,000 people out of work, if they have no paycheque, how the heck are they going to save for a pension when their income is zero?

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not getting things quiet for someone to heckle.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I just have to say that the Leader of the Opposition is simply on the wrong side of this issue. He listens to people who have worked in the financial—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): If you’re testing my resolve, it’s working. The member from Northumberland–Quinte West is warned.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You know, Mr. Speaker, we looked to the federal government to enhance the Canada Pension Plan. In fact, we know that documents from the federal Department of Finance demonstrated that an expansion to the Canada Pension Plan would represent meaningful long-term economic benefits to the country.

The advice at the federal level and across the country is that there needs to be more capacity for saving in this country. That’s the reality. That’s what we’re dealing with. David Dodge agrees with that, leaders across the country agree with that, and federal finance officials agree with that, but the federal government does not want to act. We are taking that responsibility seriously, and we will bring our proposal forward on Thursday.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Look, we know what this is about. When you started out, you were going to be the social justice Premier. That sort of disappeared. Then you were going to be the jobs Premier, and Lord knows that’s out the window with this latest tax grab. You were going to be the transit Premier and increase taxes no matter what, and then you backed away from that. So you’re looking for something to put in the window.

I understand that politicians get that way, but I’m concerned that you are putting your own interests ahead of the interests of taxpayers. I was talking to a senior citizen in my office the other day who can barely pay her hydro bill—a widow. She has paid off the mortgage, but she can’t pay the hydro bill. Workers are facing the same thing. If you’re working at a part-time job, if you can’t pay the hydro bill, you can’t set money aside for retirement.

I’ve got a very different plan. I want to see the middle class create more wealth. I want to see more jobs in our province—that’s what I want to see—with more take-home pay; you want to subtract from it.

I’ve just got to ask you: Why in the world would you make a significant $2,500-per-person middle-class tax hike? Isn’t that going to cost us jobs, not create them?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the Leader of the Opposition for making my case, because the reality is that that woman who was in his office—he’s right. There needs to be relief, and the Minister of Energy has brought in programs to help that woman so that she can get some relief on her energy bill.

But, Mr. Speaker, what we know is that if we don’t—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m not going to tolerate people shouting people down.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: We need relief from you, Kathleen.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Timmins–James Bay will come to order.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Thank you, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No. No more.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If we don’t take action, people who are in their thirties and forties now will be in that position because they will not have a decent pension; they will not be able to retire with any kind of security. So what we’re doing is we are looking down the road, understanding that people are not able to save enough now, and putting in place a support for them so that they will have a decent retirement. That’s the long view we’re taking.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. Be seated, please. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

New question.

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. When the Premier was in Windsor last July, she told reporters she had just found out that girders installed on what she termed the largest infrastructure project in Ontario did not meet Ontario’s safety standards. Does the Premier stand by that statement?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will reinforce what I have said repeatedly in this House and what the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure has said. As soon as we knew that there was a problem with the girders in Windsor, we stopped the building. We did a review. Those girders are being taken out—they have been taken out. We made sure that the safety standards were in place. We took action, and that is exactly what we will do any time there is a safety concern with construction in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, according to documents released through FOI, both the offices of the Premier and the minister knew that these girders did not meet safety standards before they were installed. The minister’s office learned about the substandard girders in December 2012, after which high-level biweekly meetings were held to discuss them. These meetings included senior staff within the minister’s office, and in April of last year the executive director of policy in the Premier’s office—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Infrastructure, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —was informed of the problem.

Now, is the Premier saying that senior staff in her own office did not tell her about the—

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I want to do a fact-check on this question.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —public safety concerns on what she calls the largest infrastructure project in Ontario’s history?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not saying that. What I’m saying is that the minister’s office staff were first briefed on the safety and durability issues regarding girders on the Herb Gray Parkway on June 14, 2013, and the minister was briefed on June 19, 2013, and we took action because of our concerns. That’s what I’m saying.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: During the Liberal leadership campaign, the Premier boasted that she oversaw the negotiations and the construction of the Windsor-Essex parkway while she served as Minister of Transportation. We know that the Premier’s director of policy was being sent minutes—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —of the biweekly girder meetings as early as April and probably even earlier.

Does the Premier expect that the people of this province believe that her senior advisers didn’t alert her to a potential scandal surrounding faulty girders being installed on a project that she authorized?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What I can say to the leader of the third party is that we took action, and the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure and I were very clear that as soon as we knew that there was a problem, as soon as we knew that action needed to be taken, we took action.

I don’t know if the leader of the third party is making a broader statement that she doesn’t support the building of large infrastructure projects. I don’t know if the leader of the third party doesn’t believe that it’s important for us to invest in infrastructure in this province, but we believe it is. We believe it’s important, and we believe that when there is a problem, you take action, and that’s what we did.

Interjections.

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

Transportation infrastructure

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. A July 21, 2013, confidential memo to the Premier on the girder issue states: “There has been some chatter about this situation in Windsor construction circles and we understand that the Windsor Star may be coming out with a story on this matter this week. It may break during the Premier’s visit to Windsor on July 22.”

Can the Premier tell us why safety issues were ignored until they threatened to disrupt the Premier’s campaign to hold a seat in a by-election?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It is really hard to characterize that question as anything but offensive.

Mr. Speaker, the safety of the people of this province is our number one concern. Yes, we believe that investing in infrastructure projects is very important, but we also believe that when we hear that there is a concern, when there is a problem, as soon as there is a problem, it is our responsibility to make a decision and take action. That is what we did.

On top of that, we brought the MPP from Windsor–Tecumseh into the process. We briefed him. We kept his party and her party informed. She knows that, Mr. Speaker. She knows he was part of the process and she knows we took action.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, what is offensive is the Liberals putting their own political well-being ahead of the public safety of the people of Ontario. That’s what’s offensive.

We know from internal correspondence that this government knew that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Wrap up, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We know from internal correspondence, Speaker, that this government knew the girders on the parkway were faulty and didn’t act on these public safety concerns for seven months. Had the Windsor Star not been investigating these girders, would these unsafe girders continue to quietly be installed on the parkway to this very day?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear about this, as I was yesterday. I am deeply offended by the leader of the third party—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs is not helpful in the conversation.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Nor is the member from Lanark.

And when I sit down, if somebody else starts up, I’ll nail you.

Finish, please.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I hope the leader of the third party will take the time to correct her own record.

I’m going to read into the record very carefully and very slowly the report of both ministries, Infrastructure Ontario: “Minister’s office ... staff were first briefed on the safety and durability issues regarding girders on the Herb Gray Parkway on June 14, 2013, and the minister was briefed on June 19, 2013.”

Mr. Speaker, the reason I was briefed is because in May, when I was asked, under instructions from the Premier, to thoroughly review each infrastructure project, I was advised that there were concerns. The first week of June, I went to both deputy ministers. Both deputy ministers said they were not aware of any safety concerns, and they undertook a review right away.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When she was the Minister of Transportation, the Premier awarded the project agreement for the Windsor-Essex parkway. She bragged about it during the Liberal leadership race. But documents that we have obtained show that engineers at the Ministry of Transportation were raising concerns about the poor quality of construction and serious deficiencies of this project.

Now, what does the Premier have to say to the people of Windsor, and the people of Ontario, frankly, when they see that she was prepared to put political expediency ahead of public safety?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: When the Premier was the Minister of Transportation, no one in senior management—nor was there any information or knowledge there was a problem.

When I became minister, I heard concerns and rumours. Every minister hears rumours and concerns. I validated those. It was not until this government ordered full destructive testing and two sets of tests that we discovered in late August that there was a safety issue, as a result.

My question is, where was the opposition? The member for Windsor West raised this issue. All your Windsor members were silent. I hope the leader of the third party will rise and apologize for the inaccurate information she is putting on the record.

Interjections.

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

Health care

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, I want to begin by complimenting you on your dedication to fitness. A few months ago, you ran television ads telling Ontarians how much you love to run. It’s obviously an important part of your life.

Now try to imagine: What if you couldn’t run? What if you couldn’t breathe? What if your lungs were constantly filled with mucus? What if you could never run again? How would that make you feel?

Madi Vanstone, a 12-year-old girl with cystic fibrosis, started out not being able to run and barely being able to walk. Now, thanks to the new drug, she can run. She can run like you, and she loves it. She loves being able to do something as simple as being able to run.

But how much longer will she be able to run? The money Madi’s family and friends have fundraised is quickly depleting. In fact, right now, her dad’s insurance company, that covers half the cost of the drug, is reassessing his claim.

Premier, help Madi run, or better yet, run with Madi. When will you fund the drug Kalydeco?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care will want to give an update on the situation.

I know that the member opposite knows that I met with Madi and her mom. I don’t know if they’re in the House, but—there they are. I know that the member opposite also knows that there is a national process that we are pushing very hard. When I met with my colleagues from across the country a few weeks ago, we made it clear that this is not an issue just for Madi, that there are other children and other people in other parts of the country who need this drug to be covered. We need that deal, and we are pushing very hard.

I will ask the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, you and your health minister continue to tell us that you have to be cognizant of all taxpayers, that you are waiting to get the best value for the drug Kalydeco. That’s your excuse.

But when it came to the gas plant scandal, instead of waiting for the best deal, by cancelling the Oakville plant after the election, you spent $1.1 billion of taxpayers’ money to save a couple of your colleagues’ seats. The sky is the limit to save your own political skins, but $300,000 for a life-saving medication for a young girl has to go through years of negotiations. It’s wrong.

And now, ahead of a possible spring election, we see in leaked budget documents that you’re set to spend another $6 billion on various new spending projects while children like Madi suffer. It’s absolute nonsense.

It has been 15 months. Madi and her mom are here today. This is a child, a human life. People are dying, waiting for orphan drugs to be approved by your government. When will you do the right thing and fund this medication?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I, too, welcome Madi and her mom to the Legislature today. As you know, Speaker, we have committed to keeping the family informed of the negotiations. This was an issue that came up when health ministers from across the country gathered. In fact, we collectively agreed to do something we have never done before, and that is that we have asked to sit down with the manufacturer to find a resolution to this issue. Children like Madi do need access to the drug. We want this drug to be listed, but we need to insist that the pan-Canadian process works.

We have successfully negotiated over 30 listings, saving us over $50 million. We must continue to work with the manufacturer, Vertex, a US-based company. They must work with us so that we can fund this drug for people like Madi.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Percy Hatfield: My question is to the Premier. Good morning, Premier.

Speaker, senior ministry engineers are concerned that because of the design build model on the Herb Gray Parkway, structures won’t last even half the lifespan outlined in the project agreement. Senior MTO engineer Joey Chirico says that under the AFP model authorized by Premier Wynne, MTO has little to no oversight and that he is “certain nothing will be done by the construction companies to fix the deficiencies identified by the MTO.”

Speaker, why did the Premier authorize a contract that cut the lifespan of the project, compromised public safety and put the public on the hook for costs associated with the delays?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, I just will be very clear. Everything that was just said is in fact not accurate, to say the least. The project is up to the highest safety standards in Ontario, which has the highest roads and bridge standards in North America, the highest safety levers.

The members opposite are not literate about the basics of this. They do not understand the difference between a discussion about compliance—and compliance means everything from grass seed to the colour of a post, so when you see discussions about compliance, they are usually minor issues.

The safety standards by the chief engineer and the deputy minister and independent experts, now three engineering companies—this is the highest standard of safety. Any faulty girder has been removed, and because of the AFP process, the company—not the taxpayers—is paying for it. And you’re opposed to that because you would rather have the taxpayers pay for it.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Speaker, it’s not all about the girders. There’s lot of other stuff going on there. Senior ministry engineers are saying that the Herb Gray Parkway may not even last half of the lifespan outlined in the project agreement that Premier Wynne authorized. We may have already lost more than half the value of the $1.4-billion project, and it hasn’t been completed.

The Premier authorized the project agreement that stripped away the government’s ability to deal immediately with ongoing structural deficiencies. Will the Premier take responsibility for the Herb Gray Parkway project and come clean with the full liability to Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: The member for Windsor West has already been there and done that a year ago. She raised this issue, and we acted. The NDP has more members now in that area than we do, and if they had one more, this would have been a problem, because it was only the member for Windsor West—you guys were on the bench asleep.

Let me just read into the record the member from Windsor–Tecumseh’s letter: “Taxpayers” will “be on the hook for those eight months of construction” costs. That is not true. Taxpayers are not on the hook for anything. So here the member is sending out communications that I believe he knows are different than what the facts are.

So I would again—because I thought I had with Mr. Good Morning a collegial relationship, but it appears that he’s very prepared to say one thing in this House and another thing out there, and there’s a distraction here, because what you are saying out there bears no relationship to the facts, my friend.

Youth employment

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment. I am incredibly proud that our government has demonstrated our commitment to helping young people find meaningful employment through our youth jobs strategy. I know this strategy was developed after a series of consultations which brought together business leaders, employers, not-for-profits, educators, labour and, of course, the young people themselves. This local perspective directly influenced how our government designed our larger strategy.

I know we’ve had recent announcements on the success of these programs, especially in my riding—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. We could all use a little bit of respect around here.

Please finish your question.

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I know we’ve had recent announcements on the success of these programs, especially in my riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, which has a significant young population in communities like West Hill, Kingston Galloway/Orton Park, and Mornelle Court.

Through you, Speaker, would the minister please update this House on recent developments of our youth employment strategy?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: You got it—Economic Development, Trade and Employment. Mr. Speaker, this $295-million investment that was announced in last year’s budget is paying real dividends for youth right across this province. We are very proud of the success that we’ve seen so far, and I’m going to give a couple of examples of just how we’re making a difference in helping young people get employment in Ontario.

At George Brown College here in Toronto they are working at providing skills training in commercial baking, as well as sheet metal construction, for youth here in the GTA who are facing multiple barriers to employment.

I was recently in Windsor as well, making an announcement at the Downtown Windsor Business Accelerator, where that organization—a great initiative in downtown Windsor—is mentoring and supporting young entrepreneurs from the Windsor-Essex region of the province.

Lastly, Operation Come Home: I had the honour, together with the member from Ottawa Centre, just a couple of weeks ago, to visit that facility right in downtown Ottawa, which is doing amazing work with formerly homeless young persons, quite frankly, helping them start highly successful businesses, changing their lives around for their betterment and for the betterment of their colleagues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Mitzie Hunter: I’d like to thank the minister for his answer. My constituents will be happy to hear that the youth jobs strategy is being fully implemented.

As a member from Scarborough, I know our sizable youth population appreciates the opportunities that we’ve created to help them get a good start. So many organizations like IMPACT ’n Communities and the East Scarborough Storefront are working tirelessly on this issue. I understand the importance of partnering with industry to ensure that we train and provide opportunities for youth, not only for the jobs of today but to help them with their future careers. I know this specifically, having held a youth jobs strategy forum as well as a business breakfast to engage local employers.

Our youth employment fund is a key part of these initiatives. Can the minister give us an update on what the youth employment fund is doing to move towards our government’s goal of creating good jobs for young people and growing our economy?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I apologize to the Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Minister?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Building a strong economy and creating job opportunities for youth is a priority for our Premier; it’s a priority for this government. In fact, it’s one our top priorities.

I’m pleased to be able to say that our youth employment fund has been an extraordinary success. Since its launch in September, this fund has already helped 11,526 young people find job experience right in the workplace.

The fund has also had a particular focus on youth furthest from the labour market and I think that is what makes it such a success. It focuses on aboriginal youth, youth with disabilities, rural and northern youth, youth leaving care, as well as youth right across this province.

I’m very proud also to be able to share with members that 84% of young people who have completed their placement through the youth employment fund have landed employment. I don’t know if it’s going to stay that high as this program continues, but it’s off to a fantastic start. We’re really proud of it. We’re giving young people that opportunity in the workplace that they need to help us build a stronger economy.

Power plants

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is to the Premier. She boasts of her government’s openness yet it is her Liberal Party that has been accused by the OPP of destroying documents related to the gas plant scandal, and it is she who is attempting to silence myself and the leader of the official opposition with a lawsuit. And this morning, the Minister of Transportation threatened a lawsuit against the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

In November 2012, the freedom-of-information request for all gas-plant-related documents in the Premier’s office turned up just 100 pages. Then, on the day that she was sworn in as Premier, that FOI was trimmed down to 88 pages. By April 2013, an FOI appeal said it was discovered that emails had been deleted and recovering them would be impossible.

Given that timeline, it’s clear that the Premier’s commitment to so-called open government was made with the knowledge that several senior Liberals have been deleting emails, because her government would have had to research that and search them. Will she tell us why it took an OPP investigation—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I believe at the moment we have provided 391,707 pages of documents to the committee, including 30,000 from the Premier’s office. The Premier herself has appeared in front of committee, as has the Minister of Energy. I’ve appeared. The Minister of Transportation has appeared. We’ve made ourselves available to answer questions that have been put forward by the opposition. I can’t say the same thing about opposition candidates. At the same time, Mr. Speaker, we have co-operated fully with them, and we’ll continue to co-operate fully.

The issue of the deletion of documents—the member is well aware—is the subject right now of an OPP investigation, and I think we should allow the OPP to undertake their work.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The Premier announced that she was going to go through with a project called Open Government. She actually spelled “government” wrong and forgot the N. But I’m going to propose today that we actually change this initiative to “open covernment” and put a C in there, because this government’s record—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That is not acceptable. The member will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdraw.

Her record on openness is spotty. She told this House the cancelled gas plants only cost $40 million. When she signed the contract, she would have known the truth.

She held a caucus meeting as Liberal leader and as Premier on January 30, yet she now tries to tell us she wasn’t Premier at all. She was Premier while one of her staff had her hard drive wiped by Peter Faist, who, by the way, was still a member of her staff until a month ago.

Surely, the Premier knows that hiding things from the public is going to go badly wrong for her, because we will uncover the truth. Will she be open and honest today with this caucus—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister without portfolio, come to order.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The honourable member has some gall to talk about truth and facts. Let’s get the facts on the record, if I can—

Interjection.

Hon. John Milloy: Not my finest moment, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s get the facts to the member. On May 7 last year, the justice committee asked for all gas plant documents in the Premier’s office. On May 21, the Premier’s office delivered 30,000 documents. Here is what the letter from the chief of staff said: “I am writing on behalf of the Office of the Premier in response to the motion passed by the Standing Committee on Justice Policy on May 7 ... on May 9, we were advised by Cabinet Office IT that the email accounts of 52 individuals formerly employed in the Premier’s office could be accessed.

A search of those accounts was conducted by my office, and any available records applicable to the committee’s motion have been included. I have enclosed with this letter a list of the 52 individuals.”

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the committee, she would have received that letter. What she is doing today is beneath her in standing up and spreading this mischievous—

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

New question.

Transportation infrastructure / Infrastructure de transport

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Again, to the Premier: Good morning, Premier. I hope you’re having a good morning today.

Premier, yesterday, the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure claimed repeatedly that the safety of the girders was never discussed with the minister’s office before he raised the issue in June. However, I’m holding the agendas of 12 weekly and biweekly update meetings for the minister’s office on the Herb Gray Parkway. Each of the meetings, from December 14 to June 7, took place six months before the minister claimed he knew. Each meeting references girders and their lack of CSA certification, certification meant to protect public safety.

Does the Premier stand by the statement that her minister made yesterday?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Interjections.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Now, I am not lying; I am telling you the truth. The chief engineer is not lying. The deputy minister is not lying. The assistant deputy minister is not lying. The front-line safety officers are not lying. The independent engineering firms are not lying. For what the member has said to be true, all of those people would have to be lying, so maybe he’s wrong.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Percy Hatfield: Read the documents. Yesterday, the minister denied that his deputy ministers knew anything about safety issues on the Herb Gray Parkway. The minister said, “The first week of June, I went to my deputy ministers, both of them, and asked them if they knew anything. They both said clearly that they were not aware of any particular safety concerns.”

According to government documents, the minister’s deputy minister was regularly updated on the public safety concerns of the girders in 12 update meetings. We see briefings in their own monthly update meetings on January 15, the 8th of February, the 8th of March and the 12th of April.

Is the Premier going to stand by while her minister denies what’s in front of us in black and white?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I will try again. It would scare me if these people were ever near power, because—let me tell you what are some of the compliance issues that are outstanding right now. One of them is the shrubs. We have a whole group working to make sure that we have the right kind of shrubs that won’t die in six months. That’s a compliance issue. The design of a wall and the shape of the wall is a compliance issue. They are not synonymous with safety issues. There are several projects that could have 100 or 200 compliance issues which a junior member of my staff may be briefed on.

The safety issue, until August—we’re going all the way to August. I raised this. It gets dealt with: independent testing, twice. The first round of independent testing done by the project company in late July and early August came back with no safety concerns. I was not satisfied, the Premier was not satisfied, and I ordered a second round of testing. Of six girders, one came out faulty. That—

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

Hydro rates

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, energy policy has been a hot topic in Ontario. It’s an issue that affects every Ontarian directly. In fact, one of the calls I get from my own constituency in Ottawa–Orléans is about their electricity bills and what they can do to lower them.

We have just experienced one of the coldest winters in almost a century. Conservation is the best way to reduce energy costs. I attended the minister’s announcement in Ottawa at the Giant Tiger last Friday, where the success of conservation was highlighted.

Residents know that the Ontario Clean Energy Benefit, which the opposition voted against, is set to expire at the end of 2015. I know my constituents are wondering what the government will do to help them with their bills when the benefits wind down.

Minister, can you please tell the House about the details in the announcement you made last week regarding how our government would be helping people with their electricity bills?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for the question. The previous government allowed the old Ontario Hydro to accumulate tens of billions of dollars of debt, forcing them to take drastic action. This included adding the debt retirement charge—the DRC—onto electricity bills.

To help ease pressure on residential rates, our government announced last week that we will remove the DRC two years earlier than originally projected. Eliminating the DRC would save a typical residential electricity ratepayer about $70 a year. In addition, we also announced that we will provide a bill reduction for low- and modest-income consumers. Together with the elimination of the DRC, this program will give a benefit of $250 each year for eligible consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister. It is certainly great news for families across Ontario.

I know my office receives a lot of questions about the debt retirement charge. People wonder why that charge is on their bills, who put it there, and, until last week, when it will be coming off. I can understand where they are coming from.

I know the charge was created by the PC government when they were last in power and that ratepayers have been paying it ever since. But given some of the confusion that seems to exist around the portion of consumers’ energy bills, I think it would be helpful for the minister to explain to the House the origin of this charge and why we are still paying it.

Can the minister please explain the history of the debt retirement charge and where the money that is collected goes?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The debt retirement charge is a direct result of the mismanagement of the old Ontario Hydro under the Hudak-Harris PC government. Also, when we took over government, we inherited a system that was not clean, not reliable and not affordable, so we invested $31 billion to repair the damage—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I guess that’s not good enough. The member from Prince Edward–Hastings is warned.

The member from Durham, come to order—second time.

Finish, please.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, they don’t like to hear the truth.

We invested $31 billion to repair the damage. We also took the opportunity to eliminate coal-fired generation, which is taking the equivalent of seven million cars off Ontario roads.

In addition to removing the DRC, we previously introduced a 10% discount on bills and implemented a number of tax credits and rate mitigation measures. In contrast to PC bungling, our government has consistently reduced the stranded debt by over $8 billion since 2004.

Speaker, I urge the opposition to help Ontario ratepayers save money by supporting our budget and finally taking the legacy costs—

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

Horse racing industry

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Premier. Premier, why did the government deliberately and heartlessly sacrifice the horse racing industry in favour of a pie-in-the-sky scheme to build glittering casinos in Toronto, the Premier’s backyard?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I know that the member opposite is very supportive of a plan for the horse racing industry that would see it be sustainable over time, into the future. That’s exactly what we have put in place.

I came into this job. I knew there were concerns with the changes that were being made in the horse racing industry. The former Minister of Agriculture and Food had made it clear that there needed to be changes made, that the removal of the non-transparent and really not accountable Slots at Racetracks Program—it needed to be changed, but there needed to be a sober second thought on what the replacement would be.

That’s why the panel was struck. That’s why we took their recommendations. That’s why there’s $500 million over the next five years in the horse racing industry to make sure that they have a sustainable future.

I’m proud of the work we’ve done. We’re going to make sure that horse racing in Ontario is sustainable and accountable.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Unfortunately, her plan is not working.

Those glittering casinos were never even built, and yet the horse racing industry now lies in ruins. The Auditor General’s report yesterday confirmed what we have said all along: The Liberal-NDP move to terminate SARP was done with no consultation or consideration of the enormous damage it would do to people in the industry.

The government had the information to know that their decision would mean fewer race dates, less breeding, less employment and fewer economic benefits to the agriculture industry. Because the government ignored that information, we now have racetracks closed, lawsuits against the province and thousands of jobs destroyed.

Does that even bother the Premier? Because that is her record.

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: My government has stabilized the horse racing industry. We put in place a plan that will allow the horse racing industry to move forward.

The Auditor General was not complimentary of the Slots at Racetracks Program. What she said was, “[O]wners grew reliant on their growing” slots revenue share “just to sustain their horse racing operations. They ... submitted requests to the ORC for fewer ... race days per year.” So the SARP program was not working.

I acknowledged during our leadership, though, that the replacement for the SARP program was inadequate. We made the changes when I came into this office, and now there is a path to sustainability. The $500 million that we are putting in place because of the recommendations of John Snobelen, John Wilkinson and Elmer Buchanan will allow the horse racing industry to be sustainable into the future.

Transportation infrastructure

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Your minister stated that there will be no additional cost to the government as a result of the girder replacement on the $1.4-billion Herb Gray Parkway. Your government correspondence says there may, in fact, be substantial costs billed to the government by the project company as a result of the delays in construction.

Can the Premier tell us, how much is your government’s failure to act on public safety going to cost Ontarians?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the Minister of Transportation will want to speak to the details, but what we need to make clear is that the costs for replacing the girders are being borne by the company. They are not being borne by the taxpayers of Ontario. That is because of the agreement tha