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

March 4, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Mar-04 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 4 March 2009 Mercredi 4 mars 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONOR LEAVE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ POUR DON D'ORGANE)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

MANUFACTURING JOBS

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

SMALL BUSINESS

HOME CARE

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

HEALTH CARE

TOURISM

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S GRANDCHILD

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

PARENTS REACHING OUT

ONTARIO BUDGET

SKILLS TRAINING

LA COMMUNAUTÉ D'ORLÉANS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

TOWNSHIP OF WOOLWICH

STEEL INDUSTRY

STEEL INDUSTRY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

TOBACCO DAMAGES

AND HEALTH CARE COSTS

RECOVERY ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LE RECOUVREMENT

DU MONTANT DES DOMMAGES

ET DU COÛT DES SOINS DE SANTÉ

IMPUTABLES AU TABAC

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

TOBACCO-RELATED

HEATH CARE COSTS /

COÛTS DES SOINS

DE SANTÉ RELIÉS AU TABAC

TOBACCO-RELATED

HEALTH CARE COSTS

TOBACCO-RELATED

HEALTH CARE COSTS

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

PETITIONS

IDENTITY THEFT

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

PROTECTION OF MINORS

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

INTERPROVINCIAL BRIDGE

MULTIPLE MYELOMA

CHILD CUSTODY

DIABETES TREATMENT

LUPUS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POVERTY REDUCTION ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DE LA PAUVRETÉ

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT

(ORGAN DONOR LEAVE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES NORMES D'EMPLOI

(CONGÉ POUR DON D'ORGANE)

Mr. Fonseca moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of organ donor leave / Projet de loi 154, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d'emploi en ce qui concerne le congé pour don d'organe.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing the time with my parliamentary assistant, the member from Brampton West.

Today we begin second reading of Bill 154, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Organ Donor Leave), 2009. I would like to begin my comments by reiterating what is in this bill and why we are acting.

Our government has already taken some steps toward making the province a national leader in enhancing and saving lives through organ donation for transplantation. These steps are contained in our announcement made in 2007, setting out $4 million to implement an organ donor strategy. This strategy includes the establishment of the program for reimbursing expenses of living organ donors. This is a fund that will reimburse living organ donors for reasonable, out-of-pocket types of expenses and lost income associated with their organ donation. The purpose of the fund is to remove potential financial barriers to living organ donations.

Reimbursing organ donors and removing financial barriers was one of the recommendations made by the citizens' panel established by the Ministry of Health in 2006. The panel also recommended job-protected leave for donors.

Yesterday, we responded by introducing Bill 154. With this bill, we are taking another step that supports our commitment to encourage organ donations in Ontario. If passed, this bill may help increase life-saving transplants and reduce wait times for patients on the organ transplant waiting list. It would also assist in reducing health care costs. But there's another benefit, a benefit on which we can't place a cost. By providing unpaid, job-protected leave for organ donors, we may be helping increase the number who donate an organ. This will help save lives.

Providing an organ donation which would save the life of a husband, wife, son, daughter or other relative is a precious gift. Organ donors are caring and compassionate people. Job-protected leave for living organ donors would provide support for those compassionate Ontarians who are giving the gift of life to others.

Why are we introducing job-protected leave for organ donors at this time? Living organ donors play an important role in organ donation. They make up approximately 30% of total transplants. The job-protected leave we are proposing in Bill 154 may help increase the number of organ donors by providing support to those donors.

We have not come to this decision without due consultation and reflection. As I mentioned earlier, in November 2006, the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care commissioned a Citizens Panel on Increasing Organ Donations. The purpose of this panel was to survey the public on their views about organ donation and to find ways to improve and increase organ donations in Ontario. The panel released its recommendations in March 2007. Their recommendations focused on such things as improving awareness of the importance of organ donations and removing barriers to donations.

One of those recommendations fell under the mandate of the Ministry of Labour. In response to the panel's recommendation, we're bringing forth this legislation.

In August 2007, as a result of the recommendations made by the citizens' panel, Premier McGuinty announced up to $4 million to implement an organ donation strategy. At that time, we stated that in order to encourage more living donations through increased supports, the government would, among other initiatives, consult with employer and labour groups on providing job security for living donors with legislative protection. The organ donor leave we are proposing is consistent with the province's organ donation strategy. It furthers the objectives of the strategy and reinforces the government's commitment to improving rates of organ donation in the province.

As I have noted, this proposed legislation has not come out of the clear blue sky; it has come about because the citizens of this province have said, "This is what we need," and this is what we need.

Just a personal story: I have a relative who is currently undergoing dialysis and is a candidate for a kidney transplant. He is actually one of the lucky ones. He has someone who is a match for donation and is willing to provide a kidney.

Transplantation is a serious consideration for both the donor and the recipient. There are risks for both people. It's not something that's done lightly. I've not brought forward this legislation for the consideration of the House without understanding the nature and the impact of what we are doing. This is a serious matter. Although the number of employees and employers who are affected by this initiative is expected to be relatively small, it is no small matter for the individuals affected. The proposed leave would apply to employees who are donating all or part of the following organs: kidney, liver, pancreas, small bowel or lung.

Kidney and liver transplants are the most common types of living organ donation. Members of this House understand the importance of this legislation, but some have suggested that the bill is unnecessary as most employers would provide consent in any case. While we would hope that is so, donors want a guarantee, and this will provide their guarantee. It removes a potential barrier, particularly in this current unstable economic time. It is just one part of an overall initiative to increase organ donations. It provides the unpaid, job-protected leave that people say they need.

It is one less thing for organ donors to have to concern themselves with. It re-enforces the fund that was established last April by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care to reimburse donors for reasonable expenses and lost wages. That fund and the legislation before you would complement each other by helping to get rid of financial barriers to organ donations.

We have before us a bill that is part of a whole strategy. The people of Ontario and the government are working in partnership to reduce the barriers to organ donation and increase the number of donors. I ask the members of the House to join me and carry out the wishes of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further debate: the member from Brampton West.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: I rise today to speak in support of Bill 154, the Employment Standards Amendment Act (Organ Donor Leave) 2009.

Yes, this is an important bill. It is important only to the few people who will ever be asked to donate an organ. The number of employees and employers who would be affected by this proposed initiative is expected to be small–in the past fiscal year, only 260 transplants were done with donations from living donors—but when it is important, it is very important.

In Ontario, there are approximately 1,700 people on organ transplant waiting lists, and every three days, someone on this waiting list dies. We want to help increase the number of organ donations; we want to increase the number from living donors. We want to increase organ donations across the board. This bill would help support that goal by providing unpaid, job-protected leave for people who donate an organ. By providing this leave, we would help to remove one of the potential barriers to organ donation.

In 2007, our Premier announced Ontario's organ donation strategy. This included a program for reimbursing expenses of living organ donors. The expenses covered by this program include certain travel, parking and transit, meals, accommodation, meal allowance, and a subsidy for loss of income after surgery.

These are very difficult economic times for working people. By providing these expenses, along with job-protected leave, we hope to make more organ donations possible. We also know that these are difficult times for employers. As we have noted, we expect that the number of employees who take this leave will be small, and so the number of employers affected will also be very small.

We held consultations. Employers who responded to the consultations supported this proposed leave and made suggestions about what the specific elements of the leave should be, such as the need for reasonable notice prior to leave. They also asked that we require a medical certificate for leave. This is something we've done. They asked that leave be unpaid. This is something we have also done. We listened to their concerns; we listened to their suggestions. We understand the concerns of business.

We feel we have found the right balance, which will have a small impact on business but a large impact on people's lives. This is why I urge my friends and colleagues in the House to support Bill 154.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Comments and questions?

Mr. Norm Miller: We just received Bill 154,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of organ donor leave, yesterday, but on the surface it certainly looks like something we would be supporting. I think that anything we can do to encourage people to get involved in organ donation in this province is a positive step.

I know there have been a number of members who have had private members' bills in the past that have taken different approaches to trying to encourage greater awareness of organ donation. I know that Peter Kormos, the member from Welland, had a private member's bill with one approach and as well, Frank Klees, the member from Newmarket—Aurora, had a private member's bill that, as I recall, required you to make a decision when you applied for a health card or for a driver's licence. You had to choose either yes, no, or undecided, but you had to decide something.

That way everyone who was applying for a health card, which would be most of the people in the province, or a driver's licence, would at least be aware and have to think for a moment about organ donation.

Recently—just last week, of course—we had the grand chief of Nishnawbe Aski Nation here at Queen's Park doing a press conference: Grand Chief Stan Beardy, who's taking a leadership role in producing a brochure and educating the Nishnawbe Aski Nation's people on the importance of organ donation. It's great to see Grand Chief Beardy taking that leadership role.

I certainly think education and awareness are important. This will be a small step to making it easier for someone to leave their place of work and not be penalized, and know they have a job to come back to after they've made an organ donation. Certainly we should commend anyone who makes that decision to actually donate an organ and realize they're giving another person a second chance at life.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments?

Mr. Peter Kormos: I will be doing my lead on this; the government is indulging me.

I can use an hour standing on my head on the issue of organ donation. I've got some things to say about that. We've been passionate about the need to eliminate the waiting lists, we in the New Democratic Party, with some radical reform of the whole organ donor regime. We've got to be radical. We've got to be bold, because lives are at stake. People are dying every day on waiting lists while good organs are being burned and buried.

We're going to vote for this bill; of course we are—not that the bill will change the reality much, because I've asked the government to come up with a single worker who has been fired, for instance, because they took some time off to be a living donor. The government may well come up with one before we're finished with this. So the bill is inoffensive, but it's offensive in that it doesn't really meaningfully increase access to organs for people on waiting lists, including little kids.

Andrea Horwath is going to be speaking to this in short order. As I say, the government's indulging me. I go to a House leaders' meeting at 9:45 and the government is indulging me by letting me, as we say here, stand down my lead. But I look forward to the chance to speak to this bill because we've got to, once again, radically engage the public to encourage them to support and, in fact, to demand real reform in organ donation.

All of the money that's been spent, all of the advertising, Don Cherry notwithstanding, hasn't radically or dramatically increased the number of organ donor cards being signed, yet we know that the vast majority of Ontarians want their organs to be used. Ontarians, Canadians, are people of goodwill. They expect them to be used. Well, if they expect them to be used, why do we have a presumed denial regime rather than a presumed consent?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I'm very pleased to rise to enter the debate on Bill 154. I stand in this House and let the members know that I will be supporting this bill.

One of the stories that I like to tell from when I was elected in 2003 has certainly given me a whole new insight into how organ transplants can affect families on an individual basis. If the members will remember, we had a quilt in the House. Those who had donated their organs signed the quilt on behalf of the family member. One of the stories was from my riding of Bruce county. There was a woman who was here that day, and the organ was donated on behalf of her son. She had also learned about organ transplants because her nephew had passed away a year before in a car accident, as had her son.

She then told the story about the decision to donate her son's organs and the work that she did with her sister for her son. I can tell you that the recipients of the organs—when we heard the difference that it made in the young children's lives, we, as members of the Legislature, must do what we can to ensure that the process continues to move forward. Bill 154 is another step moving in that direction, to allow organs to move from those who have met an untimely death so that the recipients are available and ready. We need to continue to work diligently on that.

I will be speaking at length, so I look forward to that opportunity.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Who can argue with what's being presented here today? But again, I think it's one of those bills that we're really missing the message on, and that is to put something into this bill that affects shortening the list. I don't think it's clear in this bill whether or not that's going to happen.

I know there will be job-protected leave for those people—"generous" is even a trite word for what is happening here—who really give of themselves in the fullest sense to help another fellow human being. That is admirable, but I really don't believe that this protected leave of absence is going to be the straw that broke the camel's back when somebody decides that they want to be an organ donor. I really don't believe that's going to do it. Whether or not this has any effect on that 1,700-person waiting list is very doubtful.

The minister says that the Ontario government is committed to boosting organ donations. I don't see anything in this bill that makes that happen. So again, it's one of those bills where I think there's—I don't know. I guess I would call it more symbolism than substance. That's what's happening here. It's an opportunity lost. It's a good idea. It's a great idea. But what are we really going to get from it?

I would be happy if, as this bill moves forward, there are amendments put forward that strengthen this bill and really make a difference to that 1,700 waiting list.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): We'll go back to the member for Brampton West, who will finish his comments and wrap-up.

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Organ donation is never an easy issue for anyone—the recipient or the donor. Bill 154 is just one step further that we're taking to keep the organ donation subject on the radar. As I stated before, the impact on business will be very small.

As well, once in every three days a person dies because of a lack of organ donation, and one death is way too many. I know the list is huge. We have 1,700 people on the waiting list, and our government, our minister, is committed to bringing those numbers down.

In my community, whenever I go to the local temple, I remind people—the topic of organ donation is not an easy one for either side—to sign their organ donation cards, just to create further awareness of the importance of donating. With this bill, we are making the process of organ donation easier on those people who might be affected through a possible loss of job and income. Again, it's such a wonderful step to help those in need of an organ donation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further debate? The honourable member for Sarnia—

Mr. Robert Bailey: Lambton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a pleasure to see you in the chair this morning. I know you will do an admirable job there.

I would like to rise and comment on Bill 154. As a number of members have already said, it's an admirable reach to try to remove this waiting list for recipients who are on the list and donors who hopefully will step forward and take advantage of the unpaid leave. If they did have concerns about their job being there when they would return, those fears would now be alleviated to some extent.

As the member for Burlington said, it could be a missed opportunity to put maybe more emphasis on making that list smaller, so let's look forward, when we do go to committee, to attempting to make the bill better, to putting improvements in it and to making other communication efforts, as well, available that will move people off that list.

We should have moved this bill sooner, like last Christmas. Around Christmas, we were looking for more bills, work to do. We could have introduced it then and maybe have had it debated long before now if there was a real issue about this.

I think it's one of these feel-good bills. Like the member for Welland said, no one is going to vote against it at the end of the day. It's something we all agree with; it's something that needs to be done and should have been done a long time ago.

I understand that a member of our caucus, Mr. Klees, from Newmarket—Aurora, introduced a bill that would have necessitated, when you enrol for your licence or medical card, that you would have had to, at that time, made a declaration whether you want to be involved in an organ donor program. I understand that the member from Welland, as well, had issues around that.

Just to go over a little bit of the bill, the people who would be taking

part in this would be eligible for unemployment insurance while they're on there for up to 13 weeks in the initial phase. I understand from my perusal of the bill that if there were further complications, they could extend that a further 13 weeks, with medical documentation from a doctor, for a total of 26 weeks.

From my reading of the bill, from what I can understand, an employer has to have at least 50 or more employees before they would be eligible. That's something I need to look into further. So maybe not everybody in the province of Ontario would be eligible for this as an organ donor. That's something that I'll have to work on with the minister and his PA to also determine. Maybe that is something we can iron out at committee.

The new section, as I understand it, applies to certain organs—kidney, liver, lung, pancreas and small bowel donations—and other organs and tissues that may be added by regulation at a later time.

At the present time, statistics show that there are approximately 1,700 people on the organ donor transplant list at any one time. This is certainly a list that we should try to reduce—reduce that wait time. Those family members who have members on that list or who are waiting for those organ donors and those organs—it's all about life itself, so anything we can do as a Legislature, as a province or as individuals to help reduce that list, I think, is very important.

I understand that, over time, living donors have become a more important part of these organ donations. They now comprise somewhere near 30% of the total transplants which are done in Ontario. Hopefully, with a bill like this and with improvements made to it through amendments at committee, we can bring that list up from 30% to maybe 50% or more. I think that would be an admirable reach.

Statistics show that in 2007-08, out of 863 transplants that were completed, 260 or more, which would be about 30% of these, came from living donors. When employers were consulted—and I'm glad to see that the minister did do that—they did have some concerns, and those that they expressed to us were that they needed to have a reasonable amount of notice for this leave in advance, they wanted to have medical documentation to determine the length of leave, and, at the end of the day, the leave should be unpaid.

The government, when they were drafting the bill, appears to have listened, and a lot of those concerns that were put forward by the business community appear to, at this time, have been included in this bill. Like I say, when we go to committee and have opportunities for people from the business community and the organ donor transplant list to have input as well, we'll see if there can be improvements made.

The panel that was appointed in 2006 made numerous proposals to increase organ donations, including that the government enact legislation such as this. I say again: our party commends the minister for moving ahead with this bill. I think it should have been done a long time ago. Maybe it could have incorporated some of the ideas from Mr. Klees from Newmarket—Aurora and Mr. Kormos from Welland. He had ideas as well. Hopefully, at the end of the day, all of these can be incorporated to improve the bill. As the member for Burlington said, it's probably a missed opportunity to remove more people from the list. That, at the end of the day, is the ultimate goal.

I know the Minister of Health as well wants to see as many people off that list so that people can make a contribution to society and take the worry and the strain off families that are concerned about loved ones who are either on the list or going to make a donation of an organ themselves, that they have some employment to return to at that time. It's a big decision to be a donor in the first place, let alone if you had to worry about your job being there these days, with the state of the economy being what it is. It doesn't look like that's going to change any time soon either. Hopefully, as we move forward, there would be opportunities to improve this.

I did some checking on this and I did some research with the minister's office, and donors are eligible. I had questions of this asked of me in caucus. Yes, in fact, donors are eligible for employment insurance and recourse under the fund set up through the Ministry of Health in April 2008. The proposed job-protected leave would be unpaid and an employer would have no obligation under the proposed leave to pay any remuneration to the employee while he or she is on this leave to donate an organ.

However, there could be obligations under certain collective agreements or employment contracts to provide some compensation during the leave of absence, and those would be individual cases governed by collective agreements or contracted services. The staff at Human Resources and Skills Development Canada have confirmed to us that organ donors may also qualify for sick benefits if they are unable to return to work following organ donation surgery, assuming they meet certain qualifying concerns.

As in any bill, the devil is in the details. In summing up, the intent of the bill is good. To me, it's another bill that would be very difficult for anyone to make an argument against. I certainly wouldn't be one who would do it, and I'm sure no one in any of the other caucuses would either.

At the end of the day, the main issue is reducing that list. Let's get it from 30% to maybe 50% or 60%. We can highlight issues like this through debate in the House, in committee and newsletters so that people in Ontario understand what we're doing here to try and reduce these wait lists and hopefully bring a better quality of life to those recipients who are on these lists, sometimes languishing for years. I would encourage everyone to support the bill and try to make improvements at committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Questions and comments?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to say a few words on the speech by the member for Sarnia—Lambton. I will be making remarks on this bill myself in very short order.

I think he's correct in his comments that the bill is a helpful bill. It's a bill that I think nobody in this chamber would be opposed to. However, I do believe it's pretty clear that the bill really won't do much at all in terms of reducing the waiting lists for organ donations, which continue to be quite high in this province. I say that because, of course, the bill does nothing to change the framework, the regime, in which organ donation takes place in the province of Ontario.

It simply provides opportunity to ensure that there's no threat of job loss, no threat that someone who decides to be an organ donor will then have some kind of employment-related repercussion. Certainly, that's something that we would want to make sure of, that if someone is doing the right thing by donating an organ and has to take time off work, their work is there for them.

I don't believe the bill speaks to issues of financially helping that person who is making the organ donation, in terms of being able to make sure that that person is able to take the dozen or so weeks that are necessary to go through the surgery and the recovery stage, and ensure that their income is maintained. That would be something that I think would be helpful as well. Unfortunately, I don't believe that that is in the bill.

However, that's one really small piece of the puzzle. Organ donations from live donors are what's covered off in this bill specifically around their employment. A heck of a lot more needs to change, and later on we'll be hearing from the critic from the New Democratic Party, Peter Kormos, who has spoken passionately and often about the need to completely change our system of organ donation. I'll be making remarks in that regard as well.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comment?

Mr. Jim Brownell: It's a pleasure to get up this morning and have some time to speak on this bill. I think it's a very important one, and I commend the Minister of Labour for doing what he did this morning in presenting this.

As I speak, I have a constituent from my riding over at Toronto General; two weeks ago, she took

part in a double lung transplant. She's recovering nicely, and certainly this would fit right into what she is going through, a young gal who's certainly got a great outlook on life and, through cystic fibrosis, just needed that new opportunity in life. Someone in this province gave her that new lease on life. I was over to visit her just last week and was very, very excited about what this is going to do for her. In speaking in the House this morning, I would speak for my friend from Cornwall, who would say that this is the right thing to do, that this bill will support the goal of providing unpaid, job-protected leave for people who donate an organ.

In that regard, it was through the death of an individual, but when you have individuals putting their life on hold, their businesses on hold, their employment opportunities on hold to donate a kidney, to donate an organ, we as a province should have things in place that would help them. I think this bill is going to go a long way in that regard. I commend the minister for that and look to the day that this will receive passage through this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: It's my pleasure this morning to comment on the speech of the member for Sarnia—Lambton. In effect, this bill guarantees the jobs of persons who provide donor organs, and I think that is a good aim. It follows in the path we have already under the Employment Standards Act: guaranteed jobs of individuals who take a leave of absence for pregnancy.

I had the pleasure of introducing in this House a bill that would protect and guarantee the jobs of individuals who served with our armed forces and who served overseas. My bill only got to first reading. The government did, however, adopt it, and it has passed. So we presently have an Employment Standards Act in which the jobs of individuals bearing children are protected, and now those of soldiers serving in the armed forces overseas.

However, in this particular case, I do not believe this bill will satisfy the needs of those individuals seeking organs. This is a matter of life and death, and we already have presented in this House two excellent bills: one by my colleague the member from Newmarket—Aurora and the other by Peter Kormos, the member for Welland. Both of those bills, I do believe, would result in a sizable difference for people seeking organs. This bill is only a very small step. It's not a strike; it's in fact a ball that misses the mark.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comment?

I'll go back to the member for Sarnia—Lambton.

Mr. Robert Bailey: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You're doing an admirable job this morning.

I'd like to thank the members from Hamilton Centre and from Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry and also my colleague from Cambridge for their kind remarks this morning on the subject we are debating, Bill 154; with all these different numbers, it's hard to keep track of them.

To reiterate all the points they made, it's important that we move forward with this bill; make amendments when we get it to committee, where we can improve it; and support the organ donation program throughout Ontario and do everything we can to encourage more people to take

part in organ donations to try to reduce that so-called 1,700 organ donor waiting list. I know that the goal would be to get it to zero. That's probably not possible overnight, but we should do everything, whether it's incorporating, over time, issues like the member for Newmarket—Aurora had in the bill he introduced—and the member for Welland, Mr. Kormos, had ideas—to improve bills like this, to do everything we can to reduce the wait list and make these individuals productive and well again so that they can go back to their families.

They can be in the workplace, contributing to Ontario's society; they can be an important part of their family again; and their families can take that worry—one less thing—off their plate if they know their loved one will be able to return and be a valued member of society and also be able to contribute and they don't have to worry every day about their health.

Thank you again, and I look forward to further debate on the bill as we go forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further debate?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It's my pleasure to have an opportunity to speak to the bill on organ donation. The minister made his remarks earlier and spoke about his desire to bring this bill forward in a way that would increase opportunities for people to receive organ donations from live donors.

The bill, as the minister indicated, provides employees who decide to become organ donors—who take that step and do that very selfless and important act of donating an organ to another person in need—with security around employment, so that the time it is necessary to take from work to be able to prepare for, undergo and then recuperate from the surgery—all that time that is taken off work—is not going to jeopardize that person's employment. As I said in my remarks a few moments ago, New Democrats are likely going to support this bill. It's a very minuscule step, but it's certainly a step in the right direction.

I say it is a minuscule step because right now we have a system of organ donation in Ontario that simply does not meet the needs of Ontarians. We know very well that there are people who are dying in this province every day because they cannot have access—because there is no access—to organs they so desperately need to save their lives.

In fact, just today there was an

article in the Toronto Sun. The headline reads, "Teen's Desperate Plea." A 19-year-old woman is taking the search for a life-saving liver donor for her mom to Queen's Park. Her mom is very ill, suffering from a disease that will shut down her liver. Unfortunately, there is a blood type issue—the blood type of the mother is rather rare—and none of the other family members are in a position to donate a portion of their liver to help this woman survive.

We know that there are some 1,700 people on waiting lists for organ donation in the province of Ontario—1,700 people. Some of those people are children—some of those people are very small children—who have their whole lives ahead of them or face certain death if those organs are not found in time to save their lives.

What happens right now in Ontario? What happens is that through the driver's licensing system, we are able to sign an organ donor card, and we keep that card with us. If some tragedy were to occur where, by accidental or natural causes, we die, we pass, then the process begins where family is consulted. Even if your donor card says that you want to completely donate everything to medical science, to organ donation—everything—there's still a consultation process that goes on with family members.

First of all, we know that few people actually sign their donor card, even though Ontarians are generally very generous people by nature and very supportive of the idea of the commitment to doing things like donating organs after death. Yet people for one reason or another don't take the time; they don't take that card when they get their licence renewal and fill that card out. In their minds they think, "Oh sure, once I pass away, who cares what happens to my organs?

Of course I would want my organs to go to a young person, or anybody, for that matter, who's in need, who would survive an otherwise certain death if it wasn't for these organs." I feel that way and I know that many, many Ontarians feel that way. It's very clear. And yet, for whatever reason—because of the process, in fact, not for whatever reason—people just don't bother to make that happen. They don't bother to fill out their card, or when they do, there's sometimes disagreement with family members because they haven't taken the extra step.

The extra step is actually talking to your family members about your wishes—very difficult conversations to have, of course, conversations about, "When I die, here's what I want to happen with my body; here's what I want to happen with my organs." It's not something that you tend to talk about on a regular basis. But I can tell you that many Ontarians are comfortable with that. They're okay with it. They think that it's the right thing to do.

After a person dies, the process then goes into—if there is a donation that's been indicated on the donor card and, of course, the family agrees, then a lot of things can happen. There are specific donations that can occur that are not even noticeable. So some family members or some people might think, "If I donate my organs, I am not going to be in a position or my family is not going to be in a position to have the traditional funeral" that some families have, that some cultures have. That's an open-casket viewing, an opportunity for people to come and celebrate the life and mourn the death of the loved one.

But in fact, that's not the case. There are many kinds of donations that can occur that still provide for the open-casket type of funeral: bones, tendons, veins, heart valves, skin, corneas, eye tissue—all of these things can be very carefully removed so that there is no impact whatsoever in terms of the opportunity for a traditional funeral with an open-casket viewing.

If there's a situation where people have not spoken, unfortunately, to their loved ones, even these kinds of harvesting, if you want to call it that, even these kinds of opportunities to achieve those donations are lost, because it is up to the family, ultimately. It can be overridden, even if someone has signed their donor card.

As I was saying earlier, there are about 1,700 people in Ontario waiting for organs. Apparently, in 2008 some 549 transplants actually took place. In 2004, 242 patients died waiting for life-saving transplants in Canada. Over 120 of those were in Ontario alone. There have never been longer wait times and more people waiting for a transplant, and there have never been more deaths while people are waiting. If that doesn't signal to this government, if that doesn't signal to every one of us in this place that we have to significantly overhaul our system of organ donation, then I don't know what does.

It's very obvious and apparent. It's obvious and apparent by the statistics. It's obvious and apparent by the

article in today's Toronto Sun about the young woman who's here at Queen's Park today to try to bring attention to the issue of her mother's need for a liver.

New Democrats have brought forward what we think is a plausible solution. I say "a plausible solution" because it is a solution, a system, a regime that already exists in a number of other jurisdictions that have progressed so much further than we have here in Ontario in terms of organ donation, in terms of the ability of people to get the organs that they need.

It's called the system of presumed consent. My colleague from Welland, Mr. Kormos, has been an extremely vocal advocate of this type of model. He has brought this issue to the table time after time after time. When New Democrats say that of course we'll support this bill, we do so knowing that it is extremely minor, minor to the extreme, in terms of getting at the crux of the issue, the core issue. The core issue is that our system simply does not provide enough organs to save the lives of people in Ontario who need those donations.

Presumed consent does something a little different. Instead of relying on the people who would normally think it's okay, who would support it and believe they would be doing a good thing and a good deed, and having all those people be proactive in terms of signing a card and then going through the process of having that card legitimized, more or less, by surviving family members, have people sign a card who adamantly do not want to have their organs donated.

This is the solution to the problem we have in Ontario right now with lack of organ donation. Many people think it's the right thing to do. Many people not only support the concept, but believe they should be part of that process, of that opportunity to help people survive in the case of a needed organ donation.

Very few, some 2%, adamantly do not want to have their bodies harvested for organs after death. Only 2% have that adamant sense that they do not want that to happen. I respect that; I think everybody respects that. So then why isn't it that the people who are most motivated, those who don't want, for any reason, their organs to be harvested, who don't want to donate after death—why isn't it that we just ask that small percentage of people to sign the card, to be registered as someone who doesn't want to have their organs donated? It makes so much more sense.

Why try to take the opposite position, where you're trying to get 98% of people to sign a card? It's silly. It's opposite of what would be a very functional, simple and direct way of dealing with the problem. The result would be enormous, in terms of the numbers of organs that would be available to save lives of people in Ontario.

If we took the 2%—maybe it's 5%; who knows? But take the small number of people who do not wish to have their organs donated and get those people on a registry, very clearly indicating that they do not want to have their organs donated. That's fair; fair is fair.

But instead, we do it the opposite way. We do it in a way that people have to take that card and sign it, and then the follow-up happens, when the family members have the opportunity to override the decision. It's no wonder that we have 1,700 people on a waiting list in this province. It's no wonder that we have children dying because of lack of access to organs.

The presumed consent model is one that works in many other jurisdictions. It works in places where it's been instituted. I'm going to list a number of jurisdictions around the world that have already instituted organ donation on a presumed consent model: Austria, Spain, Portugal, Italy, Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Finland, Sweden, Switzerland, Latvia, Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Slovenia, Poland, Greece and Singapore. The opt-out rate in these nations is about 2%. I can't imagine it would be any different in a place like Ontario.

Again, tracking that 2% is so much easier, so much more straightforward, than tracking the 98% who do wish to participate in the organ donation process.

The entire process of having a shift from what we have now, which is asking people to sign the card, versus the presumed consent model, is one that promotes the whole idea that as human beings we really do want to help each other, we really do want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help our fellow person. It's kind of like a sense of value: a value of unselfishness, a value of really doing whatever we can for folks who are in desperate need. In the case of organ donation, of course, you don't need those organs anymore. You've died.

So the idea that you could save someone else's life, that you could actually make such a difference, not only in that individual's life, but the families of those individuals—their whole circle of acquaintances and family members and co-workers could be so positively affected by your selfless act, upon death, of making sure that your organs can be utilized by someone else. It's an amazing act of unselfishness, it's an amazing act of camaraderie and of humanity, and I believe that most Ontarians believe that it's the right thing to do and have no problem with the concept.

My colleague Mr. Kormos, in the way that he so eloquently does, made quite a funny comment yesterday in the media about how when he dies, you'll find a tattoo on his stomach that says, "Open here and retrieve organs at will," or something of that nature. It's kind of funny, and it puts a bit of lightness in the conversation. Because do you know what? It's a tough conversation to have, as I mentioned earlier.

What we know for sure is that most people feel that way, not only from the perspective of knowing that once the lights are out, the lights are out—once you're no longer alive, you have no use for your physical being. Your physical body means nothing. It's irrelevant to you. Your whole life has ended. There's nothing left.

There are all kinds of issues around spirituality and different religious beliefs around what happens to a person after death, but I believe all of those really have nothing to do with the physical body. The physical body is the piece that would help so many other people, and it seems to me that most major religions are supportive of the concept of organ donation.

For some, it's a squeamish topic, or some simply don't like having the conversation, or they don't want to have that happen to them once they pass away. That's fine. As a society, we can respect that. But if we go to a situation, a model, a framework, that shifts the way that the public thinks about this, to say, "If you don't want to, that's fine. We respect that.

Here's where you register to make sure that your organs are not taken because you don't want them to be," and then the rest of us, everybody else, are in a situation where when we die our organs automatically are put into the system to help those 1,700 people, to help those children, to help those parents, to help those people who need an organ—it seems to me that that would be the best way to do it.

It seems to me that the bills that have been brought forward by New Democrats like Peter Kormos are ones that specifically set out that not only would there be automatic presumed consent but there would be no opportunity for family members to override. So then the onus becomes part of the individual's responsibility if they don't want to be part of the program, but the program itself is universal in terms of ensuring that every Ontarian is a potential organ donor.

There are a number of other things that need to happen to make this change, to make this shift. It seems fairly radical in our minds, I know, and there's always quite a bit of controversy when this issue arises and when it's debated and discussed in the public realm, and that's a good thing because it's through that conversation, it's through that dialogue, it's through that debate that people's fears are assuaged, that people's squeamishness is reduced.

A big part of what needs to happen in the context of moving forward in making our organ donation system one that works is to have the conversation more often, so I commend the minister in bringing this bill forward because once again it gives us an opportunity to debate the issues and have the conversation with the Ontario public about organ donation.

It also is incumbent upon us here, and others throughout the educational system, throughout the medical system, to bring forward these issues and talk to folks about them in their own communities and in their own contexts.

It's important that we broaden the understanding, the awareness and the education around organ donation, not only from the perspective of what's out there in other jurisdictions, as I've already laid out in my remarks earlier, but also of what is currently happening within our system and how many people are in fact waiting and how many people are dying while they're waiting, how unacceptable that is, and how the system that we currently have is not one that leads to the kinds of organ donation volumes that we need and can easily get if we turn it around to a presumed consent instead of presumed denial, because that is what we have now.

Right now we have presumed denial. We presume that people do not want their organs used after death unless they sign the card. All we're saying is: Let's switch that around to presumed consent so that we can presume that if a person dies, unless they have registered and unless they have indicated very clearly that they do not want to have their organs donated, then in fact they become a life-saver. Every Ontarian upon death can become a life-saver; they can literally save someone's life.

I believe that those are the values of Ontario and every Ontarian has that value and would love to be able to help someone else out. Let's just make the system work so that it's easy to do that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Comments or questions?

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the intervention of my friend from Hamilton East.

This is an issue that is important to all Ontarians. We know that approximately 1,700 people in this province are on organ transplant waiting lists. Every three days, someone in Ontario on the waiting list dies. We want to help increase the number of organ donations. In the last fiscal year, only 260 transplants required a donation from living donors. This bill will help support that goal by providing unpaid, job-protected leave for people who donate an organ. By providing this leave, we will help to remove one of the potential barriers to organ donation.

Last year, the Premier of Ontario, Mr. McGuinty, announced Ontario's organ donation strategy. This included a program for reimbursing the expenses of living organ donors. The expenses covered by the program include travel, parking and transit, meals, accommodation, meal allowance, and a subsidy for lost income after surgery for living donors. By providing these expenses, along with job-protected leave, we hope to make organ donations possible. The government feels that it has found the right balance which will have a very small impact on our business community, which is one of the concerns, but will have a very large impact on the lives of those people who need the donation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments? The member from Halton.

Applause.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I appreciate the applause.

A few comments that the member made, that this bill is an absolutely minimal bill: It is about the least that you can do and still do something. It's too bad that the government had an opportunity, particularly during these very difficult economic times, to do something that was worthwhile and could make a large difference and they've chosen to take this path which will make the minimal amount of difference a bill could make, in my opinion. I agree with the speaker on this bill and her comments that it's too bad this opportunity is one that is going to be missed for a lot of people.

I don't know if I'd go as far as the member would—as far as the negative billing, I call it—where you have to fill out the form not to donate your organs. I'm not sure I'd want to go that far with the organ donations, but in some aspects, for instance eye tissue, you might want to go that far. When you're taking bodily organs, there are some people who feel very strongly about that. Personally, my card is filled out. When I go, you can help yourself. You can have whatever you want. But it makes—

Interjection.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Yes, just make sure I'm not breathing any more. But after that, help yourself.

I think that's an individual decision people have to make, but this bill could be strengthened to make it a lot more palatable to the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I just want to begin briefly by offering a few thank yous in terms of those responsible for bringing us forward to the point we're at today. It's interesting that we have two Ministers of Health in the room with us today, one former and one current. I know the former Minister of Health, George Smitherman, had a lot to do with getting us to the point we're at today, and our current minister, David Caplan, as well has been involved in helping to carry this file forward. So I do want to make sure that we remember them and thank them very much for the work they've done.

The member opposite has expressed this legislation, as have others, in terms of it being minimalist in its approach. I think it's important that we remind people who are interested in this issue and who are paying attention to this debate as we move forward that the recommendation brought forward today in Bill 154 is a recommendation that came from the citizens panel.

This was a panel that was struck one or two years ago that drafted a series of recommendations, one of which was that we move forward in the way we are moving forward here today: to provide job-protected, unpaid leave for live organ donors in the province of Ontario. So while we express this as maybe not having gone far enough, I think it's important that we remind people in the province that this is one of the recommendations that came out of the citizens' panel.

I also want to mention and thank, in my riding of Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Grand Chief Stan Beardy. As some of you have heard in this Legislature, very recently the Grand Chief came forward with his own initiative around raising the issue of organ donation awareness within his communities. I come from northern Ontario, and I think many of you know that the health outcomes in northern Ontario are not as good as they should be. They're not as good as the rest of the province of Ontario, and even more so when it comes to our First Nations population in the province of Ontario.

The initiative of Grand Chief Beardy will take us a couple of steps forward in terms of trying to raise the profile of this issue.

I'm pleased to have had the opportunity to speak for a couple of minutes and look forward to the support of the opposition parties on Bill 154.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I'm pleased to comment on the remarks made by the member for Hamilton Centre.

I think we all agree that organ donation is certainly something that people should consider. It's distressing when you have a family member who is on that waiting list. In my case, we did have a family member who waited for a very long time. When people are suffering life-threatening illnesses as it is, then to know they are a step away from the prospect of a successful transplant, certainly adds a great deal of stress for those family members and, obviously, for the individual.

As time has passed and medicine has advanced, certainly in my lifetime, the whole notion of transplants has evolved. So I think that no one is going to dispute the intent of this bill, in providing a mechanism that would encourage people to feel that they could make this kind of potentially life-saving contribution.

I would, however, be remiss if I didn't also suggest that I think that it opens up the issues around health care and the importance of providing equity. As a member representing a high-growth area, we don't see the dollars coming in an equitable way and certainly would like to see that addressed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Wrap-up: the honourable member from Hamilton Centre.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It seems to me—and I might be able to get some advice from the Clerk or the Hansard table—that I may have forgotten to ask for unanimous consent to stand down the lead of our critic at the beginning of my remarks. So I'm asking if the House would please indulge me and allow me to ask for unanimous consent, at this point, to stand down the lead of our critic.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Agreed? Agreed.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

I want to thank the members for Algoma—Manitoulin, Halton, Thunder Bay—Atikokan and York—Simcoe for their remarks.

It seems to me that there is a sense of commonality around the chamber, in that people really do believe that we need to do something to jump-start the number of organ donations that we see happening in the province of Ontario. People are saying, pretty much unanimously, "Yes, this bill is supportable."

The government thinks that it has gone far enough with this bill. Of course, on this side of the House, we don't think that the government has gone far enough.

Even if you're looking at the bill itself on its merits, in terms of trying to encourage people—for living donors—to make that step, the government is not prepared to ensure that lost wages are paid. They talk in the bill about a subsidy to help people financially. It's really hard to take a couple of weeks or a couple of months off work, in fact, and only be able to rely on some kind of subsidy.

If the government was serious about making sure that living donors had every opportunity to take that on, then it would be very clear that complete wage subsidy would be implemented—not only wages, but pension payments, pension instalments, benefits. Everything would be covered off. That would ensure people would not be left financially at risk after getting into the process of being a live donor.

Having said that, we think it's about presumed consent. We think the whole system needs to change, and I know our critic will be talking about that a little later.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): Further debate?

Mr. Bill Mauro: I'm pleased to add a few more comments in regard to Bill 154.

As others have said, we're all very proud. I think there's going to be general consensus on the bill in support, from all parties, including both opposition parties, when this particular piece of legislation is called for a vote.

Some have indicated they don't feel that the bill is going far enough. But as I mentioned in my two-minuter, as a northerner, any piece of legislation that comes before this House that has the intention or the capacity to extend health care in the province of Ontario is something that's easy to support. As northerners, as I said in my original two-minuter on this, we have had, traditionally and chronically in northwestern Ontario, and in northeastern Ontario as well, I would expect, health outcomes that are not what we all feel they need to be.

There are a variety of reasons associated with those less-than-we-would-hope-for health outcomes in northern Ontario, but nevertheless they are there. This bill will be a piece of being able to move forward in enhancing the health outcomes for people in northwestern Ontario, where I come from.

As I said earlier, First Nations communities, specifically, within northwestern Ontario have health outcomes that are even lower than those associated with the rest of the population in northwestern Ontario. I referenced in my earlier comment the initiative brought forward by Grand Chief Stan Beardy.

While these are amendments and regulatory changes under the Ministry of Labour, this is, at the end of the day, a health issue. As I recall, when we came into government in 2003, the province of Ontario was spending somewhere in the order of about $30 billion on health care. Today, in the province of Ontario, we are spending somewhere north of $40 billion on health care. In this province, we are approximating or coming close to spending close to 50% of our total provincial budget on health care.

So when people talk about this as being minimalist, about it not going far enough and about the expenses part of this legislation not being enough, well, that's fine. We can always have that discussion. It's a question of degree, I suppose, but when you place it in some context around how much we're spending on health care already in the province of Ontario, I think all of a sudden the people who are watching the debate, who are interested in the issues, start to say to themselves, "It's quite interesting, isn't it? Some $40 billion plus being spent on health care in the province of Ontario." It is no insignificant amount, obviously.

As the costs on that particular budget continues to rise, we find ourselves in the position of having to offer constraints and restraints in other areas of the provincial budget. Any time you are spending almost 50% out of your total provincial budget on one ministry, we need to be cautious in terms of the way we move forward on any of these issues and in terms of being very careful when we're spending provincial dollars.

Some of the expenses that are going to be covered—and I haven't heard any of the other members in the opposition speak about this part of it—include travel, parking and transit, meals, accommodation, meal allowance and a subsidy for loss of income after surgery. Those are some of the things that are going to be put forward. Not only is the job protection leave a part of this legislation, but there is an expenses-paid part for those who are providing the organ donation. It's extremely significant that we talk about that.

I also want to mention the citizens' panel—Speaker, I see you're calling me—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jeff Leal): It now being 10:15 of the clock, I'm required to recess the House until 10:30 a.m.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's my pleasure to introduce the Paterson family, with their son Teddy—Sylvia, John and Teddy, in the Speaker's gallery.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to introduce to this House a number of home care workers who have made their way to Queen's Park today: Claire Dahms, Theresa Clapham, Lucy Lavarinko, Joan Gray, Madeline LeBrun, Anne Fisher, Dianne Anderson and Pam Sulyma.

We also have members of SEIU with us—Service Employees International Union, Local 1—starting with their secretary-treasurer, Cathy Carroll, Caroline Demers, Sue Saville, Linda Micks, Charlie Renaud, David Thatcher and Cathy Ryan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the Minister of the Environment and page Rachel Goldstein, we'd like to welcome her mother, Liz VanDerkerkhof, and her father, David Goldstein, sitting in the east members' gallery today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. The Speaker ruled on March 25, 2008, and I'll just do part of the quote: "It is ... a matter of courtesy and respect for this institution that all important announcements be made here first...." Yet yesterday, you had an opportunity to share the details of the deficit number with members of this Legislature on numerous occasions as questions were asked, and you chose to make the announcement of the $18-billion deficit outside of this House, at the Empire Club, to an exclusive group of people who had paid for the privilege to be there. Why did you not make the announcement in this House yesterday?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We have responded to a number of questions from the opposition on the deficit. We have indicated in this House that there would be a deficit. We were never asked by the opposition what the deficit was, and then when—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The size has been the subject of tremendous speculation. We're here today to answer questions about the deficit. It is a serious matter. We're very concerned about the people who lost their jobs at Stelco. We're here to answer questions about that.

We think that this is a big enough issue that we should speak about it here in the House, we should speak about things out there, and we should be open and transparent at all times.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I go again to the Premier, who supposedly is the leader of the MPPs in this House. You have demonstrated since 2005 that you are totally, totally paralyzed in responding to the concerns that have been expressed by the official opposition and by business leaders. We have been warning you about a manufacturing crisis. We have been warning you about job losses. Yet you've said, "It's only a little bit of contraction." I say to you today, will you acknowledge that, as leader of this once-great province, you have been derelict in your responsibilities?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ontario is a great province and the people of this province deserve more from the Conservative Party of Ontario than to talk down our economy and to talk down—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Mrs. Witmer: Under our leadership, this province and the policies that we introduced allowed for the creation of one million new jobs. We've seen jobs lost day after day after day, and we heard more about job losses yesterday. I say to you again, you showed disrespect yesterday by announcing your deficit outside of this House. I ask you today, do you, Mr. Premier, have a plan to deal with this deficit, or are you going to leave this to the next government to deal with?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We certainly won't leave a $5.6-billion hidden deficit like that party did. And we certainly won't talk Ontario down like that member does. We laid out a plan last year where we invested more than $9 billion in infrastructure; that member and her party voted against it. We reduced business tax by $3.5 billion as part of a plan to stimulate the economy more than a year ago; that member and her party voted against it. The world economy is in a crisis, tens of thousands of jobs are being lost around the world, and that member is concerned about where we say this, that or the other thing.

We will build on the plan we've laid out. It will be here on March 26. We hope you will vote in favour of a plan to stimulate this economy and stop talking down this great—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Toby Barrett: To the Premier: This question is about your government's lack of leadership and planning with respect to manufacturing job losses in Ontario. US Steel, a proud international corporation, one of the best in the steel working world, recently moved to Ontario and bought Stelco. You know the bad news of yesterday. You've mismanaged the economy.

On behalf of 2,000 steelworkers who have now lost their jobs both in Hamilton and Lake Erie works and Nanticoke, as Premier of Ontario, what are you going to do about these job losses in primary industries?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question. What I want to do at the outset is extend our feelings and thoughts to those families who are affected by this in a direct way. There's always the danger that we will get caught up in numbers, whether that's GDP growth or budgetary projections.

But when it comes down to families, they are much more concerned about some sense of security, some sense of hopefulness for their future and for the future that their children are going to face. It's a difficult time for the city of Hamilton. I just got off the phone with Mayor Eisenberger, and we had a long chat about how we might better work together to improve the economic opportunities there. We've been working long and hard with the city of Hamilton over an extended period of time. I know this has been the result of a huge drop in global demand for steel.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: I'll ask you to focus on the problem. Hilton works and Lake Erie works are now closed; Lake Erie, one of the largest, most modern integrated steelworks in North America. You knew this day was coming. In fact, you supported our motion in December 2005, when we asked you for an immediate plan for the manufacturing sector in specific communities. Auto, manufacturing—they all use steel. You can't lose 270,000 manufacturing jobs based on steel and not have a plan for this gutting of primary industry. It's been nearly four years.

When will you announce your industrial strategy, a strategy for primary industry, specifically to deal with this devastation that was announced yesterday?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague will know, because I'm sure he pays attention to these kinds of things, that there's been a dramatic plunge in global demand for steel. There is a much lesser demand for steel originally used in construction, a much lesser demand for steel originally used in the production of cars and a much lesser demand for steel used in the production of appliances. That's experienced here in Canada, North America, South America, Europe, Asia and other places as well. It's affecting the global economy.

We have, as my colleague knows, put forward a number of measures to strengthen manufacturing during the past several years, none of which that party has supported, including eliminating capital taxes for Ontario manufacturers. It would have been nice to have that support back then rather than simply putting forward these kinds of concerns here today.

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: Premier, we called for your support for an all-party committee to deal with this, for all of us to work together. At this point, the steelmaking community needs answers. Thousands and thousands of lives are on hold while you apparently remain paralyzed by indecision. Locally, in my riding, auto part jobs are gone in the west; you've destroyed our tobacco economy and the 9,000 jobs that go with that; and, three years of native disputes have crushed our building industry. Your budget is already a month late.

I ask you again: What positive actions will you be taking to help people at Hilton and Lake Erie works, actions required between now and the March 26 budget, the late date for the budget? We need some answers, Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just as a bit of an aside, our March 26 budget will be earlier than each and every budget ever put forward by the past Conservative government. In fact, they put out six in May and one in June, just so we're clear on that score.

Let me speak to you about some of the things we have been doing which they don't support when it comes to strengthening our economy. We're cutting business taxes by $3 billion; they don't support that. We're investing $60 billion over 10 years in infrastructure to create jobs; they don't support that. We've put over $1 billion into innovation, research and commercialization projects; they don't support that. We continue to partner with businesses. We've landed $8 billion in new investment. We're investing in the skills and education of our people. They don't support measures to strengthen this economy.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. Yesterday was a very curious day. The finance minister delivered a speech aimed at rewriting the McGuinty government's record. He said, "As far back as 2006 our government was talking about the gathering clouds of a slowing US economy." I want to quote the same finance minister from his budget speech, not even a year ago, where he said, "Over the next three years, we expect to see another 270,000 new jobs."

My question to the Premier is this: Which version of history from your government is accurate—the speech that was made up for yesterday or the budget speech that boasted about 270,000 new jobs just 11 months ago?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'll let the people of Ontario be the judge when it comes to what is history and what is not. I look forward to that judgment.

I think our shared responsibility at this point in our history is to do two things in particular. One of those is to lend what support we might to families who are being hurt by this recession. At the same time, and just as importantly, we have to begin to build a stronger foundation for a new economy, one that will speak to the aspirations we have for our children and our grandchildren. For the past five years, we have significantly invested in and revitalized our public services. We have better schools, better health care and better protections for our environment.

At the same time, we are building infrastructure in this province like never before. We have a stronger workforce than we've ever had before. We've done more to support innovation and build an innovation culture than ever before. That is a very strong foundation on which we intend to continue building.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, this is the McGuinty government's Ontario economic outlook and fiscal review of the fall. In this, when you look at the background documents, the McGuinty government was actually cutting what it was going to invest in infrastructure and in new capital construction. It's all here in the figures. At the same time, what did we see yesterday: 2,100 jobs gone in Hamilton; 75 jobs gone at Quaker Oats in Peterborough; 261 jobs gone at Vale Inco in Sudbury; and 100 more in Cornwall, Toronto and Mississauga—lost. When are we going to see a jobs plan from the McGuinty government rather than efforts to revisit and rewrite your own sorry history?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Yes, there is such a thing as a global recession. Yes, it is affecting the province of Ontario. Yes, it is causing job losses here. And yes, it is very difficult for anyone of us in this House, save and except for the leader of the NDP, who says that he can prevent any of that from happening here in Ontario. Perhaps he has some secret solution of which the rest of the people on this planet remain unaware.

When we've had opportunities to lend strength to our economy, time and time again, the leader of the NDP and his party have voted against that. When we've sought to shelter people who are being hurt by the economy, he stood against those measures as well. We said we wanted to put in place an Ontario child benefit, and we're doing that. He voted against that. We put in place 22,000 new, affordable child care spaces. He voted against that. We're raising rates for social assistance. He voted against that. Putting in place new affordable housing units: He voted against those measures. So whether it comes to strengthening the economy or supporting families—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Once again, I think people wonder what world the Premier is on. Child care spaces are disappearing. People who lose their jobs fall into poverty. More schools are closing under the McGuinty government than closed under the former Conservative government because you haven't changed the funding formula. But the real issue is jobs. Seventy thousand good jobs are disappearing every month. The response of this government so far has been to commission a report by Professor Florida.

When he was asked, "What should laid-off workers do?", his response was, "Maybe they can open an art gallery, or maybe they can get a job filling out tax returns." Tell me, Premier: Is this the McGuinty government's jobs plan for communities that are losing thousands of jobs every week—open an art gallery?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In addition to the NDP choosing to stand in the way of enhancements when it comes to building on the strength of this economy and standing in the way of supports that we want to provide to families who are up against it through no fault of their own, we have yet another option that we've tendered in this Legislature. It's called the Green Energy Act. It is designed to put into place 50,000 new jobs and to give Ontarians access to clean and green electricity so that we can join together in the fight against climate change.

What Ontarians now want to know is: Will the NDP also stand in the way of that piece of legislation? Will they stand in the way of those 50,000 new jobs? Will they stand in the way of clean electricity and stand in the way of our joint efforts to fight climate change?

Here's another opportunity for us to do something together to move forward in a progressive fashion on behalf of Ontarians. Are they with Ontarians or are they against them once more?

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: Again to the Premier: Once again, the issue is jobs. I've looked at your bill to find a guarantee of jobs. In Quebec, any green energy projects have to have a 60%-Quebec-manufacture level. Is there such a thing in the McGuinty government's bill? No; it's not there. What we're afraid is going to happen is what we've seen over the last few years. The McGuinty government shovels $235 million to General Motors without any guarantee that the new energy-efficient hybrid half-ton will be built in Ontario.

The McGuinty government shovels $100 million to Ford in Oakville and 1,000 workers get pink slips. The McGuinty government shovels $77 million to Chrysler in Bramalea and we see a shift eliminated. Where is the jobs plan, Premier? As thousands of people lose their jobs every week, where is the McGuinty government's jobs plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a jobs plan. Perhaps again the leader of the NDP or some members of the opposition have some secret that might work in this regard. They might pretend that they can stop all job losses in the province of Ontario, but we will not make that pretence. What we will do is say we'll do everything that we possibly can to ensure that we are taking steps to strengthen this economy.

I say again, today in Ontario we are making massive investments in infrastructure. We're building hospitals, schools, roads, bridges, border crossings and public transit, and creating thousands and thousands of jobs through that work. The opposition, whether the official opposition or the NDP, oppose that kind of investment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I challenge the Premier: $235 million went out the door to General Motors. We didn't see new jobs; we saw thousands of people laid off. I ask, how is that a success? I continue to ask, where's the jobs plan? Quebec has a reasonable industrial hydro rate to sustain manufacturing jobs there. Wind turbines are being created there. Electric cars are being manufactured in Quebec. Solar components for solar power are now being manufactured in Quebec. Manitoba has implemented a refundable manufacturing investment tax credit to sustain manufacturing jobs there.

Has the McGuinty government done any of these things? No, it hasn't. So I'm left to ask again: What is the McGuinty government's jobs plan, other than telling laid-off workers to open an art gallery?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Apparently life is better everywhere else. My mother used to tell me that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I guess that is in part human nature. But when you remove yourself from Ontario, assume the position of the crow's nest and bring a global perspective, I don't know of any place on this planet where the grass is greener than it is here in the province of Ontario.

I sense a loss of confidence in our future in the opposition benches. I'll tell you why I am so confident about our future in this province: because I have confidence in the people of Ontario, their resourcefulness, their resilience, their perseverance, their courage, their determination to succeed, their track record. We're with the people of Ontario. We will build on our foundation and make this province stronger than ever. Our best years are yet to come.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: You're a loser, Dalton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Cambridge will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: Certainly.

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

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I withdraw.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm sure that the 2,100 workers in Hamilton who just found out that they're losing their jobs are going to take great confidence from a Premier who stands up day after day and still doesn't have a jobs plan.

Let me try again. Quebec requires that 60% of the manufacture of any transit vehicles that are used in Quebec has to be manufactured in Quebec. The United States have a similar policy, the buy-America policy. In fact, Alstom, manufacturer in France of transit vehicles, is now looking at setting up manufacturing operations in Quebec. Why? Because of the Quebec 60% content rule.

Can the Premier tell me: If it works in the United States and maintains good manufacturing jobs there, and if it's building new manufacturing jobs in Quebec, why has the McGuinty government failed to do the same thing here in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague keeps talking about 60% requirements in other jurisdictions. He maintains that there's a law to that effect in Quebec. I want to assure him there is no such law, and he should just do a little bit of research to confirm that.

The leader of the NDP may settle for 60%; we have chosen 82%—82% of all public investment going into public transit projects; 82% is being invested in the province of Ontario. He may settle for 60%; we've chosen 82%.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Finance, who yesterday announced that his government will be adding $18 billion to the debt of this province—that's $18 billion more of spending than the government will receive in revenue. Since they took office, they increased spending in this province by $27 billion, or 40%.

I want to ask the finance minister today, does he regret having spent $400 million on casino renovations in Windsor, $2.3 million by the OLG on the opening gala of Caesars in Windsor, $8 million on a tourism study, $2 million for incomplete reports and $3.5 million spent by the Ministry of Education on hotel and conference centres? I have a list here of multi-millions of dollars of spending. Can the minister tell us today, will he admit that he—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: What I regret is that that member and his party added $48 billion to the provincial debt in one of the highest growth periods in our history, and how quickly they forget. How quickly they forget that record; how quickly they forget that our debt-to-GDP ratio is lower today than when they left office, that we paid off their hidden $5.5-billion deficit; how quickly they forget the state of affairs this province was left in when we fired nurses and teachers and health inspectors; how quickly they forget the damage associated with 26 million student-days of education lost at a time of growth in this economy and the world economy.

The world economy is being challenged like never before. We have responded—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: We all understand the world circumstances that we find ourselves in. What I want the minister to do is to stand up and accept responsibility for the misspending of tax dollars while, in fact, we didn't have a world recession which put us behind the eight ball today—$91 million he spent to fire nurses, $90 million to close or consolidate community care access centres, and $50 million, at least, in costs related to the Caledonia occupation that this government chose not to take action on.

There was a time in this province, while he was the Minister of Finance—we're not talking about the past; we're talking about $27 billion of additional spending. My question to the minister is simply this: What did he do to prepare for these times, and will he admit that he has responsibility—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We did hire more nurses, sir; we did. We hired more teachers. We rehired environmental inspectors and meat inspectors, and the people of Ontario gave us a mandate to do that.

In addition, we've laid out now a number of budgets that have invested in infrastructure, that have invested in tax cuts. That member, for instance, voted against billions of dollars for innovation and retraining. He voted against property tax credits for senior citizens, not once, but twice.

We have laid out a plan that has served us till now. On March 26, we look forward to hearing some details about how they will get into that balance, because what they're talking about now is gutting public services and raising taxes over the long term for the majority of our citizens.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: A question to the Premier: Thirty-two years ago, I followed in the footsteps of my grandfather, my father and my uncles and went to work at Stelco in Hamilton. It was a proud family tradition, one that spanned 300 years of service to the company. Yesterday, we heard the devastating news that the operations there are temporarily shutting down. For nearly a century, Stelco provided jobs that helped families in my community pay their mortgages, send their kids to college and buy their food. Not even, Premier, during the Great Depression did the plant shut down.

Given the unprecedented nature of what has happened, when will the McGuinty government fast-track its infrastructure money—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to thank the honourable member for his question, for sharing that personal history with us, and for the genuine concern that he is expressing on behalf of his constituents and people who've been affected by this terrible circumstance.

I had the opportunity to meet this morning with the member for Hamilton Mountain and discuss these kinds of issues, hence the reason for my contacting Mayor Fred Eisenberger to talk a little bit more about this and how we might find some way to provide further support to that community. We now have in place an action centre to lend support to the steelworkers as they try to manage and struggle through this.

I am always interested in hearing from the opposition members and my own caucus with respect to what we might do to lend more support to these folks who are caught up in these kinds—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: The shutdown is affecting people who worked hard each and every day just to try to get ahead. Our local economy is getting wiped out in Hamilton, and the McGuinty government still has no jobs plan to deal with the recession.

Ontario needs bold action to protect jobs and help our communities cope with the growing crisis that we're facing. A Buy Ontario plan, Premier, would help sustain jobs that exist now, stimulate the manufacturing sector, and ensure Ontario's continued leadership in the manufacturing sector.

If the McGuinty Liberals are serious about helping Hamiltonians, as the Premier just said, and protecting Ontario's manufacturing jobs, will they immediately implement a Buy Ontario plan for this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the member's representation that she makes on behalf of her community, as well.

I think there are always good reasons for us to remain hopeful, and one of those includes a comment made by the representative of the Steelworkers: "'The Steelworkers have been vocal in our call for domestic procurement policies'"—and they have. "'So including domestic content guidelines in the Green Energy Act is a decision in the right direction,' said Ken Neumann, national director of the United Steelworkers union."

I'm not sure if it has been well noticed, but in our Green Energy Act, as part of the legislation, we're going to create the authority for ourselves, through regulation, to put in place specific requirements for these kinds of Buy Ontario/Buy Canadian policies. So we're open to suggestions with respect to what that number might look like, but I think it is some reason for some of the folks who are working in the steel industry to remain hopeful.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development.

Minister, constituents in my riding are devastated over the news that US Steel is idling its Hamilton and Lake Erie plants and will be temporarily laying off 1,500 workers. US Steel Canada, previously Stelco, is a company with deep roots in Hamilton. Everyone in my community knows at least someone who works for US Steel Canada, whether it is a family member, a friend or a neighbour. When I heard the news yesterday, I knew that I had to do everything I could to help the workers in my community.

Minister, what has the Ontario government done to help this company and what can you offer to the workers and the communities of Hamilton and Nanticoke, which have been rocked by this latest news? Also, what has the Ontario government done to help Hamilton weather this economic storm?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I appreciate the member's questions, and we've had discussions as well about this. No doubt, as the member says, we all want to work toward immediate assistance, as well as working with the company and the workers, to see what the future holds.

As has been mentioned, the company announced a temporary idling. We don't know what that means yet. I've spoken with company officials; I've spoken with Leo Gerard, the head of the Steelworkers union, as well. We're looking at ways in which we can deal immediately to assist those workers. It's a brutal time for them, not only in terms of the very difficult news, but also in terms of the uncertainty that comes with it.

The government has in the past worked with this company in Hamilton. We did come forward in 2006 and worked with Stelco in order to see a future for it, and we'll continue—

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

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: This is no doubt devastating news for the workers and the families affected by yesterday's announcement. I have heard from many of my constituents and they simply do not know where to turn. Many workers who now find themselves without a job have never been in this situation before and don't even know where to start. People are scared and can't begin to imagine how they are going to tackle finding another job. Some of the workers at US Steel will be looking for training or education required to compete in today's workforce. For many, this is the only job that they've ever had.

Minister, can you tell me what services are available to these workers today?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I'll refer that supplementary to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: I thank the member for the question and obviously add my voice to all members of the Legislature who are very concerned with the situation in Hamilton. I want to assure the member and all members of the House that we're working with the union and the company to address this issue.

As was mentioned by the Premier, due to a previous layoff, we helped establish the Hamilton Area Steelworkers Action Centre. Right now we're in the process of formulating plans to expand services so that those affected by yesterday's layoffs can access adjustment services there. Certainly, all affected workers will have access to all our employment service programs, including Second Career. I also want to inform the House that we're working with Service Canada to discuss an integrated and co-ordinated approach to making sure that all affected workers have access to both federal and provincial programming during this very difficult time.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Small Business and Consumer Protection. On March 31, your government is forcing through, once again, an increase to the minimum wage. Barrhaven's BIA chair, Ken Ross, who also owns Ross' Your Independent Grocer in Barrhaven, told me they do not need another increase in the cost of doing business in the province of Ontario. This will compromise his ability and others' ability to address an hourly end rate for their full-time and part-time employees.

As the Minister of Small Business, why do you just sit there instead of breaking down barriers for Ontario's businesspeople? Why don't you defend the interests of the little guy like Ken Ross? Will you stand up against the job-killing schemes of other cabinet ministers?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you, I am very proud of the contribution that small businesses make in this province. We have about 360,000 strong small businesses in Ontario, and they contribute $250 billion worth of economic activity. Our government has worked very closely with small businesses to address some of the needs they currently have in the global recession they are facing.

I talked yesterday about what some of the challenges are in the manufacturing sector. Our government has worked very closely with them to develop programs, which are integrated in nature, so that we can assist them. Some of the programs are a Smart program that we run with the help of the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters Association that provides assistance to them to look at their processes, and also provides capital needs up to the extent of $50,000 for special projects. Then, we also have—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Fifty thousand dollars for special projects is not going to save this economy, Minister. Your government is creating roadblocks for job creation and retention instead of helping them. This government won't be happy until all the jobs in Ontario are gone, and more people are losing them. I'm telling you something: Not only is Ken Ross facing a higher minimum wage, and he's struggling; he's also going to have to grapple with a hydro bill which is currently $30,000 a month but, because of your power grab and your energy act, is going to go up by 30%—close to $12,000 more.

Will the minister responsible for small business do his job, stand up for the little guys and stand up to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Energy and his Premier and tell them that enough is enough? Will their policies change so that we won't be forcing more job losses at a time when we can't afford it?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Let me tell you what our government is doing. Our government is standing up for small businesses. What they are doing is just asking questions in this House. What we have done is actually met with small businesses and developed programs that will help them in the long haul.

I talked about the SMART program, but in addition to that, we are actually helping them with their training needs. We are going and meeting with these people. We have the AMIS program, which is targeted at companies if they want to spend capital expenditure. We have programs on the innovation side. We are helping them to position themselves in the global markets. We are not just talking; we are actually acting. All you're doing is asking questions in the House, and that has been your nature from day one here.

HOME CARE

M me France Gélinas: My question is to the Premier. After months of study and review, last December the Minister of Health declared that he had solved the problems plaguing our home care system. He had brought in accountability and found the right balance; he had the solution. Today, just weeks later, thousands of women and men who provide home care services are on the verge of a strike that will affect 40,000 people who depend on them. Home care workers are ready to strike because the Liberal cut-throat bidding system has left many of them living in poverty.

Is the Premier willing to admit that his minister has failed to address the crisis in home care, or does he consider this impending strike a success?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: The member's characterization of a new quality-based selection system for home care services—I couldn't disagree more with the member opposite. I will say this: I want to thank the personal support workers who have come here to Queen's Park. I want you to know how much I and Ontarians appreciate the work you do on their behalf and the care you provide. The support that this government has provided in the home care sector, I would say, compares quite favourably to what we've seen in previous governments. In fact, since 2003, there has been almost a 50% increase.

I know that there are always difficult issues when it comes to bargaining. There is bargaining taking place between management and labour. The member also knows that it is not appropriate, as Minister of Health, to insert myself in the midst of that negotiation. I do hope that both sides will come together and—

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

M me France Gélinas: Both sides have come together and they both agree, but the minister has to step in. Home care workers are critical to our home care system. They support people when they want to live in their own home.

Walter Van Hengstum provides home care in the Niagara region. He works a 10-hour day. For four hours of his shift, he travels from home to home, from client to client. He is paid for six hours because he's not paid for his travel time. He makes $84 a day. That works out to $8.40 an hour. That is less than minimum wage.

Does the minister plan to build our home care system by forcing health providers into poverty? When will the Premier and the minister bring in basic working standards for home care providers?

Hon. David Caplan: The facts are these: This member and her colleagues have voted against the personal support worker stabilization strategy, a $30-million investment in the sector which has increased the base minimum wage for qualified personal support workers from $9.65 an hour to $12.50 an hour. This provided improved compensation for travel costs and for travel time. It has introduced service volume targets and training initiatives.

The fact of the matter is that since 2003, 220,000 more Ontarians are receiving home care services, and $573 million, an almost 50% increase—47%—in funding availability of home care services has prevented more than a million visits to our hospital emergency rooms since 2003. Unfortunately, this member is stuck with her ideological blinkers on and cannot see the improvements in quality—

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

ABORIGINAL EDUCATION

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Minister, we know that aboriginal students face unique barriers to accessing a college or university education or training. For many students, continuing their education after high school is not viewed as an option due to the many barriers that they face. In most cases, this is because students simply do not have adequate information to make decisions about their future and do not have ample support both at home and in and their communities.

It is imperative that we provide aboriginal students with improved resources so educators and staff can better support aboriginal learners and increase awareness about First Nations, Metis and Inuit cultures. We know that we have to do a better job of reaching out to these students. Their success and the success of this province depends on it.

Minister, how are you ensuring that aboriginal students have the information they need to ensure they are making the right choices about their post-secondary education?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to congratulate the member for his interest in aboriginal education and confirm to him and to this House our government's intention to work with those students from groups which are not well represented in our post-secondary education system, particularly aboriginal Ontarians.

Through our access to opportunities strategy, we are supporting counselling, tutoring, career planning and cultural awareness services at our colleges, universities and aboriginal institutions. This year, Ontario is providing $6 million in access funding to improve access so that more aboriginal students can graduate. We have invested a total of $24.1 million for aboriginal post-secondary education and training; $14.7 million was invested in aboriginal post-secondary education and $9.4 million was invested in aboriginal training.

We remain committed to working with our aboriginal partners to ensure that they are fully participating in our—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: Both Confederation College and Lakehead University in my community are working very hard to reach out to aboriginal students to encourage them to consider university, college or training. I know that they have been active in providing services to both potential and career students.

For instance, the Nanabijou project at Lakehead University is training teachers on how to effectively mentor aboriginal students. At Confederation College, our government provided funding to help the college hire an access adviser to help students navigate the college application system and process.

We know that institutions can't do it alone. They need the support of government to help them demonstrate to students that post-secondary education or training is the tool that is going to set them up for success later on in life. Minister, how are you supporting more projects such as the ones I have outlined?

Hon. John Milloy: I want to congratulate both institutions from the honourable member's community, which are doing an excellent job in terms of welcoming and supporting aboriginal students. Through last week's access announcement, Confederation College and Lakehead University will each receive $250,000 to support tutoring and mentoring services for aboriginal students. This funding will help the institutions provide invaluable resources to students that will help them be successful in their studies.

I'm very proud of the work that my ministry is doing, along with the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, in welcoming First Nations and Metis students into our post-secondary institutions and taking advantage of the opportunities that exist out there. The aboriginal community is one of the fastest-growing in our province, and we are going to continue to work to make sure that every young person from the aboriginal community can achieve their potential through post-secondary—

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

DEADSTOCK INDUSTRY

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. We've been getting a lot of calls in our office from farmers around the province, farmers like Billy Yates from Beaverton, Donna Geisberger from Brock, Kelvin Kerr from Greenbush, and Andrea Steinlechner from Brockville, just to name a few. Madam Minister, because you cut funding to the deadstock operators with no warning, they tell me, and no plan, all these farmers have deadstock on the farm that they can't dispose of safely. What do you want me to tell those farmers they should do with this stock in this situation?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I thank the honourable member for the question. For those of us in rural Ontario, the safe management of deadstock is a very important issue. We have been working with industry partners, I would say, since the event of BSE. We became aware that for the end product of deadstock, there was a very limited use for the product. Once, there was a much greater use. So we have been working with industry partners.

What has happened in other provinces is that the deadstock is managed safely, on-farm, by way of composting, or there could be the establishment of a central composting facility, or it could be put into an anaerobic digester.

We recognize that we needed to update our regulation for on-farm management. Those regulations will be in place so that farmers can manage this by-product of their industry on-farm.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Minister, changes may be coming in the future, but there are dead animals on the farms today and no one is picking them up.

Minister, in 2006 you said that deadstock collectors were not financially viable without government assistance because of the restrictions introduced by BSE. You promised two years ago to come up with a plan to make the industry sustainable. Instead, you've simply cut off the funding, in spite of the fact that the deadstock operators said they would be forced to close.

In eastern Ontario, all the companies have stopped picking up deadstock as of the first of this month. You've created a dangerous situation, Madam Minister, for the farmers and deprived them of an essential service. How are you going to deal with this dire situation today, not two, three, four weeks later? Today, Madam Minister.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We have worked with industry partners on this. We have implemented regulations that have been posted on the EBR so everyone in the industry is aware of how they can manage deadstock on-farm.

I would say as well that when you look across Canada, this is the way, for the most part, that deadstock is handled in Alberta, Saskatchewan and Quebec; either that, or when there are collection services provided within the province, the owner of the deadstock pays the full cost of picking up those animals.

We did recognize that we had a responsibility, until regulations were in place, to support the collection of the product. However, we now have regulations that will enable the on-farm, safe management of deadstock, and that is where we believe the industry needs to be.

SERVICES FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Teddy Paterson, in the Speaker's gallery, was born with cerebral palsy. With hard work and support, he's graduated from high school. He requires full-time, assisted care, yet, like so many families, the costs are devastating without government help.

Almost a year ago, you assured the Paterson family that they would receive the services they needed for Teddy to remain a part of his community. The Paterson family has received no new assistance. Why won't the minister keep her promise to Teddy Paterson?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you for that question. I want to welcome Teddy, in the gallery today, and his parents. Thank you for being here. First of all, let me say thank you to the parents for all the service that you're providing to your son. It's very admirable, and I congratulate you.

Like many other parents here in Ontario, they have a disabled child and they take care of him. For these children, there's no place like home with the parents. That's why this government has invested in different programs—special services at home, the Passport program—to help people like Teddy to remain at home.

We are investing every year. It's a very successful program. In 2005, we started this Passport program, which has been very successful in helping people like Teddy stay at home with his parents.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The minister's words are empty. Your Bill 77 hasn't increased access to developmental services as you claimed. It has entrenched the minister's approach to developmental services: flatlining funding and expanding waiting lists.

Especially in times of economic uncertainty, the correct response is not to stall resources to the most vulnerable, as the minister is doing. The Patersons risk losing their home and risk the ability to be the loving and willing caregivers who have helped Teddy thrive, a struggle that so many other parents also face in Ontario every day. They have not seen any new funding, Madam Minister. When will you send new funding and help the Patersons to look after Teddy?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I just want to correct the member from the third party—what she said—because this program was started in 2005. Since 2005, we have invested $27 million in this program to help more than 2,000 individuals. This program and this service were not there when they were in power.

They can stand up today and say what we have not done. We know we need to do more; we know we need to invest more; we know that we need to help people like Teddy and his parents.

I just want to correct—I'll ask my colleague to verify the answer. I never said in the House that I will provide the money, because we want to be fair for everyone in need. We have evaluation tools so everyone is evaluated and the service is provided as they need it.

HEALTH CARE

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Like all members of this House, I've been working hard in my riding to find ways to increase access to primary care for constituents. We have a new hospital under construction, new investments in medical equipment and increased supports for seniors to stay in their homes, but Sault Ste. Marie, like many other cities, is an aging community with an increasing need for health services.

While our government has also significantly increased the number of medical training spaces, it takes years to educate a primary health care provider, and I know that some residents in my riding continue to look for a doctor or nurse practitioner. That is why I was pleased that the Premier made a recent announcement which will help ensure that orphan patients in my community are able to access a primary health care provider.

Minister, can you tell the House about the health care supports that are being added in my community to help residents get the care that they need?

Hon. David Caplan: I'd like to thank the member from Sault Ste. Marie for not only the question but for his advocacy in support of nurse practitioners.

I had the great pleasure to join the Premier just a couple of weeks ago at the Registered Nurses' Association of Ontario's office to announce that we are moving forward and making good on our commitment to add 25 nurse practitioner-led clinics in Ontario. NP-led clinics are locally driven, primary health care delivery organizations which will include registered nurses, family physicians and a range of health care professionals who are committed to working together collaboratively. The first three of these new clinics will put down roots in Belle River, Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay.

We're building on the success of our first nurse-practitioner-led clinic, which opened in Sudbury in 2007. Today, the Sudbury clinic provides family health care to approximately 2,000 patients.

We're moving ahead on the next round of nurse-practitioner-led clinics this spring. I'm proud that our province is able to capitalize on the unique and valuable skills—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: I want to thank the minister for his support for the nurse practitioner clinic in our community, and I also want to congratulate the successful bid team from Sault College, which, over the next few months, we will work with to ensure that they have the resources they need to help patients in my community.

The new clinic will include nurse practitioners, on-site physicians, consultative physicians and other health care professionals, who could include pharmacists, dietitians and social workers. I know that our government is committed to increasing access to health care in this province, and I'm sure my constituents will benefit from the clinic when it's up and running.

However, given that these clinics will not be immediately operational, there is concern about what constituents can do to access care in the meantime. Minister, can you tell Ontarians what they can do to ensure that they get access to primary health care more quickly?

Hon. David Caplan: Ontarians have a number of avenues that they can explore when they're trying to find care. Most recently, I had the pleasure to launch Health Care Connect, a new program, a partnership with the Ontario Medical Association, to help people find a family health care provider by dialing a special 1-800 number. Ontarians will be able to tell a Telehealth staff member that they are looking for a family doctor. A nurse known as a health care connector will then try to match that unattached patient with family health care providers who are accepting patients.

We've also launched a new website; it's called Your Health Care Options. It's an online tool that uses Google-style mapping to help people understand the different resources for health care available to them in their community. I think it's an innovative way to help Ontarians find the health care they need when they need it.

We're always looking at ways to increase access to health care and to reduce wait times. That's why we're adding these 25 nurse-practitioner-led clinics and an additional 50 family health teams. Combined—

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

TOURISM

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism.

Minister, it has come to my attention that the school year may begin one week earlier than usual to accommodate the number of in-school instruction days. However, this would mean that many tourism operators across Ontario would be adversely impacted by the shortened summer season, through loss of revenue.

As an example, I've heard from the manager of Santa's Village, Jamie Hopkins.

He writes: "That one week of a shortened summer will effectively reduce our operating season by 10%. Our margins would not be able to absorb such a significant swing in operating days."

He says, "Our labour force is also primarily students, representing 95% of our staff complement."

Minister, are you willing to make sure that tourism operators who are dependent on the summer months for their livelihood are protected by pushing back the start of the school year to the Tuesday after Labour Day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: This is an appropriate question for the Minister of Education.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I'm very pleased to be able to address this issue because, like the member opposite, I think it is one of real concern.

I understand that locally there are different circumstances that need to be accommodated. In a community where tourism is a huge issue, like Muskoka, obviously this is of great concern. I do have some of the e-mails that have gone to the member opposite—one from the Lumina Resort—so I'm very aware of the issue that he's dealing with.

The situation is this: If a school board decides to start the school year before August 31, then the Minister of Education has to weigh in on whether that's appropriate or not. None of those decisions have been made. There have been some boards that have asked for that consideration. The vast majority of boards will be starting their school year after August 31, into September—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. And to the Minister of Tourism, I would think there are some tourism consequences in the riding of Nipissing as well.

I'm certainly hearing from many, many different operators in Parry Sound—Muskoka. The tourism operators are quite concerned about this, and it is significant. The example I just gave you, Santa's Village: It operates mainly in the summer. That's 10% of their whole season. That's all their profit gone, basically. So this is very serious.

I've heard from other people, like Betty Bacon and Sue Watson, owners of the Craft Room in the village of Rosseau. They write, "We strongly oppose this action as we own a small retail store ... and do 50% of our whole year's business from the time the school year ends...."

I've got many other examples.

So I think you recognize it is a very serious question. I hope you'll use whatever powers you have, if the board decides to start before the end of the school year, to make sure it doesn't start till after Tuesday.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, I absolutely take this concern very seriously, and in fact the Minister of Tourism has raised it with me a number of times. I'm very aware and very concerned about it.

The fact is, the last time this situation pertained, in terms of the calendar, was 1998, and at that time the authority to make those decisions was left at the local level, except for when there was a request to start before August 31. That situation is exactly the same now. These decisions have not been made.

When I look at the correspondence with the member opposite, my hope is that he and the tourism operators are speaking with the school board. It's very important that the school board be very aware of the implications of their actions. I will certainly do everything I can to support the industry and the province, but the school board and the community need to be—

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

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Ted Arnott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: During question period, I distinctly heard the Minister of Finance suggest that you were biased when you asked him to sit down. Most of our members heard it too. I know that the Minister of Finance sees himself as a parliamentarian. He'll want to withdraw that comment and perhaps apologize to the Chair.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, I do wish to apologize to the Chair. It was uncalled for.

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

BIRTH OF MEMBER'S GRANDCHILD

Mr. Michael A. Brown: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask your indulgence to make a brief announcement. Yesterday at Victoria Hospital in London, my daughter Paula and her husband, Kyle, became the proud parents of an eight-pound, seven-ounce granddaughter for Lynn and me. She will be a cousin to MacKenzie Fessey of Mississauga.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the Legislature, congratulations to you and your family.

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

The House recessed from 1135 to 1500.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It's my pleasure to be here today in the Legislature to discuss a very important issue in my constituency of Nepean—Carleton.

As I've said a number of times in this esteemed chamber, Barrhaven in south Nepean in the great city of Ottawa is one of the fastest-growing communities not just in Ontario but in all of Canada, with one of the strongest and fastest-growing birth rates.

But it brings me to some challenges a fast-growing community faces. Among them, we know that it's difficult to make sure that we've got the infrastructure we need, and right now we need the Strandherd-Armstrong bridge to be built to link two very important communities.

We also have health care challenges. One of those challenges in particular is ensuring that we have an X-ray clinic to look after one of the fastest-growing populations in this entire province. Last year, unfortunately, the X-ray clinic in Barrhaven was taken away from our community, and what we're asking for is to send it back. My constituent Perra Wharton is going to be leading a petition campa