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

June 3, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Jun-03 (PDF)

L040 - Thu 3 Jun 2010 / Jeu 3 jun 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 3 June 2010 Jeudi 3 juin 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXCELLENT CARE FOR ALL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’EXCELLENCE

DES SOINS POUR TOUS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TAXATION

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

NORTHERN ECONOMY

PENSION REFORM

HEALTH CARE

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

DEFERRED VOTES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L’ENSEIGNEMENT POSTSECONDAIRE

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

OPEN FOR BUSINESS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT UN ONTARIO PROPICE AUX AFFAIRES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE USHERS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CATTLE FARMERS

ABORIGINAL LAND CLAIMS

DEBATE TOURNAMENT

LONG POINT BIRD OBSERVATORY

BREAD AND HONEY FESTIVAL

BROCKVILLE AND AREA YMCA

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

MINOR SOCCER

PETRIE ISLAND

CORRECTION OF RECORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RENTERS’ RIGHT TO KNOW ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DROIT

DE SAVOIR DES LOCATAIRES

PRESERVING THE DIGNITY

OF THE ONTARIO LEGISLATIVE

BUILDING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA PRÉSERVATION

DE LA DIGNITÉ DE L’ÉDIFICE

DE L’ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

DE L’ONTARIO

MICHELLE KROHN ACT

(MODIFIED DRIVER’S LICENCE), 2010 /

LOI MICHELLE KROHN DE 2010 SUR

LES PERMIS DE CONDUIRE MODIFIÉS

ONTARIO NEW HOME WARRANTIES

PLAN AMENDMENT ACT

(OMBUDSMAN’S POWERS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LE RÉGIME DE GARANTIES

DES LOGEMENTS NEUFS DE L’ONTARIO

(POUVOIRS DE L’OMBUDSMAN)

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

INJURED WORKERS

POWER PLANT

WIND TURBINES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ELMVALE DISTRICT HIGH SCHOOL

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TAXATION

CLIMATE CHANGE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(INCLUSION DE LOGEMENTS

ABORDABLES PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(INCLUSION DE LOGEMENTS

ABORDABLES PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY HOUSING), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT DU TERRITOIRE

(INCLUSION DE LOGEMENTS

ABORDABLES PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EXCELLENT CARE FOR ALL ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’EXCELLENCE

DES SOINS POUR TOUS

Ms. Matthews moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 46,

An Act respecting the care provided by health care organizations / Projet de loi 46, Loi relative aux soins fournis par les organismes de soins de santé.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Debate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will be sharing my time with the member from Scarborough–Rouge River, my parliamentary assistant, who has done an exceptionally fine job in taking this legislation through committee.

I rise once again in this chamber to urge all members in this House to pass the proposed Excellent Care for All legislation at this third reading of the bill. This legislation is vital if we are to have a modern, accessible and equitable health system in this province, a system that delivers the kind of quality care Ontarians deserve today and one that will be there for our children and for our grandchildren.

I’m very proud of this legislation because I know that it will result in positive changes for Ontario’s patients. Universal, single-payer health care is a core value that all Ontarians share. It is a precious gift that was passed to us from earlier legislators and one that we have a responsibility to pass on to future ones.

In order to continue making essential health care services available to our population, critical changes will have to be made—changes to attitudes, to approaches, to processes; changes to our basic conceptions of what the health care system should look like in the future. The entire system must put the needs of the patients first and foremost, and that means looking for ways to add quality and value to a health care system that serves the people of this province and is paid for by the taxpayers of this province.

Speaking of taxpayers, each and every one of them expects us to manage their dollars wisely to get the very best value out of every dollar we spend in health care. As you know, over the past several years, health care has been consuming an ever greater portion of the pot. That’s why it’s imperative that we place a greater emphasis on patients getting better quality care, which in turn will mean that we will all be getting better value for our money.

There are many examples of hospitals already implementing measures to improve quality. Let me share a couple of examples. The University Health Network: They have an interdisciplinary quality committee. Everyone from doctors to nurses to other health care workers all have a voice in improving quality. In Sault Ste. Marie, the Sault Ste. Marie Group Health Centre has reduced the number of patients rehospitalized for heart failure by 43%, and they’ve achieved a 25% to 33% reduction in diabetes-related complications. How have they done this? By putting a greater emphasis on quality.

In Thunder Bay, they’ve reduced bed-empty time—that’s the time between discharging a patient and admitting a patient—by 25% by implementing measures to make the process more efficient. And in Ottawa, they’ve developed the internationally renowned Ottawa ankle rules, simple guidelines developed to aid emergency physicians in deciding when to use X-rays for patients with ankle injuries. The application of the Ottawa ankle rules is something that has reduced the number of X-rays for patients who come in with an injury to their ankle.

This proposed legislation, along with complementary initiatives, will help develop a culture of quality, where everyone working in health care, from the CEO to the front lines, including the board of those health care organizations, is focused on quality improvement for patients. From now on, the focus will be on better care delivery, leading to better patient outcomes, and smarter use of resources thanks to a culture of quality and value within the health system.

I was very, very pleased to hear that the vast majority of our health system partners and stakeholders are supportive of our vision and our process for getting there. To quote from the submission from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the RNAO, to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy, “The RNAO welcomes” legislation that “seeks to promote evidence-based” best practices “and make health care organizations and executives accountable for providing the highest-quality patient-centred care.”

The Ontario Hospital Association had this to say: “The OHA strongly supports Bill 46. Ontario is home to the most efficient, transparent and accountable hospitals in Canada,” but “we all recognize ... that the public” we serve expects more.

There were a number of submissions received at the committee, and I was quite pleased with the enthusiasm stakeholders have shown for this legislation. In fact, many of the amendments were adopted, which I think speaks to the level of co-operation and support for this initiative. My colleague MPP Bas Balkissoon will speak in more detail about some of those amendments.

Specific quality improvement initiatives will start in hospitals. As you know from the previous two readings, the bill is based on the following four principles. The first principle: Care must be organized around the patient to support his or her health. The second principle: Continuous quality improvement is a critical goal. The third principle: Payment, policy and planning must support both quality and efficient use of resources. The fourth principle: Quality care must be supported and, indeed, driven by the very best evidence and standards of care.

Hospitals would be required to have interdisciplinary, interprofessional quality committees that would report to the board on quality-related issues. These quality committees would develop improvement plans that support better patient care. Every organization would have quality improvement plans that are publicly posted. This would help hospitals work toward expressly stated goals that would ultimately make them better at what they do. It would also inform patients, families and the community about what hospitals are doing to improve the delivery of care.

Executive compensation would be linked to whether or not the organization achieved the results in those plans. I’m very pleased that hospital executives are embracing the proposed changes. In fact, Bob Bell, the CEO of the University Health Network, strongly supported the recommendations by speaking at the press conference to launch this proposed legislation. From the very top down, through every level of the organization, there would be a continuous focus on quality, a culture shift that would drive better patient care. The improvement plan would hold hospital leadership accountable for delivering on that plan.

To make the process more transparent, there would be a patients relations process in every hospital to address complaints and concerns, as well as regular patient, client, caregiver and staff surveys. The results of these surveys would be used to inform the annual quality improvement plans. This would give patients and their families as well as those who work in hospitals greater input into shaping quality improvements in hospitals. Patients would be very much a part of this quality improvement dialogue. Patients, the users of the system, would have a voice in how it is run. That is what this is all about: Greater empowerment for patients so that their system can serve them better.

There are many examples of individual efforts of quality improvement in the system, and there is no shortage of dedicated and committed health professionals and organizations in Ontario. I won’t list them all. I do want, however, to thank the health care leaders for embracing the challenges and working with us to improve quality care.

What I believe has been lacking is a standard where quality and value are an absolutely integral part of everyone’s job. As a way to expand quality consistency throughout the system, the proposed bill would also expand the mandate of the Ontario Health Quality Council. I think this is a very important element of the bill. It would enable the council to provide recommendations on the evidence-based delivery of health care based on clinical practice guidelines. The council would also make recommendations on possible changes to the way health care is covered and paid for to ensure that what we pay for reflects the best available evidence.

For Ontarians, this legislation means that we want to keep paying for things that improve outcomes for patients. The reality is that poor-quality care, inefficient care, is expensive care. When someone is readmitted to the hospital because they did not receive the proper care upon their discharge, that is expensive care and it is poor-quality care for that patient.

So it all comes down to putting patients first. It comes down to delivering our best to them today in a way that will allow the health system to be there for future generations. Let’s remember that waste and inefficiency are what is costly. Quality and value go hand in hand.

The proposed Excellent Care for All Act is a necessary first step in achieving these imperatives. I sincerely believe that the future of our health care system in Ontario depends on it. I urge my colleagues to join with me in passing this important piece of legislation.

I do want to conclude my remarks by thanking the extraordinary people in the Ministry of Health who have worked very, very hard to bring this idea, this aspiration, to reality today. A lot of people have worked very hard to develop this, and I give them my sincere thanks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate? It does go in rotation, so the honourable member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: I appreciate the opportunity here. I’m just using a few moments to put on the record the fact that I’ve met with our local hospitals with regard to not specifically this, but it was mentioned in the meetings that I had at Port Perry hospital as well as the Uxbridge hospital, and we want to put that on the record.

Our member from Kitchener–Waterloo will be speaking, and having been the Minister of Health, she has a pretty good insight into what’s expected.

I would say from the beginning that everyone would agree with the premise or principle or objective of quality in our hospitals. We would expect that it exists already. The structure is the second part of it, the quality organization being set up. I would have expected, when I look at the sunshine list in hospitals, that most of those patient-based outcomes and CIHI—the Canadian Institute for Health Information—reporting would have presumed that some sort of outcome-based process exists today. To find out now that the minister is just putting this in place would give one of the impression that maybe some of the outcomes aren’t accountable. I don’t know.

She said she has the support of the hospital association, which I think is very important.

I’m wondering: Does she have the support of the Ontario Medical Association, the doctors? I want to put on the record that a couple of the doctors I met with informed me that they had concerns about their role on the board and the fact that they may not be entitled to vote on some of the things. They can participate on the board. I recall talking to Dr. Steve Gray, who is a very well-respected practitioner in Port Perry. He also serves on the Lakeridge Health board, and as such, he knows of what he speaks.

I would expect that this would be reviewed. This is third reading, unfortunately, and time-allocated.

I want to put on the record the final thing. The measurement I have, in the practical sense of just a person representing constituents in the riding of Durham, is that almost all of the hospitals in my jurisdiction are in a state of trauma. All around me, the hospitals are in trauma. Almost all of them are suffering from a lack of human and physical resources.

I look at the member from Peterborough, Jeff Leal. It’s tragic that we’re having public meetings on the hospital. Yesterday, I heard from the coalition from Northumberland Hills Hospital—Lou Rinaldi. They should be up in arms about what is going on here. This is a distraction from the point of view—

Mr. Bob Delaney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I respect the opinion of my colleague from Durham, who is a very well-spoken member, and I do remind him that it is not practice to refer to members in the assembly by name but by riding.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): He did both. He referred to the honourable member by riding and then his name.

The honourable member for Durham has the floor.

Mr. John O’Toole: I was looking at the Northumberland Hills Hospital and the Peterborough Regional Health Centre. I also want to mention that Uxbridge hospital is going through a similar challenge for human resources. Port Perry hospital this week, it’s my understanding, because of the lack of resources, is also in a state of siege.

Certainly, we agree entirely with the principal objective of quality, patient-centred care. What do I see? I see the LHINs increasing expenditures and yet reducing front-line services in the hospitals. That’s what I see. That’s the evidence.

Despite the rhetoric from the minister here this morning, health care is in paralysis, in cardiac arrest. That’s the reality across this province. We’ve had reports from autopsies and other kinds of reports about the outcome-based situation in our hospitals. The young person who died in Niagara because they were diverted from a hospital where the emergency was closed and died on the way to the other hospital—that’s the reality, and I’ve heard it day after day after day.

I want the people of Ontario to know that they have increased funding to the bureaucracy in health care: LHINs. Now they’re setting up this health quality council, which I presume already exists. Outcome-based in hospitals is what it’s about. I think this is a disguise, personally. I support the objective but I’m suspicious.

Part of this

section of Bill 46—I looked at it. It says right here: “Health care organizations are required to develop a quality improvement plan....” Of course they are. And this is the key part to it: Is it going to affect executive compensation? I hope the reporting is honest.

With that, I’ll leave the rest of the comments to our critic and a person who is highly respected, Ms. Witmer from Kitchener–Waterloo.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I also will leave most of the time to our health critic, France Gélinas, who will be here shortly.

What I wanted to contribute to the debate, really, was about health care generally. As a party, of course, of medicare and of Tommy Douglas, this hits close to the hearts of New Democrats everywhere.

There are two ways of killing a health care system: One is slashing and burning, closing hospitals willy-nilly; the other is by nibbling at the edges, by delisting bit by bit, letting nurses go, letting the bureaucracy take over, not paying bills when bills are due. The classic case in my own riding is Four Villages health centre, which, completely under this ministry, was promised when opening a satellite—and, of course, I think we would all agree here that community health centres provide some of the best medical care.

They’re interdisciplinary teams, they’re relatively inexpensive—certainly far less expensive than hospital care—and they have doctors on salaries. It’s the kind of model that New Democrats love. This particular one opened a satellite because they’re so busy. They already have a waiting list. They were promised money by this government. In fact, when checking with various folks in the Ministry of Health, they were told that the cheques had been processed. But have the cheques ever arrived? No. Numerous calls; my office has been calling. Meanwhile, the question is, how do they pay their staff?

How do they pay their rent? How do they pay their utilities? That’s the kind of ship that’s being run across the aisle here.

Look at the delisting of services that has happened out of the McGuinty Liberals. No longer do we get eye exams covered by OHIP. Is that not an essential health service? No longer do we get physio paid for by OHIP. Is that not an essential health service? No longer do we have ambulances paid for. I ask you, is an ambulance ride to the hospital not an essential service? This is chipping away at the core of our health care, not to mention the closing of emergency wards, not to mention the letting go of nurses, and not to mention, which would horrify the average Ontarian, the huge salaries taken away from the taxpayer base by some of our CEOs.

Our leader, Andrea Horwath, brought in a bill to cap civil servant salaries at twice what Dalton McGuinty makes, twice what the Premier makes. And let’s remember, these are not people who have to reapply for their job every four years; these are people who have contracts that make the average MPP drool. They have pension plans, they have built-in clauses that give them payouts when they leave, and they earn more than twice as much as our Premier. There’s something wrong with that system. There’s something very wrong with that. This is valuable health care money that’s not spent on patients, not on putting patients first, but on putting bureaucrats first. So there’s that.

I know that in my riding there are many, many people who do not have family doctors, who can’t get access. This is true of hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who do not have access to a primary-care GP. Where do they go? Guess what? They tend to go to emergency wards to get primary care. This is the most inefficient, expensive way of delivering health care. Yet we have foreign-trained professionals—I have several in my riding; I’m sure we all do—who are working far beneath their potential because it takes them an average of 10 years to get accredited.

I have one surgeon in my riding who goes back to Iran for six months every year because he can’t get a job here. That’s how he pays for staying here. He is in his 40s. He doesn’t want to spend another 10 years in school going through the process. He doesn’t have that kind of money and doesn’t have that kind of time. Yet we desperately need him. We need doctors. Doctors aren’t forthcoming.

And of course there’s the much-ballyhooed dental plan. Remember, this is the McGuinty Liberal government that promised a dental program. We can’t even get physio or eye exams, but they promised a dental program. Do we have a dental program? Absolutely.

Here is the situation: The problems are myriad. This bill is not going to address them. I’m going to leave the balance of the time for my colleague from Nickel Belt, who will be here shortly. But suffice it to say that what the McGuinty Liberals have done on their watch is to chip away at the foundation of medicare in this province. It’s sad; it’s not stopping, and we as New Democrats—remember, the party of medicare—are appalled by it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I rise in the House today to speak to Bill 46, our proposed Excellent Care for All Act, at this third reading. It was my privilege to attend the Standing Committee on Justice Policy hearings on this bill to hear the submissions by individuals and many of our partners, such as the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association and the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, to just name a few. We also received input from my colleagues across the way, the member from Nickel Belt and the member from Whitby–Oshawa.

I was heartened to hear that for the most part, the vast majority of partners were supportive of what we’re aiming to achieve with this landmark legislation to improve the quality and value of the province’s health care system by putting patients first and enhancing accountability, thereby ensuring that the system will be there for future generations.

I’d like now to acknowledge and thank all the individuals and groups for making written submissions or coming forward with their thoughtful ideas. The commitment to improving the province’s health care system is undeniable. Like all Ontarians, they want to ensure that quality patient care is job one for everyone who works in health care and that the system provides value for every dollar spent.

In response to some of the recommendations we heard both at the committee hearings and through written submissions, the committee passed motions to amend the proposed legislation. For example, in response to similar recommendations from the Ontario Hospital Association, the Ontario Medical Association, and the Ontario Shores Centre for Mental Health Sciences to not require health care organizations to survey employees every year to avoid survey fatigue, we put forward an amendment to require organizations to survey employees at least once every two fiscal years.

In response to a recommendation from Trillium health care, the committee amended the bill to acknowledge the work that some hospitals have already done to develop a patient declaration of values after consulting with the public.

The bill was also amended to require every health care organization to provide a copy of its annual quality improvement plan to the Ontario Health Quality Council in a format established by the council that permits reporting on a minimum set of quality indicators.

We wish to thank Cancer Care Ontario for appearing before the committee and for their suggested amendment, and our colleagues from the NDP for moving that amendment.

Following the recommendation of the Ontario Nurses’ Association, the committee amended the bill on our government’s motion to ensure that in appointing members of the Ontario Health Quality Council, consideration would be given to selecting experts in the creation of safe, quality and healthy work environments. Similarly, based on advice from Cancer Care Ontario, the bill was amended to give consideration to selecting experts in clinical service evaluation and quality improvement. This change will strengthen the composition of the council at this very critical juncture.

The bill was also amended on the motion of our Progressive Conservative colleague to ensure that past board members and executives of health care organizations were not precluded from being considered to serve on the council—an important clarification to the bill. The committee also came together with unanimous consent to approve an important amendment suggested by the Ontario Hospital Association that was necessary to clarify a potential conflict between a new provision in the bill and an existing investigation provision.

We’ve been very responsive to our partners and opposition colleagues, and I believe the amendments that were made by the committee make the legislation much stronger.

Let me now turn to why this legislation is so urgently needed. Recently, you may have heard about a population projection report by Statistics Canada. According to that report, the population of over-65s will more than double, from 4.7 million in 2009 to between 9.9 million and 10.9 million by 2036. Seniors will surpass children aged 14 and under between 2015 and 2021. If left unchecked, in 12 years, 70 cents of every dollar spent by the provincial government will be on health care. Governments must prepare to meet these pressures on the health care system.

The proposed Excellent Care for All Act would do just that. It would lay the groundwork for a significant culture shift in this province’s health care system, a culture shift that must take place if the system on which we all rely is to be there in the future and to be sustainable. Not only can we not keep spending at the current rate, we must tie increases in spending to improvements in quality.

If this legislation passes, significant changes would begin to take effect in our health care system. Health care organizations, beginning with hospitals, would all have interprofessional quality committees that would report to the board of directors on quality-related issues. Every organization would have quality improvement plans publicly posted, and executive compensation would be linked to the achievement of outcomes identified in those plans. This is a very important component of this bill that would bring about a systemic focus on quality that would permeate the organization and would eventually drive better patient care.

We also moved forward in a staged approach with several additional policies that will shift the focus in health care in Ontario onto quality and value. We would gradually reform how hospitals are funded to better align funding with efficient delivery of high-quality patient care—to ensure, in other words, that the money follows the patient. This is an absolutely necessary step. At present, the global funding system does not support quality improvement and it does not reward the efficient provision of health care. We believe that the system needs to be improved.

Before I close, I want to thank some of the stakeholders who attended committee: Mr. Jeff MacDonald from LifeLabs Medical Laboratory Services; Dr. Bob Haig from the Ontario Chiropractic Association; Ms. Katrina Kilroy from the Association of Ontario Midwives; Mr. Terrence Sullivan from Cancer Care Ontario; Dr. Mark MacLeod, Ontario Medical Association; and Mr. Tom Closson from the Ontario Hospital Association.

This proposed Excellent Care for All Act is a reflection of this government’s strong commitment to the future of health care in Ontario. I would urge all my colleagues in the Legislature to support this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m pleased to join the debate, the final opportunity we have to speak to Bill 46, the Excellent Care for All Act. I don’t know how anybody could not support this, but I think we also have to recognize that what is being suggested here is certainly not going to be the answer to all of the problems that are plaguing our health system today.

The reality is, the health system in the province of Ontario is not sustainable. It is growing at an average annual pace of 8%, and without changes to the system, the current 46% of funding that goes to the health system will be 80% of total program spending in 20 years. It will leave little money for other priorities such as education, social services, public safety, transportation, culture etc. Obviously, Ontario is not going to be able to bear that burden. We have a looming crisis in public health care costs, and we need to address that issue.

This bill, in part, addresses the issue, but anybody who thinks this is going to solve the issue would be badly mistaken. Part of the reason, of course, for the increased costs in our health care system is because of our growing population, our aging population, increasing costs of technology, and increasing drug costs. One other component that I think is really important is the increased incidence of overweight and obesity and the decreasing fitness levels that we’re seeing in our province today.

If you take a look at the aging population, I think this is an area where we need to be concerned. The boomer tsunami is going to hit us, and we’ve already heard that the senior population is going to double by 2036. We’re going to outnumber children for the first time, and we’re obviously going to see an increase in medical spending. CIHI tells us that in 2009, when we spent an average of $3,800 for those under the age of 64, those over 80 consumed $17,500. So health costs are going to go only in one direction. They are not sustainable.

I’m going to come back to the aging population, because although the government has introduced Bill 46, which they say they want to do because they want to make sure that accessible care is going to be available for all patients throughout the province of Ontario, I just want to emphasize that this is not going to go anywhere in meeting the need for change that is so imperative. There is much more in the way of critical change that is going to be necessary.

I support the bill, as far as the bill goes. A lot of it is paperwork. A lot of it is going to involve health care stakeholders. The public really isn’t aware of this bill, and probably, at the end of the day, they don’t care that much about it other than to want to know that the health care that they need is going to be accessible to them and that the best quality of care is going to be provided. I think all people in the province today want to make sure that whatever services are provided, they’re getting the best value for their taxes.

Insofar as this bill moves in that direction, it’s a bill that we certainly can support. At the end of the day, of course, we want to do everything we can to make sure that patients in this province get the best outcomes possible. This bill is going to be really looking at evidence-based health care and the best clinical practices.

I’m glad that the RNAO was involved in making some changes to the bill. They have long been supporters of evidence-based practice. Of course, we’re going to see an expansion of the Ontario Health Quality Council as well.

However, I think it’s important to recognize that what this government has never done since 2003—and what was promised by the former Minister of Health, Mr. Smitherman—is a health plan, a 10-year plan for health. There was going to be a determination of where it was we needed to go, who the demographic was going to be that we were trying to serve and what the needs of that demographic were going to be. Hopefully, we would have then seen a strategy as to how we could achieve those goals and meet those needs, and then also measurements on a yearly basis to see that we were achieving those goals.

That would have also gone a long way to achieving quality; to achieving cost-effectiveness, value for money; to improving access to care and making sure that the appropriate services are available to patients in the province of Ontario.

That’s where this bill falls short. That’s where this government falls short, because you can introduce this Excellent Care for All Act which, as I said, really is based on a lot of paper reporting of different measurements and best practices, but we have a problem in our hospitals that we’re not addressing, and that is the alternative-level-of-care patients.

This government has never developed a plan to deal with the aging population who are languishing in our hospital beds, for whom we are paying the cost of an acute care bed when they should be more appropriately looked after either in a long-term-care bed, in the community elsewhere or getting home support. But we don’t have those services available, and so they end up in our hospitals, sometimes for weeks, sometimes for six months, because there’s no place for them to go. They’re driving up the costs in our health care system.

Unfortunately, Ontario has amongst the largest percentage of alternative-level-of-care patients in all of Canada. There are alternative-level-of-care patients in somewhat less than 20% of our beds in our hospitals through this province. Some hospitals have fewer, some hospitals have more. But these beds are occupied by people, primarily seniors, who should be in other beds—and I can tell you that a hospital setting is not where you want to be, because we know that in hospitals there are infections. Unfortunately, some of these individuals do contract these infections.

They actually become more sick than when they came into the hospital and, on occasion, when we’ve had some of the epidemics, some of the people have actually unfortunately not returned home or to any other setting.

In my own community, when I took a look at the number of alternative-level-of-care beds at Grand River hospital in March, they had an average of 75 people in these beds on a daily basis. That is a lot of people. I know Cambridge hospital, which has had a lot of financial problems and challenges, suffers from the same problem. Think of the cost of keeping someone in a hospital bed versus the cost of keeping somebody in a long-term-care bed, in another community setting or in home care.

The other problem that you have in the hospitals is that if you have these people in the acute care hospital beds, it means that people who are looking to have surgery can’t have surgery. So we see delays in surgeries; we see backlogs; we see doctors who have booked surgery and then can’t move forward with the surgery, the reason being that there are no beds available for the people who have the surgery. The other problem you have, of course, is in your emergency rooms. You have people coming into the emergency rooms and, of course, there’s no bed for them because you have the alternative-level-of-care patient occupying that bed.

In this province today, because of the fact that the government up until now has basically relied on the 20,000 beds that our government announced in 1998 to meet the needs of those who need a long-term-care bed—we just aren’t seeing a plan for more beds. Yet, we have 25,000 people ostensibly waiting for a long-term-care bed. In my own community, I’ve been told there are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1,500.

Hospitals are having challenges. They’re doing everything they can. They even close emergency rooms at certain times of the year. We’ve seen that in the past seven years, when this government has been in place. They’ve eliminated a lot of outpatient services and a lot of other services, and people in the community have been left looking for the services that no longer are in the hospitals. But we have to develop a common approach to capacity planning throughout the hospitals and throughout the province, because hospitals simply can’t meet the demands today.

The community care system is stretched, the long-term-care system is stretched, and the demographic tsunami that we’ve talked about has not even hit.

The other part of the puzzle that we need to address if we’re going to reduce health care costs is that we really do need to focus and address the issue of obesity. This is a very alarming problem. Take a look at 1981 to the present—there was a report done by Statistics Canada. It says that our fitness levels have declined and our waist sizes have increased. This is putting us at greater risk of chronic diseases such as diabetes, heart disease, asthma, cancer and arthritis. They tell us that 17% of the children are overweight and 9% are obese. That is alarming.

They say that 38% of adults today are at a healthy weight while 62% are overweight or obese. Again, this puts all of us at risk of health problems that are very expensive for the health system. They’re also telling us now that the children born today aren’t going to live as long as we do. We have to tackle that problem if we’re going to tackle the problem of making sure that our health system is there for us tomorrow.

We have the bill in front of us today, Bill 46, the Excellent Care for All Act. I support it, but it is only a small part of what needs to happen. I would strongly recommend that this government focus on the development of a long-term-care plan: Identify the long-term-care needs, identify your population, and identify the solutions to address the problems. Let’s move forward, because this, today, is only a small, small part of what is necessary. In fact, it’s maybe a little bit of window dressing, and we have not addressed the real problem. The fact is, health costs are unsustainable.

We need to have a debate; we need to address them. That debate, that discussion, should start now, and I would encourage the government to do so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

M me France Gélinas: It is my pleasure to add a few words for this third reading of Bill 46, the Excellent Care for All Act.

First of all, I agree with the basic principle of the bill. If we focus on quality, if we put everything that is going on in the health care system through a quality lens, we have the possibility to effect immense changes for the better. The health quality council, as we are talking here in the Legislature, is presenting their report. Health quality council: Their name says it all. They look at the quality of the health care services that are delivered here in Ontario. They have great suggestions for change. They identified opportunities where if we change the way we do things, it would improve quality.

It would improve outcomes. It would improve client satisfaction with our health care system.

The bill basically tries to do this. The problem is that a lot of it is left to regulation. Believe it or not, there are groups of health care workers out there that really like the way they are doing things, really believe that what they are doing is helping their patients and are very reluctant to change. In order to facilitate change in an environment like this, you need strong levers, and to me, quality is something that resonates with every health care worker. Every health care worker wants to offer good-quality care to their patients. If you can give them those tools, you are in a position to effect change.

The NDP has brought forward dozens of changes to make this bill stronger, to make sure that all of the levers are there to really take advantage of the humongous possibility for improvement that quality can afford the people of Ontario. Unfortunately, all but one of our amendments were turned down. What we have now is a bill that could do great things, that is a first step toward doing great things, or that could fizzle and do nothing, because a lot of what the bill will do will only be clear once the regulations are written up.

When the regulations are written up, members of the opposition have very little input into this. But I can tell you that some really well-organized lobby groups within the health care system will be able to influence those regulations. If they see this as infringing on their turf, they could be successful in making sure that what has the potential to help millions of Ontarians will fizzle out and basically do very little.

We had made recommendations such as that the quality plan that each and every one of the hospitals—and I hope soon every health care organization in Ontario—puts forward should be right next to the Ontario Health Quality Council assessment of how this hospital is doing. If you have an assessment of when they are following best practices and when they are meeting quality outcomes, and you have this assessment done by the health quality council—which, by the way, is very good at what they do. They are very good at assessing what is quality, how do you measure it, how do you seek it and how do you define it.

They do a very good job. Let’s put in a page that says, “Here’s how the hospital fared,” and they can compare themselves to their peers. Let’s see how every health care organization fares and let them compare themselves to their peers. But let’s also have the quality plan for that hospital or that health care organization right next to it so that you can see results. But when we brought forward amendments that would mandate public accountability, that would mandate that those public documents be made available and be tied together, those were turned down.

There’s hesitation on the part of the government to do both steps. So we have a bill that could turn out to be good or could turn out to do very little more than collect dust like a lot of other work that has been done and like a lot of other reports and bills end up doing.

There are things that we know need to happen. We talk about interdisciplinary care. The government, to their honour, have put forward 150 family health teams. Family health teams are described as interdisciplinary care, where physicians work together with nurse practitioners, nurses, dietitians and social workers. Every health care professional gets to work to their full scope of practice so that they can take on those 750,000 people in Ontario who do not have access to primary care and so that you can have access to the right provider at the right time and decrease wait times. All of the mandate is good.

But when you look into the implementation of it, you see some of the power struggles at play. You see that in a team, you should have a physician, a nurse, a nurse practitioner, a social worker, a dietitian—let’s say, a four-, five-, six-person team. That makes sense. It’s easy to work with; communication is easy. But that’s not what we see in family health teams. In family health teams we see a dyad: For every physician, there is one other health professional.

You see how sometimes the intentions are good. They say the right thing. They say that they want interdisciplinary care, but the doing falls short. This bill follows this path of putting forward great ideas that have the potential to do great things but then leaving the implementation to a date to be determined, by people to be determined and by regulations that I’m hoping will come out really soon and will be very good, but we have no assurance of that. “Excellent care for all” could turn out to do just that: fizzle out.

This bill drastically changes and augments the mandate of the health quality council. This is something that New Democrats support. We really believe that putting in a quality lens has the possibility to move things. But when we look at their mandate—for reasons completely unknown to me, when the health quality council did its first report and asked the people of Ontario what they thought quality should be made out of, they had nine items, and I’ll read them to you.

It goes as such: “The nine attributes that Ontarians tell us reflect a high-performing health system include: accessible”—makes sense—“effective, safe, patient-centred, equitable, efficient, appropriately resourced”—that makes sense to me—“integrated, and focused on population health.” All of this makes sense.

The health quality council is putting forward its fifth report. It’s all good. But now, you see, there’s a little wee change that has happened. Those nine principles are still there, but “appropriately resourced” has been taken out. It now says only “appropriate.”

You’ve heard my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo talk, saying that the hospitals in her area were strapped for cash; 50% of the community hospitals are strapped for cash. The government, by a change of a word in legislation, takes out “appropriately resourced,” takes out “resourced” and only keeps “appropriate.” That, to me, raises a red flag.

You have drastically improved and added to the mandate of the health quality council to bring this quality lens, but you have taken away their mandate to look at resources. To me, that makes no sense.

They have done their work. They’ve done a good job for the last five years, and they have looked at appropriately resourced health care. That means that if we’re not achieving quality because of resources, they say so. It is part of their mandate and this is what they do. But now the government has taken one word out; they have taken “resourced” out. So if the health quality council finds that you cannot achieve quality because part of the system, such as the hospital system, is under-resourced, it’s not part of their mandate anymore. They cannot report on that anymore. To me, this is a step backward, not forward.

Another thing that we tried really hard to change is that the focus of the health quality council will be on publicly funded care. We all know that lots of publicly funded procedures have been delisted, whether we talk about optometry care, chiropractic care or community-based physiotherapy care. A lot of these have been delisted. Now we have a new mandate for the health quality council that says, “You shall only look at publicly funded services.” So it doesn’t matter if best practice—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I would just ask the honourable members to whisper. It’s getting quite noisy and the speaker has indicated that she’s been distracted by that, so please respect that the honourable member for Nickel Belt has the floor.

The honourable member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I can talk very loud if I have to.

Another thing we wanted to change is that we wanted to make sure that the best practices that are developed do not only focus on medication, operations and surgery. We wanted to include all of the determinants of health. We wanted to include parts of health that are not funded by the public health care system, such as chiropractic care.

Let me give you an example. Lots of people, unfortunately, are involved in motor vehicle accidents. Whiplash, where you hurt your neck, happens frequently. The best practice will tell you that a chiropractor has a role to play for whiplash injury patients. But now, with Bill 46, the health quality council won’t be looking at chiropractic care because they are not funded under the public health system.

For us, we wanted every health care practitioner who is under HPRAC, who is registered by the province of Ontario, who is recognized as a health care professional in Ontario, to be included in the mandate of the health quality council so that when they look at best practice, they don’t only look at the part of the system that is funded, they look at all of the professionals who are regulated by professional colleges in Ontario and provide quality care to people. That won’t happen. Their mandate has been narrowed.

Like it has been narrowed to not look at resources, it has also been narrowed to not look at the practitioners who are not publicly funded. To me, again, this is a step in the wrong direction.

We’ve talked many times about the need to have interdisciplinary advisory committees in our hospital system. Right now, we have medical advisory committees that do as well as they can, but things have changed. Health care is now delivered by an interdisciplinary team, where more and more, the different professionals are allowed to work within their full scope of practice. But when we tried to bring those changes forward, they were not allowed.

I see that I only have a few seconds left on the clock. This bill, this focus on quality, has an opportunity to do great things. You put the focus on quality, you add a little bit of resources, you bring in transparency and accountability to the public, and I guarantee you that things will change for the better. This bill, unfortunately, is timid. We’ll have to wait until the regulations are done to see if we will take the bold step that will mean drastic changes to the health care system in Ontario for the better, and the curbing of the ever-increasing expenses in health care toward quality. But at least we will be supporting this bill because it does no harm.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Pursuant to the order of the House dated June 1, 2010, I am now required to put the question.

Ms. Matthews has moved third reading of Bill 46,

An Act respecting the care provided by health care organizations. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1005 to 1010.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Ms. Matthews has moved third reading of Bill 46,

An Act respecting the care provided by health care organizations. All those in favour will please rise one at a time and be counted by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Elliott, Christine

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

O’Toole, John

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wynne, Kathleen O.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 66; the nays are 0.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being just about 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we will have question period.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bob Delaney: I draw members’ attention to the Speaker’s gallery. Visiting from Bangladesh for the Bangladesh Expo 2010 is Liton Dwan, a notable and renowned spiritualist, along with Georgina Bencsik, chair of the Canada Bangladesh Business Council, and Mohammed Hossain, vice-chair. Please welcome them.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’d like to again introduce guests of page Tristen Groves: his mother, Vicki Lavine-Groves, grandmother Lottie Lavine and friend Alan Blumberger.

Also joining us shortly is Dr. Karen Somerville, president of Canadians for Properly Built Homes, and 30 homeowners, members of that organization across the province.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I just want to remind all members that today is the cattlemen’s barbecue from 12 to 2. Thank you to the cattlemen for another fantastic barbecue, and welcome to all the cattlemen who are able to attend today. I would ask for unanimous consent to wear our Canadian beef symbol.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I also want to introduce my intern from the University of Toronto and the lovely riding of Huron–Bruce: Catherine Simpson. Catherine, stand up.

We also have in attendance Bette Jean Crews, president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture. Welcome, everyone.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: On behalf of page Joshua Rossetti from the riding of Etobicoke–Lakeshore, I want to introduce his father, Fabio Rossetti, his sister, Olivia Rossetti, and his grandmother, Tina Rossetti, who have joined us here in the galleries today to celebrate his last day as page here in the Ontario Legislature.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Among many other interns is Maggie Conway, who’s here today. She’s the daughter of one of my good friends, Kim Donaldson. We’re delighted to have her here today.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’d like to introduce two people who are working in my office as interns: Maria Naser, who comes from Markham, and Tim Crjlenica, who comes from Windsor. A special welcome today. They’re doing a great job in the office of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to introduce to the House our summer interns. They’re all talented individuals with a keen interest in government business. Please welcome Christina Cedric, Eric Pegolo and Goind Grewal. Welcome.

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I’m just looking to see if she’s here yet. Rhett Figliuzzi is one of our pages from our riding who’s having his last day here. His mom is here to witness the last day. Welcome, Cheryl, but I’m not sure where she is.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I don’t believe they’re here yet, but I want to introduce two wonderful community advocates for seniors from Don Valley West: Edna Beange, who’s a former city councillor for East York—I know the member for Beaches–East York knows her very well—and Peg Holloway. Both are on my seniors’ advisory council, and they help me stay informed of seniors’ issues in the riding. I want to welcome them when they come in.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I hope the member for Thornhill will forgive me here. I’m going to introduce a class from his riding. The teacher is a very good friend of mine, so that’s why I’m doing it. Joe Bush is the teacher, and the class is from Our Lady of the Rosary in Thornhill. Welcome to the Legislature.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to introduce—he’s not here yet—the intern in my office: Gian Mele from the city of Sarnia and the riding of Sarnia–Lambton.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to welcome to the House summer student Ashley Patton, who is working in my office for the summer.

I want to just express the appreciation also of my staff for the good work that they’ve done over the last session: Dr. Alex Roman, Suzanne Bolton and Neave Greig. We couldn’t do our work in this place without the support of our staff, and I want to acknowledge them today.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I would like to welcome the grandmother and grandfather of page Sarah Klapman. In the members’ gallery are Arlene Klapman and Sam Klapman. Welcome.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today, from the great riding of Scarborough–Rouge River, the students from Albert Campbell Collegiate Institute and their teacher, Ms. Kim.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The interns, as you know, do a great job for us, as do staff. I’d like to introduce Leo Lehman, Nick Gallant and Mark Downard.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): From my riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London, I’d like to welcome the group from St. Anthony Catholic French Immersion School, which is visiting Queen’s Park today. They’ll be joining us later this morning in the Speaker’s gallery.

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of the order in council reappointing Gord Miller as the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario effective May 19, 2010.

APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council reappointing André Marin as Ombudsman of Ontario effective June 1, 2010.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday the Premier criticized the cost of Ontario hosting the G20, saying, “I have the same reaction as Canadians do—a billion dollars is a lot of money.”

How soon the Premier forgets his summer of scandal. In eHealth alone, the McGuinty Liberals wasted a billion dollars on his office staff, a Liberal campaign chair and a host of other Liberal-friendly consultants.

Was the Premier trying to be ironic or was his comment on the cost of hosting the G20 an attempt to draw attention away from the fact that in just 28 days, his greedy $3-billion HST will grab more money from the pockets of seniors and families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I always appreciate the positive, constructive suggestions coming from the other side. Perhaps that’s no real surprise.

I wanted to take the opportunity today to talk a little bit about the things we’ve been doing for and on behalf of Ontario families. They’ve been concerned especially about the economy, jobs and their own household expenses. We started by cutting taxes; in fact, eliminating from the tax roll the 90,000 lowest-income families. We’ve created a new Ontario sales tax credit, $260 each for adults and children, which will benefit 2.9 million Ontarians. We have a new Ontario property tax credit, $250 for non-seniors, $625 for seniors. That will benefit 2.9 million families and individuals in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you again to the Premier: It’s obvious that the Premier chooses to forget the summer of scandal and the $1-billion amount that was wasted on eHealth.

Earlier this week, the auditor told us how you had taken money out of the pockets again of seniors and families. OLG wasted millions on luxury suites, resorts, spas and even paintball, but OLG executives today still enjoy the same allowances and the same expense accounts. According to the auditor, the Premier could have taken action over two years ago. The OLG actually wrote him and asked to be exempted—if you can believe it—from the Management Board of Cabinet rules, but the Premier couldn’t be bothered to reply.

So I say to you, do seniors and families have to pay the HST because there was no oversight of the agencies, or you just couldn’t say no to—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to take the opportunity to thank the auditor for the work that he did for us at OLG. We asked them to come in, and he did come in. My honourable colleague knows that we have changed the rules. The auditor reported on events that occurred before the rule changes had been put in place, and again I thank him for his work.

Moving beyond that, I also want to take the opportunity to remind my honourable colleague about some of the things we’ve done, which they continue to stand against. We’re reducing the price of generic drugs by 50%; they stand against that. We’ve signed an agreement with Samsung bringing 16,000 jobs and four manufacturing plants to Ontario; they stand against that. We’re creating a new northern Ontario energy credit to benefit northern Ontario families, who have some extraordinarily higher costs when it comes to energy; they stand against that.

We also brought into place new pension reform that will be especially helpful to people who lose their jobs in the province of Ontario; again, that is something that they stand against.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the Premier: We’ve had the billion-dollar eHealth scandal, we’ve had the scandal at OLG, and if that’s not enough, we know of another scandal that continues to unfold. The Ombudsman investigated complaints about waste at the Hamilton Niagara Local Health Integration Network and the Liberals tried to dump him. The unprecedented smear campaign against André Marin has backfired, but we’re still waiting for an apology, someone to be held accountable for defaming him and, most importantly, the Ombudsman’s report on waste at the LHIN to be released.

Whatever is it that is in the report that motivated you to scrap a public review of the LHINs until after the next election? Are you making seniors and families pay the HST—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is an extraordinary, complicated stretch. The HST is all about ensuring that we build a stronger economy for us today and for our children tomorrow. It’s about 600,000 more jobs. It’s about doing what every parent has always done—whatever they need to do to secure a bright future for their kids. That’s simply what it’s all about.

I want to once again take the opportunity to thank Ontario Conservatives, who have been relentless and enthusiastic in terms of their support for this particular initiative. I want to thank them for their commitment not to undo it should they earn the privilege of serving Ontarians in government. Last, I want to thank them by name: Ministers Flaherty, Ecker, Baird and Clement; John Tory, Mike Harris, Senator Runciman and, of course, Prime Minister Harper. They have all been very kind, assiduous and enthusiastic in terms of their support for a very important initiative.

TAXATION

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also to the Premier. The truest scandal is that each and every hour of each and every day, Dalton McGuinty spends over $2 million more than he collects in revenue. At the current pace of overspending, he’s on track to double the debt in just two short years. Are you making Ontario seniors and families pay your record sales tax increase because you can’t control your record spending, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Like governments around the world, when Ontario went into the downturn that we went into last year, we chose to spend 3% of gross domestic product to invest $32.7 billion in infrastructure and create and maintain some 300,000 jobs for Ontarians. That was the appropriate choice to make. That’s what the federal government did, that’s what the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Italy and Germany did.

What have the credit rating agencies said about Ontario? That in spite of the challenges, this province is in good shape and poised to come out of this downturn bigger, better and stronger than before. We will continue to invest in our communities and our people and create jobs for those who have suffered setbacks.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Why don’t you just stand up and say, “My name is Dwight, and I have a spending problem”?

With Dalton McGuinty, scandal doesn’t just happen. Wasteful overspending is all part of a master plan. Every other jurisdiction in Canada is pursuing aggressive deficit reduction plans that bring them back to balance within five years, but Dalton McGuinty ambles along planning eye-popping deficits for the next eight years. While he says the deficits and the HST are about schools, hospitals and jobs, he has not built any long-term-care beds, he is cutting nurses and independent pharmacies, and he has lost over 300,000 manufacturing sector jobs.

So why are Ontario seniors and families paying your greedy HST?

Interjections.

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

Interjection: The Speaker’s got a smile on his face.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I have a big smile on my face. I’d just ask the honourable members to come to order, please.

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Just over a year and a quarter ago, the government of Ontario stood and protected Chrysler and General Motors. General Motors announced just the other day another $245-million investment in the city of St. Catharines, which is so ably represented by the member for St. Catharines. That was the right thing to do. That will create jobs. That will pay benefits.

The challenges that our economy went through—we’re starting to see nine consecutive months of growth in jobs. We still are not back to pre-recession levels but we’re moving in that direction. We’re moving faster. What do the private sector economists say? The private sector economists say that Canada will lead the world and that Ontario will lead Canada.

Unlike the member opposite, we believe in a strong future for this province. We believe in jobs. We will work to create more jobs and help—

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. I would remind those who are offering interjections, it’s much more helpful if they’re in their seats.

Final supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: The real scandal is that the HST doesn’t even begin to fill the hole Dalton McGuinty keeps digging and digging for our children with his runaway spending. And it cannot be forgotten that he did not tell Ontario seniors and families about his record income tax increase—the so-called health tax—before he did it. He didn’t tell them about his record sales tax increase—the HST—before he did it.

How worried should seniors and families be about the fact that the McGuinty Liberals are signalling plans to bring in a carbon tax, a water tax, road tolls, a second health tax and, according to his strategic adviser, Andrew Steele, a rate hike to the HST?

Interjection: And we’re getting rid of puppies.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And we’re getting rid of puppies, yes.

What a flight of fancy that was.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can arrange express flights for any member to get to Manitoba or Quebec, gladly.

Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let me remind the member opposite of what the Conference Board of Canada says. It says that Ontario’s economic rebound is being supported by public fiscal spending by the government of Ontario.

Let me remind the member opposite about what one of his colleagues, Mike Wallace from Burlington, said. Here’s what Mike Wallace said: “As Conservatives, we’re supportive of a combined tax.... It’s not a tax grab.... That is a misnomer to mislead”—divert—“the public to get them excited about something that’s not accurate.”

He’s talking about you, sir. He’s telling you that you’re not being completely candid with the people of Ontario.

What does that member’s former leader say? “Conservatives are mad at me because I have acknowledged the comments made by organizations like the TD Bank ... that there are ... economic benefits to this planned HST, which there are.”

I do not—

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

Interjections.

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

New question?

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Since we’re in the mood for quoting from our past records here, on November 6, 2001, the then Leader of the Opposition stood in this place and said, “This government blew $1 billion on a publicity stunt and sent out $200 cheques.” He later added, “The people of Ontario ... will not be fooled. They will see through this pretence. They’ll see past the truckloads of their own money being thrown at them....”

Eight years ago, the Premier said people weren’t fools. My question is this: After nearly seven years in office, are we to assume that he has now changed his mind?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased to take the question. Again, I want to take the opportunity to thank the federal government. These are federal funds that are being distributed to Ontarians through the appropriate departments, and we think it’s the responsible thing to do. The fact of the matter is that there will be a transition period until all the savings generated for businesses are passed on to consumers, and we think the fair thing to do is to pass these through to Ontario families.

They’ve taken a different approach in British Columbia. So be it. That’s using their judgment. They thought that was the best thing to do. We bring a different perspective.

We could have kept the money, which I gather is what my honourable colleague is suggesting, that we keep the money as the government, but we felt the most appropriate thing and the fair thing to do was to pass this money on to consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This government brags about the HST cheques being in the mail, but Ontario families are not being fooled, and they’re telling me that every single day.

Deena Moggach says this: “The money he says we will get in the first year as a bribe will not help in the long run and again ... middle ... income people will suffer.”

Jim McLeod calls the cheque a “bribe,” and then asks, “What about next year and the year(

s) after?”

Is the Premier’s opinion of people really so low that he thinks that they’re going to be impressed with a one-time bribe in return for a—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ll ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’d encourage my honourable colleague to speak with the chair of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, who said, “At the end of the day it’s big-time savings for businesses and ultimately the consumer. We recognize this is a big challenge and a big step forward in how we do business, but it’s an important step and probably one of the most important steps we’ve made over the last 10 to 15 years.”

We’ve had a tremendous amount of support from others, not just the chair of the Hamilton Chamber of Commerce, but from Ken Lewenza. I know my honourable colleague will be familiar with Ken. Ken said, “I said to the Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath, ‘Andrea, the harmonized sales tax ... cannot be an issue from the progressive side.’”

We have support from the CAW, from Ken Lewenza and organized labour across the province in favour of this, because they know it creates jobs and it supports families.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier can try to skirt the issue as much as he wants, but it’s real Ontarians who actually get it.

Wayne Ellis writes this: “The ... ‘gift’ is a sad joke and will only help for the first year.”

Rick Snowdon adds: “The [money] we may get from the government will not even begin to cover the extra expense that we will incur.”

Does the Premier agree with himself that these cheques are nothing more than an expensive publicity stunt, or, after almost seven years in office, has he decided that he can fool the people?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: More and more, my honourable colleague is standing apart from her traditional supporters.

Gail Nyberg of the Daily Bread Food Bank said the following: “If you’re a low-income Ontarian this is a positive budget, and I congratulate the government on recognizing that you can fight poverty and stimulate the economic scene at the same time.”

Pat Capponi of the 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction said, “This budget has moved the bar forward on housing, tax credits, and child benefits in ways that will make a tangible difference in the lives of many Ontarians.”

People traditionally on the left are in support of our budget. They’re in support of the package of tax reforms, and they’re specifically in support of the HST because they know it’s about building a stronger economy. They know it’s about supporting our families both today and in the future.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The Premier thinks people can be fooled with a cynical publicity stunt; New Democrats don’t. The Premier thinks people should pay more while billions of dollars fly out the door on huge tax giveaways; New Democrats don’t. The Premier thinks thousands of people who have spoken up against this unfair tax scheme should be completely ignored; New Democrats don’t.

Why is this Premier refusing to listen to people across Ontario who are rejecting his cynical tax scheme and the cheques that come with it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m a little bit surprised, because my honourable colleague has been saying for months now that she’s concerned about the financial burden assumed by our families on a daily basis.

Here is an opportunity for us to work together, to pass along federal dollars through our treasury—it doesn’t even come through our treasury; it comes directly from the federal government. They’re going to send out cheques to go directly into the hands of our families, and my honourable colleague stands against that. I just don’t understand how she can have it both ways. She wants to stand up for families, stand up for helping them address their financial challenges. Here’s an opportunity for the federal government, pursuant to our direction, to send those cheques directly to families, and she stands against that.

I think I know where families stand on this. I think they want the help when it comes to these transitional payments. I think they’re entitled to look forward to these benefits. I think they’re going to put it to good use, especially during the course of this summer.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier doesn’t need to remind me who I stand with; I know that quite clearly.

Here are some of the voices that the Premier is ignoring. Alice Cupa says this: “I’m scared”—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would love an explanation as to why, when I stand up, it becomes so quiet; the moment I sit down, things just change.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here are some of the voices that the Premier continues to ignore. Alice Cupa says this: “I’m scared. Not only for myself, but my 87-year-old mother, who still lives alone in her own house.... She is just barely making ends meet. When gas [and] hydro ... taxes ... increase, she won’t be able to stay at home.”

Richard Halifax of Ottawa adds: “All I know is, it’s going to cost me approximately $104 per month. I am still working at the age of 75. I live on a very tight budget.... guess I’ll have to limit my haircuts from one a month to one every two months.”

Does the Premier not realize that his unfair tax is forcing people to cut even the most simple and basic things in life—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague expresses what I can only gather to be sincere empathy for this particular individual, but why would she deprive her of her transition payment then? This is the purpose of this: to help ease all Ontario families through. Why would she stand against our Ontario sales tax credit: $260, which will benefit this individual every single year? What about our seniors’ Ontario property tax credit: $625 for this individual? But my colleague opposes it. Then there’s the senior homeowners’ property tax grant, going up to $500 in 2010.

Why does my honourable colleague stand against these benefits that we’re putting in place to help out Ontario seniors? I don’t understand it, and I think, frankly, neither does the individual.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier is finally answering my first question; he obviously thinks he can still fool the people.

Wayne Moore says this: “I am a contractor, and on several occasions in the past four or five months I have been asked to install HVAC equipment under the table. I won’t do it, but others are installing equipment for cash. This is creating an underground market ... and is not helping business improve.”

Keith Grant from London adds: “Our additional expenses will be about $50 a month.”

With people worried about job security, their small businesses and their pay, why is the Premier about to hit them with such an unfair tax scheme?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As the Minister of Finance said a moment ago, Ontario will be a national champion in terms of our economic growth this year. The Conference Board of Canada specifically said that. They said, as one of the significant contributing factors, the following: “Households will benefit from income tax cuts and from temporary sales tax transition benefits as the province moves to harmonize the provincial sales tax system with the federal goods and services tax.”

The Conference Board of Canada is specifically stating that one of the reasons we’re going to experience such tremendous growth, one of the reasons we’re going to be a national champion in terms of the rate of our economic growth this year, is because of the package of tax reforms that we have put in place.

My colleague says she’s concerned about economic opportunities and jobs. That’s exactly why we’re moving ahead with this package.

TAXATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Premier. For all of Dalton McGuinty’s talk about the HST creating jobs, he has said nothing about when Ontario seniors and families, who pay the tax, will see jobs created.

Yesterday we asked the Minister of Revenue at budget estimates when the first 60,000 HST jobs will be created. Surprisingly, he said, “Most of them have already been created.” The families in northern Ontario, who haven’t seen any job growth, wonder how a harmonized tax that hasn’t happened yet could do this. Is it magic? Is it sleight of hand? Or is this just another example—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Withdrawn.

Is this another example of how the McGuinty Liberals will say anything to get re-elected?

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m very pleased to stand up and address this question. The truth is that our companies which are creating products to sell around the world will reap huge benefits from this harmonized sales tax. In fact, at every single step along the way in their input costs they will see their costs decrease. That means that they will be more competitive. They will sell more goods. They will need to hire more people.

We know that this is going to work because it’s worked in 140 countries. Even the other day, being up in the Ottawa area and speaking with the Tomlinson company—1,000 employees—these people can recognize the clear and present benefits of this initiative to people and jobs. That’s what we need in this province as we come out of this recession. We—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Families in the north are interested in learning what kinds of jobs the HST will create in the years it will take to develop the Ring of Fire with your “oops” plan. According to Minister Wilkinson, they are “jobs of the future” and “the vast majority of jobs that our children are going to have today haven’t ... been invented.”

What does Dalton McGuinty’s futuristic job invention machine look like? Are they sold here or just in Korea? Is it like a Samsung job invention machine, where you put in a billion dollars of subsidies and you get hot air out the other side?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Apparently, this particular member missed the terrific announcement this week in eastern Ontario, with—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew, member from Hamilton East, member from Durham.

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Let’s be clear: Since last May, there have been 140,000 new jobs, this in an era when we have come out of the worst recession in 80 years.

But we’re not stopping there. We are seeing companies investing today. Blast Freezers in eastern Ontario is creating jobs, recognizing that our tax policy makes Ontario the most competitive of any jurisdiction that we compete against in North America, and we’re proud of that tax policy.

People need to work. People need jobs. You are prepared to sit there like a bunch of patsies while the world takes off around—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please don’t provoke them. Order.

The minister will withdraw the comment she made.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I withdraw, Speaker.

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Ontarians living in poverty are anxiously awaiting the release of this government’s so-called social assistance review report. We know that the report was submitted 17 days ago, but this government still has not seen fit to release it. On May 18, I asked when Ontarians would receive the report. The Minister of Children and Youth Services said it was being translated. Why is this government waiting until the summer recess? Does it have something to hide?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you very much for the question. It’s very appropriate to ask this question at this time.

The report will be released pretty soon. It’s this group’s report, so in order for us to release a report we have to make sure that it’s translated and we have to make sure that it’s accessible. I hope that the member is not suggesting here that we should issue reports that are not accessible to all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Translation should not be an excuse. We agree that it needs to be translated, but we also think it should be put before this House when we’re in session.

In March, the government terminated the special diet allowance, which helps low-income people with serious medical conditions buy nutritious food. This is of very serious concern to ISARC, which I met with yesterday, as did the Conservatives, but no Liberal came to talk about that.

The 25 in 5 network is demanding that no recipient of the allowance see an income reduction in the transition to the nutrition supplement program and that total funding available not be cut. Is one of the recommendations of the social assistance review council the reason that the government is burying this report until after the House recesses?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: My answer is absolutely not. We are very proud of what we have done, and we’re working very closely with Gail Nyberg and this committee. I met with them a couple of times and I will be meeting with them again. I’m very pleased by the work that they have done so far and we will continue to work with them.

I’m very proud of what our government has done to help to reduce poverty. We will continue to work with the community and with my colleague responsible for poverty. We have invested money. We have raised social assistance by 12%. We have put forward the child benefit program—

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

TAXATION

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. Red tape is a huge burden to small businesses in Willowdale. I’ve met with a lot of small businesses in Willowdale and they asked me to ask the government to do two things. They say they face too much red tape in dealing with too many levels of government. They’re dealing with red tape when they could be focusing on their businesses, growing their businesses, hiring new employees and building the economy.

The other thing they’re looking for is a reduced tax burden so that they can reinvest in their businesses and grow the economy. They asked me to ask you, Minister, what are you doing to reduce red tape and taxes for small businesses?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank the member for the question. We’re doing both. Right now in the province of Ontario we have two governments tripping over themselves, trying to tax every transaction twice, when only once will do. We only have one tax collector for personal income tax, one tax collector for corporate tax and now I say to the small business community, we are only going to have one tax collector, the federal government, when it comes to the sales tax. As a result, we’ll be able to eliminate over 5,000 pages of regulations in regard to the retail sales tax that have built up since 1961. I know that the business community is particularly happy that we can do that.

As well, under our tax reform package for small businesses, we are lowering, on July 1, the small business rate from 5% to 4%. As the only province, we will be eliminating the small business deduction surtax, which has been a job killer. We’re eliminating that so that small business—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, job creation is one thing. It’s obviously critical, but when I’m talking to people up in Willowdale, they’re very worried because they’ve been hearing that all items in the province are going to increase in price by 13%.

I think everyone wants to see a more competitive Ontario, but no one wants to see this on the backs of those least able to pay. The unemployed, those on modest incomes and seniors on fixed incomes don’t have the flexibility in their budgets. Minister, how is the harmonized sales tax going to affect low-income Ontarians and others least able to afford it?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Because the HST is part of an overarching tax reform, what it means under tax reform is that for the people whom you have raised, from your constituents and so many others, people with a lack of disposable income—and I’m thinking of seniors on a fixed income, middle-income families with a lot of children and people on social assistance—will be better off after July 1 because they will benefit from our targeted tax cuts, our targeted tax eliminations and our increased targeted tax credits. Overall, it will put them in a better position.

But I would like to put to rest that rumour that’s being perpetrated by others in this place that somehow, taxes on sales taxes are going up everywhere. There could be nothing farther from the truth. For 83% of the things that people buy each and every day, there is absolutely no change in sales tax. It will apply, because of a broader tax base, to energy and services, but that gives us—

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

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. My constituents are furious that you are cutting off debate on the natural gas plant that is going into King township. This is a plant that you have ordered to be built in the middle of the greenbelt in the Holland Marsh, and now you want to use a loophole in the Planning Act to force it through. The mayor of King says that you “circumvent the very process set up to publicly adjudicate such proposals; a process that was established to protect the people and the environment of Ontario and to respect the voters’ wishes in the municipality.”

Are you using the Planning Act to kill the hearings at the OMB on this natural gas plant because you know you’ll lose?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would never think that. I would never presume wins or losses in any of these situations.

I really respect the opinion of my friend Frank Klees very much, and the treasurer—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The riding, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Oh, sorry; riding names—and the riding he represents. I want to tell you that his strong support for this is something that I think everybody takes into consideration.

As you know, there has been a posting by the ministry that allows people 45 days to comment on this particular project. I know that everyone who has a comment, including my good friend Mr. Klees and others, will be able to comment favourably or unfavourably as a result of the opportunity of that 45-day ability to comment—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: All Ontario families must be concerned with a Premier who finds never-before-used loopholes in his Planning Act. He has ignored the calls of more than 50 municipalities that want a moratorium on wind farms. Now he is ignoring the people of King, who have already spent $200,000 fighting this plant at the Ontario Municipal Board. The mayor said in a letter to the Premier, “We ... followed your legislative process to the letter of the law at considerable expense to our taxpayers; yet, you have moved to override us right in the middle of an” OMB “hearing.”

This is a question the member for Oak Ridges–Markham won’t ask, but I know that my constituents and many of hers want to know: Why would you use a loophole to destroy the integrity of the planning process?

Hon. James J. Bradley: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member brought up families in her question, and I want to say that that’s what this is all about. It’s about the families and businesses in King township and northern York region. They need power to lead their quality of life. The businesses in that community need stable sources of power to run their businesses. The clock is ticking. If we do not move, it’s very clear that this community could be subjected to brownouts.

That was a policy that was acceptable to the Tories. In fact, they brought us very close to that. If we would have followed their direction, we would be browning out all over this province. But we are for reliable sources of power. We’ll make the tough decisions we need to make to protect those very residents, to ensure that they have access to energy supply. That’s our—

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

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Premier. What does the Premier think of a construction company that has received hundreds of millions of dollars in provincial government construction contracts but refuses to pay its subcontractors long after they have completed the construction work and, instead, forces them to file expensive lawsuits, which take two or three years, before they get paid? What does the Premier think of this kind of unethical business conduct?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I saw the Attorney General here a moment ago. I believe he’s here right now, and I refer the question to him, if I might.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Let’s just understand about the lien act. It was brought in decades ago as a result of some very difficult and protracted discussions between all of the parties involved in construction. Everybody—everybody—compromised to some extent.

It is a zero-sum game, meaning that if you change the rules to benefit one party to the construction equation, others are going to lose funds. What we’ve been doing is discussing with all of the different parties potential amendments that would strengthen our construction framework and benefit all parties. We’re still having those discussions now. In fact, we have started some consultations to make sure that any proposal we bring in works for the province of Ontario and the people of Ontario, including all those—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: It is not a surprise to me that the Premier didn’t want to answer the question. The company is Carillion Canada, and it has received hundreds of millions of dollars from the McGuinty government and has habitually, over the last four or five years, refused to pay its subcontractors, leaving thousands of workers and dozens of subcontractors in the lurch. Meanwhile, Carillion Canada has given thousands of dollars to Liberal candidates and Liberal riding associations.

My question is this: Since Carillion Canada has received hundreds of millions of dollars of government money and has found that it can afford to give thousands of dollars to Liberal candidates and Liberal riding associations, when is the Liberal government going to demand that Carillion Canada pay the subcontractors—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: My friend knows that I wouldn’t comment on a specific case, but he chooses the protection of the House, the protection of privileged comment to make comments that are really beneath a member, beneath a former Attorney General and beneath this House.

If the real issue is to strengthen the legal framework around construction, there’s a way to do that. If the real issue is to score political points free of commentary or the recourse of those who are smeared, he did it exactly the right way.

IMMIGRANTS’ SKILLS

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Each year, thousands of newcomers make their home in Ontario because of its rich cultural diversity, high quality of life and boundless potential for economic opportunity. One high-demand sector that attracts many newcomers to Ontario is the information and communications technology industry, also known as ICT. According to an industry forecast, there’s a high demand but short supply of ICT professionals who possess the total package of business and technical skills that employers require.

The ICT industry also estimates that about 3,600 newcomers settle in Ontario each year to pursue a career in ICT. What is the government doing to help—

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

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m very happy to speak to the question from the member from Scarborough–Rouge River.

To help our newcomer professionals succeed, the McGuinty government has partnered with the Information and Communications Technology Council to create exciting new opportunities for newcomers in Ontario’s growing technology sector. The McGuinty government is also pleased to be working with JVS Toronto as they continue to build on their tradition of excellence by delivering valuable services that help newcomers integrate into Ontario’s workplace.

My ministry recently launched the integrated work experience strategy, a new skills training program that will provide internationally trained newcomer professionals with the skills they need to succeed. This program provides six weeks of intensive classroom training. It provides business networking, mentoring and other work experience, which are important for these individuals to succeed because—

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

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: I’m pleased to hear that the government is taking real action to help Ontario newcomers adapt their skills to Ontario’s workplaces. JVS Toronto, which has offices throughout the city, has a proud tradition of helping newcomers in Toronto since the end of World War II.

We’ve all heard stories of highly skilled newcomers who uprooted their families to Ontario in the hope of a better life and a brighter future. Some of these newcomers quickly adapt their talents to the Canadian workforce. Others, unfortunately, are working in jobs unrelated to their professions. This concerns me, as it should concern all Ontarians, because we depend on newcomers to ensure that Ontario remains strong and prosperous. Can the minister tell this House what the government is doing to help newcomers get good-quality jobs in their professions?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: The McGuinty government understands that integrating newcomers into the workforce is the key to their success. That’s why removing the barriers for newcomers so that they can work in their professions is a high priority for this government. We led the way in 2006 with the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, and we are leading the way with our highly successful bridge training programs.

Since 2003, the McGuinty government has invested more than $145 million in 200 bridge training programs that have helped thousands of newcomers get the training they need. For example, 80% of the individuals who completed the construction management bridging project at George Brown College found jobs within one year of graduation.

There’s still more work to do, but we are making important progress by giving newcomers the opportunities they need to obtain jobs in their field of expertise.

NORTHERN ECONOMY

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Today we’re voting on Bill 191. When this bill came before committee last summer, it sparked a torrent of protests. This bill is a bill that got the Liberals labelled Canada’s worst government. First Nations are against it, northerners are against it, foresters, prospectors and miners: Everyone agreed that you didn’t consult with them.

Despite the fact that everyone has told you that this bill will destroy the northern economy and subject our First Nations to generational poverty, you seem hell-bent on making northern Ontario a gigantic park, a park of poverty and destitution. Minister, why was the World Wildlife Fund the only group before committee that said they were consulted before you put forward this bill?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The comments aren’t appreciated.

Minister?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I appreciate the question. I am very proud of our government and the work that we’ve done to make a commitment to the Far North. We’ve been very clear in our objectives; certainly, we announced it early in the throne speech and in our budget speech. We have a vision for the Far North that is far-reaching.

We recognize the social, environmental and economic interests of First Nations and people in the north. I have spent personal time going to the north, talking to First Nations, talking to mayors, because it’s extraordinarily important to have their buy-in and their participation. We have been very diligent in visiting the north, and I intend to visit again. There will be hearings in the north coming up shortly. I look forward to the input from our northern First Nations as well as our northern residents. It’s important that we have their participation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, this isn’t the first time you Liberals have been in bed with environmental special interests. The Timmins Daily Press said on May 25 that your government was played like a fiddle and that you were promised “good publicity” for giving environmental groups exclusive rights.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I know that many people would like to go home. I’m quite content to continue on. We’ll just sit here and let the clock sit in “hold” mode.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I know how much everybody loves question period. It was certainly my favourite time of the day.

Please continue.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, a report released by the Ivey Foundation smugly sets out how a group of Toronto special interests played your government for fools. You’ve lost control of your ministry, we’ve lost $62 million since you took power, and now your Bill 191 will crush all development in the north. The Ivey Foundation report shows that your government has abandoned northerners and stakeholders for Toronto special interests.

Minister, you’ve failed in your duty to the people of Ontario. Will you drop Bill 191 and resign?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m really proud of the way we’ve conducted ourselves with Bill 191. In 2009, we heard from our First Nations, our stakeholders and the public and we responded by tabling amendments. We’re going out again. That is unprecedented in legislation. In 2009, we conducted extensive northern consultations. Again, that’s a unique way of consulting with communities.

We’re committed to working with the Far North. In fact, in May we had 33 of 34 northern communities participate in the land use planning base. That is extraordinary participation. The response has been positive. I can tell you, I continue to appreciate the valuable contribution that our First Nations and northern communities provide. Their participation is overwhelming. They want to participate. They’re enthusiastic. We’re happy to work with them. This is important legislation.

PENSION REFORM

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. In just 10 days, Canada’s finance ministers will gather in PEI to decide upon the future of retirement savings. In my own discussions with government representatives from across this country, people want to know if the McGuinty government will turn its back on public pensions just because the insurance industry wants the billions of dollars in management fees that private retirement solutions would give them.

Are they right to be concerned? Will this government simply be a mouthpiece for the insurance industry at this historic pension meeting?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Later this afternoon I’ll have the opportunity to meet with a number of Canada’s leading labour leaders on pension issues. I’ll be meeting with Brother Sid Ryan; I will be meeting with a range of others. This government takes an open and balanced approach to what I think is one of the most important issues confronting this country.

I had the opportunity to speak with Ken Lewenza at some length both on the HST and pensions. I’ve had the opportunity to meet with Ken Georgetti in my office. I have met and spoken with finance ministers and ministers responsible in Manitoba and Nova Scotia. All of us are looking forward to meeting in Prince Edward Island to advance the agenda of stronger and better pensions and—I would go beyond that—post-retirement incomes for all Canadians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I didn’t ask for a list of the meetings that this minister had. I want to know what his position is on public pensions versus putting money in the pockets of the private insurance industry. Other governments, not just me, are right to be concerned that the McGuinty government is in the pockets of the insurance industry. The McGuinty government voted—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need help from the government. I’d ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment, please.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw it, Speaker.

The McGuinty government voted—

Mr. John Yakabuski: That’s what the McGuinty government has been doing—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No. That’s not helpful either, member from Renfrew. Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government voted unanimously against an NDP motion supporting public pensions and unanimously supported a Liberal bill that would mean billions of dollars more in fees collected by insurance companies.

So I’m asking again, will the McGuinty government simply be a puppet for the insurance companies in PEI or will it side with Ontarians and be a forceful advocate for public pensions?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member displays—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We have 10 minutes exactly. Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Only 30% of Ontarians even have a pension, and that member has not addressed that issue.

Finance ministers, at the behest of Premier McGuinty when we first called for a national summit, have pulled together. We’ve been working across the country to build a consensus on a range of options that are available, including all political parties.

I would suggest to the member that it’s about more than people with pensions. It’s about that 70% of us who don’t have a pension. It’s about post-retirement income. They are not addressing that question. They’re trying to score cheap political points, mischaracterizing the position of the government. We’re not going to fall into—

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

HEALTH CARE

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I recently read that Bluewater Health, which serves my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex, was able to recruit the equivalent of 13 and a half full-time physicians within the past 18 months. That’s very good news for a community that historically has been underserviced.

Could the minister please inform this House of our government’s action to improve the quality of health care for people who access the Bluewater Health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex for her outstanding commitment to getting better health care for the people in her community. I’m very happy to talk about the successes that we’re having in building a stronger, better health care system for all Ontarians.

Working with our LHINs, we’ve made significant progress in hospitals across the province, and Bluewater Health in Sarnia is just one example. Working with our partners, we’ve been able to bring down wait times for cataract surgery by 677 days. Hip replacements at Bluewater Health have come down by 255 days; and knee replacements, 198 days. These are significant reductions that have made a meaningful difference for people in the riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: This is again very good news, and I’m proud of the progress that our government has made for the people of Sarnia, Lambton county and across the province.

I also read that Bluewater Health previously had concerns about the number of alternate-level-of-care patients they had in their hospital. Could the minister please inform the House of the progress made at Bluewater Health to ensure that patients are receiving appropriate, high-quality and efficient care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have been working very closely with the LHINs across the province, the hospitals and the community care access centres to bring down the number of people who are in hospital who don’t need to be in hospital, who would be better served outside the hospital.

Bluewater Health is a great success. They’ve gone from having one in three beds occupied by an ALC patient to just 6%. It’s an extraordinary achievement. They have been able to do this thanks in part to our aging-at-home strategy, where we’ve invested $5 million.

It wouldn’t be possible without the hard work of people in the community. Betty Kuchta of the CCAC; Gary Switzer from the LHIN; Sue Denomy, the CEO of Bluewater Health; and all the people who work with them have really had a tremendous success, and I want to congratulate them.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Minister, over the last few years and from the 1950s and 1960s, it’s been well understood that there was a need for an east-west transportation corridor north of Toronto. That route is the 407, and it’s the number one priority in Durham region.

The latest phase of the environmental assessment over the last decade concluded in January of this year. That environmental assessment report is on your desk, Minister. The estimated date for that report to be released for your comments on the 407 website was May or early June.

Minister, the question for you today, as you’ve missed the deadline of May: Can you release the report from the environmental assessment on the 407 east expansion? When are you going to start construction on the 407 east?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like to thank the member for the question. The environmental assessment on that project has been approved by the ministry. It will now be turned back over to the Ministry of Transportation, and they will be dealing with the construction of at least the first phase of that. The environmental assessment of that has been approved just within the last week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: That’s good news. I hope you get on with the job. You’ve been dithering and delaying.

You know that the congestion on our 400-series highways costs the economy of Ontario $3.3 billion annually, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Your colleague the current Minister of Municipal Affairs and former Minister of Transportation estimates that the 407 east expansion is scheduled to be completed by 2013. Minister, can you advise if the 407 east expansion is still on track to be completed by 2013? Would I be safe in making that commitment, or is it another failed promise by the McGuinty government?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I know that the Minister of Transportation is looking forward to answering this part of the question.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very happy to say that we are going to be able to deal with this issue publicly very soon. We are absolutely going to work on getting this road extended.

But I do have to say that I really don’t think that we should be taking advice on the 407 from the party opposite. I think that it would be a travesty for us to listen to the party opposite on any aspect of this project.

I absolutely understand that people in the eastern part of this province need this project to go ahead. The EA has been done. We are going to be announcing very shortly the staging of this project. We’re committed to pushing that road out. We’re committed to that extension. We’re going to keep working on it. But we’re not going to take advice from the party opposite on the 407.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Can’t you just think about that wonderful corn-fed beef that is sitting out on the front lawn and how much I know all of you want to get out there?

New question.

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. In April, our leader, Andrea Horwath, wrote to the minister on behalf of homeowners stuck with badly built new homes: homes with leaks, crumbling foundations, faulty heating and cooling systems, cracks in walls and cracks in floors.

Our leader asked the minister to meet with the homeowners. Yesterday the minister wrote back, saying “Meeting with me would be ineffective.” Some of the homeowners are here today. Why is the minister afraid to meet with people who simply want developers to be held accountable when they build shoddy homes?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you to the member for the question. I also would like to thank the Canadians for Properly Built Homes who are here on behalf of their advocacy. Thank you for coming.

Tarion’s role is to ensure that new homeowners in Ontario receive the warranty protection that they are entitled to by law. In 2008 the Ombudsman of Ontario conducted a review and released a report about the public’s understanding of the relationship between the ministry and Tarion. The ministry has implemented all of the recommendations.

Some of the things that were included in those recommendations are the hiring of an internal new-homebuyers ombudsperson in January 2009. That ombudsperson is to provide a review function for homeowner complaints with Tarion. In fact, they have—

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: If the minister is so pleased to have this community here, I hope that means she’s going to meet with them after question period. I take that as a yes.

This minister is also responsible for Tarion, Ontario’s new home warranty program, yet she refuses to help homeowners who have been fleeced by crooked builders. The minister’s silence on this issue about legitimate consumer complaints is absolutely unsettling.

Today I’m introducing a bill to give the provincial Ombudsman powers to review Tarion, which was one of his recommendations; since 1986 he has made that recommendation.

Will the minister support this bill? And if she won’t, why not?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: It’s a little rich, coming from that party, since they were the ones who voted against protecting homeowners from energy retailers.

I could answer the question. I don’t need the member to say yes for me. I would be very happy to meet with you as soon as question period is over.

Let me just review one issue. The new-homebuyer ombudsperson, who has been in place since January 2009, received 271 complaints, which he did review. In fact, it’s working. There is nothing more important to us, as a government, than protecting consumers, and that’s exactly what we will do.

I look forward to our meeting after question period.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise on a point of order regarding an order paper question that I had submitted.

According to standing order 99(d), “The minister shall answer such written questions within 24 sessional days, unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made in the Orders and Notices paper following the question indicating that the minister has made an interim answer, the approximate date that the information will be available, or that the minister has declined to answer, as the case may be.”

The minister did not answer my question, nor did he indicate that more time was needed. I instead received a list of eligibility criteria and the number of families that have received funding for the program I was inquiring about, neither of which I asked for in my order paper question.

I have a copy of my order paper question with me. I would ask that you review the answer that I have been provided and offer your advice as to what steps can be taken to resolve what I feel is a violation of standing order 99(d).

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I thank the honourable member for her point of order. I’ve made previous comments in this chamber that my role and what I can do is to enforce and to ensure that a question gets answered. Unfortunately, I can’t interpret or persuade a ministry to provide an answer that is to your satisfaction.

Mr. Ted Arnott: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Yesterday at the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly, the chief of staff to the Minister of Finance made statements that directly contradicted statements that were made twice in the House by the government House leader concerning what happened on budget day.

I would like to give the minister the opportunity, and seek the unanimous consent of the House to allow the government House leader, to clarify this matter and perhaps apologize to the members of the opposition and to the House.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): As the honourable member knows, issues arising at committee need to be dealt with at the committee.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I want to take this opportunity, and would ask all members to join me, as we thank this great group of pages. We wish each and every one of them all the best in their future endeavours.

Also, I would like to take this opportunity to remind members to make sure they have it in their

schedule that the International Plowing Match is going to be held in Elgin county, just outside of St. Thomas, September 21 to 25. Members, staff and any viewers, make sure you come and visit the International Plowing Match.

DEFERRED VOTES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L’ENSEIGNEMENT POSTSECONDAIRE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 and the Ontario College of Art & Design Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 43, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 favorisant le choix et l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire, la Loi de 2005 sur les collèges privés d’enseignement professionnel et la Loi de 2002 sur l’École d’art et de design de l’Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 and the Ontario College of Art & Design Act, 2002.

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

The division bells rang from 1145 to 1150.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On June 2, Mr. Milloy moved third reading of Bill 43. All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bisson, Gilles

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kormos, Peter

Kular, Kuldip

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Mangat, Amrit

Marchese, Rosario

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McGuinty, Dalton

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Paul

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

Orazietti, David

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Rinaldi, Lou

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Tabuns, Peter

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Clark, Steve

Elliott, Christine

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Jones, Sylvia

Munro, Julia

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 63; the nays are 14.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

FAR NORTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE GRAND NORD

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 191,

An Act with respect to land use planning and protection in the Far North / Projet de loi 191, Loi r