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

March 6, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-06 (PDF)

L021 - Tue 6 Mar 2012 / Mar 6 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 6 March 2012 Mardi 6 mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

PUBLIC TRANSIT

JOB CREATION

JOB CREATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

WOMEN’S ISSUES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

LONG-TERM CARE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

TAXATION

ENERGY POLICIES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EPILEPSY

EPILEPSY

EPILEPSY

DONALD STEWART “CHIP” GORDON

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION

PUBLIC SPEAKING CONTEST

PRIX BERNARD GRANDMAÎTRE

DON LOBB

WINDSOR-ESSEX ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.

SUICIDE PREVENTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

(CONCUSSIONS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’ÉDUCATION

(COMMOTIONS CÉRÉBRALES)

EPILEPSY AWARENESS DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA JOURNÉE

DE SENSIBILISATION À L’ÉPILEPSIE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

CONCUSSIONS /

COMMOTIONS CÉRÉBRALES

PETITIONS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

WIND TURBINES

HYDRO RATES

EDUCATION FUNDING

CURRICULUM

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

KIDNEY DISEASE

CHRONIC JOINT PAIN

CHILD PROTECTION

WIND TURBINES

DENTAL CARE

KIDNEY DISEASE

VISITORS

OPPOSITION DAY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

Resuming the debate adjourned on February 27, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave / Projet de loi 30, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 sur les normes d’emploi en ce qui concerne le congé familial pour les aidants naturels.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I am pleased to rise and continue the debate for the second reading of the Family Caregiver Leave Act (Employment Standards Amendment), 2012.

In previous conversations on this bill here in this House, we heard a variety of comments and opinions brought forward by a number of members from all sides of the House. There is no doubt that one of the principles that unites us is the need for compassion for our loved ones when they face a medical crisis. I believe that we heard that loud and clear. That is because everyone in this House, and those who may be following these proceedings from home, agrees that when loved ones face a serious illness or injury, we need to be at their side, we need to care for and to reassure those that we are closest to—our family.

The well-known theologian Thomas Merton once wrote that “the whole idea of compassion is based on a keen awareness of the interdependence of all living beings.” It is when we face serious medical situations that we realize just how dependent we are on those who care for us, and it is when our family members are seriously ill or injured that we realize how dependent they are upon us. At these times, our concentration and concerns are not on our day-to-day work but on working to restore those we love to health.

This proposed legislation, if passed, would provide up to eight weeks of unpaid job-protected leave for an employee to provide care or support to a seriously ill or injured family member. I would like to emphasize that the leave would have to be taken in one-week increments; an employee could take up to eight weeks per year per specified family member.

A family member for whom an employee could request unpaid time off to care for could include: the employee’s spouse; a parent, step-parent or foster parent of the employee or the employee’s spouse; a child, stepchild or foster child of the employee or the employee’s spouse; a grandparent, a step-grandparent, a grandchild or step-grandchild of the employee or the employee’s spouse; the spouse of a child of the employee; the employee’s brother or sister; or a relative of the employee who is dependent on the employee for care or assistance.

And importantly for many in our province, it could be taken to care for family members who live in other provinces or even countries. We know that many Ontarians were born outside of Canada—in the greater Toronto area, that percentage is about half—and so the importance of having job-protected time to take care of family members who are seriously ill or injured is all the more important when we must travel and distance separates us from those we care about. As I had the opportunity to mention previously in this House, I know this from my own experience.

I learned first-hand just how hard it can be to juggle work and family responsibilities when I worked in the private sector and my father became ill in Italy. All of the challenges and the stresses that we face when our loved ones are near us are compounded when we must travel long distances to help them.

But even when our family is near to us, having the time off is still important for us and for those we care for. My mother, who is 82 years old, lives with my family, and again, through my personal experiences, I can understand and sympathize with those who struggle to find the time for seriously ill or injured loved ones.

When we and those we love face these very difficult situations, the last thing we need is to fear being left unemployed because we need time away from work. Working Ontarians should not have to choose between their jobs and helping seriously ill or injured family members, and that is why the McGuinty government promised to introduce this bill. That is why we have fulfilled that promise and taken this action for the working people of our province.

Another goal of our government, which I’m sure we all share, is to make Ontario the healthiest place in North America, both to grow up and grow old. We all know that across Canada we have an aging population, and it is clear that this puts pressure on our health care system. So when the opportunity is there to help seniors facing a serious medical condition stay in their homes, where the financial cost to society is lower, we believe that making that happen makes sense for everyone. We can and should recognize the vital role family members play in health care and make sure that they can play this role without fear of job loss.

As both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Labour have said, our proposed family caregiver leave would support our government’s seniors’ strategy. This strategy recognizes that providing good care at home allows our older Ontarians to remain where they want to be, while at the same time relieving the stress on our hospitals and long-term-care system. This is an important step forward, but to take this step family caregivers have to be able to be there, and so this proposed leave would help ensure that time to care.

As parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Labour, I am also aware that our province faces a skills shortage. Whether it is the high-tech or construction industry, skilled workers are one of the important keys to a prosperous future for Ontario. Without the right skilled employees to do the job, the job will be done elsewhere, out of province. Keeping these skilled workers when they encounter the same family health crises we all face is a matter, then, of keeping our economy secure. So it would make economic sense to provide this caregiver leave rather than see skilled workers leave their employers.

For those who have questions whether this proposed leave could be taken advantage of, the bill provides reasonable protections for employers. First, for an employee to be entitled to the leave, a physician would have to issue a certificate stating that the family member has a serious medical condition. This note would have to be provided to an employer upon request. Secondly, this proposed leave would be unpaid. We have asked our federal counterparts to make those who take this leave eligible for employment insurance benefits and are awaiting a response.

So, if passed, the leave would have reasonable controls in place to balance the interests of all parties. All Ontarians, whether workers or employers, can, in a heartbeat, face a situation in which a family member becomes seriously ill or injured. Illness and injury, Mr. Speaker, do not discriminate.

We share a common bond, both as family members and as human beings vulnerable to sickness or injury, and it is the most vulnerable among us who would benefit most from this bill. We know that those who financially have the least have the least capacity and ability to use resources when seriously ill or injured. For those for whom normal, everyday life is a struggle, how much more is it true when they face the additional burden of caring for family members dealing with serious health issues?

It is these caregivers who may also have the greatest fear of job loss; it is these employees who may have the least, in terms of benefit provisions, that this bill would assist or protect. And so, again, our bill, if passed, would help the most vulnerable among us to protect those they love who are struggling with sickness or injury.

A working mother should not have to hesitate to take time away from her seriously ill or injured child or husband because she fears losing her income. A single parent should not have to choose between their employment and being there for an elderly father or mother who has suffered a stroke or a broken hip.

I know as well, from the experience of my constituents, of the struggle of those who immigrate to this country, of those who are dealing with learning a new language; those who may face job barriers and who are making an adjustment to a new culture. For these individuals, their job may be the one security, the one anchor of hope in a life surrounded by many challenges. This proposed job-protected leave for family caregivers would help immigrants not only during their period of adjustment to a new country and province, but also if and when a loved one abroad is ill or injured.

There is another group, of course, to whom an unequal share of the responsibility of caregiving has historically fallen, and that is women—and women who have the least are the most vulnerable. I do not believe that any in this House would want a mother to worry about providing for her child who is seriously ill or injured because she fears she will lose all or a significant part of that family’s livelihood.

Certainly women, or any employee who is working part-time or on contract, can also be among those who are most vulnerable and who may have the greatest fear of losing their job when they need to take time off when family health crises occur. So the bill would make all employees who are covered by the Ontario Employment Standards Act eligible for this proposed job-protected family caregiver leave. Whether they are full-time, part-time or on contract, Ontario workers covered by the ESA would be eligible for this leave. I believe that’s only fair and that is only just.

The one thing Ontarians need the most when it comes to caring for seriously ill or injured family members is the time to be with their loved ones. This proposed legislation is part of the McGuinty government’s commitment to ensure that families across Ontario have the support they need when they need it the most.

Our proposed family caregiver leave is a matter of compassion and caring for those who provide care to their loved ones. I believe it is simply the right thing to do for Ontario families and residents.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Just a few comments on the bill, the Family Caregiver Leave Act; I’ll be speaking to it in a few minutes anyhow. But basically, I think the bill is lacking clear definition. I think it needs to be taken back and rewritten so that the questions are answered; so that we can actually have a good debate on this bill.

I thank the speaker for her time, but basically, the minister’s staff has yet to provide that there is actually a need for this legislation. We already have family medical leave and personal emergency leave. I think those pretty much handle what is needed today.

Also of note: This act doesn’t really help small businesses. In fact, it might actually hurt small businesses: those with 10 or less employees who will find it hard to replace the staff that do leave due to issues with the family. You find, if it’s a very specialized person working for you, it’s hard to replace them, let alone to train and staff.

The other part: I think the comment on this bill is that the government today needs to start focusing more on our economic situation. We’re heading toward disaster in this province. Our deficit is at $16 billion and heading toward $30 billion, and we have yet to see

an act or bill come out—let alone a response to the Drummond report—to deal with these issues. I would really appreciate the government actually getting to work. Go to work on the issues that are at hand, and that’s getting jobs back to this province and getting regulations in place; setting up good tax structures; going through with their promise to lower corporate tax rates; and getting Ontario back to business so that we can start to pay off our debt and get jobs for the future.

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

Ms. Cindy Forster: While we support the intent of the bill, I think that eligibility and enforcement are going to be a problem. The government is already suggesting that the ESA budget be cut by $6 million, and we know that enforcement is an issue with legislation that’s currently in place many times here in the province.

Section 49.3(5), I think, is problematic in the bill as well, because it requires people to actually take a full week of leave off as opposed to individual days. In many cases, these may be lower-paid workers trying to access these leaves of absence for serious illness in their family. I think that if they were able to take individual days and perhaps share that time off with family members, it might assist more workers here in the province.

I’ll give an example of the kind of enforcement and eligibility that I’ve dealt with over the years: under the Election Act, where people are able to take three hours off or four hours off to vote in a municipal, federal or provincial election. Even in unionized settings, workers who are unionized have difficulty getting the employer to give them that time off. Clearly, in non-unionized settings many never get time off to vote, even though there’s legislation around that.

So I think that the enforcement and monitoring piece will be the big issue. The second piece will be the kind of prescriptive requirement to take no less than a week off at a time.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I certainly appreciated the remarks made by my colleague the member from York South–Weston on Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act.

I think all of us in this House, over our lives, often are faced with situations where a family member or another loved one, injured family members—indeed, to provide care if they are indeed seriously ill or injured. And an opportunity, of course, to be with family members—what is always an extremely difficult time, when one is dealing with these kinds of situations. All of us, I think, agree in this House that family caregiver leave is a matter of compassion and the right thing to do for Ontario families.

Inevitably, this bill will make its way to committee: an opportunity to solicit opinions from right across every sector of the province of Ontario, to join us here during the committee process. One of the great advantages, of course, of a minority government will be an opportunity to work with our good friends in the official opposition and, indeed, the third party in order to build the Ontario consensus on a key issue that we want to be discussed here.

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Leal: My good friend the House leader, I know, wants to build that kind of consensus on this kind of bill, Bill 30.

I also note that in York South–Weston, at the Weston Golf and Country Club, was the first PGA victory for Arnold Palmer, in the 1955 Canadian Open in York South–Weston. For those of us who are interested in golf trivia, that’s a very important historical fact from York South–Weston.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I want to respond to the address from the member for York South–Weston, but I also want to say how impressed I was with the member for Peterborough. He’s a virtual cornucopia of golf trivia. So I want to thank him for that little snippet of golf trivia about the member opposite’s riding.

I want to take this opportunity to try to work into my comments a meeting that I just had in my office with people from Epilepsy Ontario. I want to recognize in the west members’ gallery a couple of people that I met with: Pamela Murray, the executive director of Epilepsy Ottawa-Carleton; I also want to introduce Susan Harrison, the executive director of Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder Resource Centre in Kingston, who is actually from my riding of Leeds–Grenville. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park. Also, I met with Peter Andrews, and we had a great meeting talking about some of the issues that they are bringing forward today.

I did have an opportunity to talk to them just briefly, and I appreciate their patience with me running off to my House duty this morning. Certainly they are strongly recommending today that MPPs support and urge the adoption of the Ontario epilepsy strategy. We talked about some of the issues around getting care; the fact that many people who are affected with epilepsy take sometimes over a year, sometimes multiple years, depending on where they live, to get access; and as well, some of the barriers that they have receiving drugs and also for employment issues around ODSP.

They were surprised when I mentioned that I was running off to talk about Bill 30 because, given some of the issues with employment, you’d think that the government would take time and speak to stakeholders. I know the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington mentioned that in his address.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for York South–Weston has two minutes to respond.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I would like to also thank all the members that have taken the time to comment on the bill: the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, the members for Welland, from Peterborough and Leeds–Grenville.

I would like to specify that there is a gap in the current leaves of absence under the ESA. The ESA doesn’t currently provide a long-term unpaid protected leave for employees who want to care for a family member with a serious medical condition where there is no imminent death risk. So the family medical leave is an unpaid job-protected leave for a family member that has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death within a period of 26 weeks.

Also, the personal emergency leave provides short-term unpaid protection for 10 days per calendar year for a broad list of emergencies and illnesses. So there is a difference with the current bill that we are proposing.

As far as businesses are concerned, I also want to point out that only employees whose employer regularly employs 50 or more employees are eligible to take the personal emergency leave.

The government does recognize that some smaller operations may have some challenges in providing this proposed leave, but what I think is really important is that employers care about creating a more positive, a more loyal, a more protective workplace. By having something like this in place, I think it will go a long way in sending that message. The proposed bill is also supported by many organizations in the sector.

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

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’m glad to have a few words on Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act.

“The bill amends the Employment Standards Act, 2000.

“Section 49.3, which creates family caregiver leave, is added to the act. Under

section 49.3, an employee is entitled to a leave of absence without pay to provide care or support to a family member who has a serious medical condition. An employee may take up to eight weeks per calendar year with respect to each family member described in the

section or prescribed by regulation. Entitlement to family caregiver leave is in addition to any entitlement to family medical leave under

section 49.1 and personal emergency leave under

section 50.”

I just wanted to review that, because it’s been a few days since I’ve listened to the debate.

My first point is: Is there really a need for this bill at this point in time? I haven’t received any letters, any emails or any indication that anybody really wants this bill to be at this time. Usually, I get quite a few emails. I’m sure many of our colleagues here will hear from their constituents and stakeholders when there is actually a bill up for discussion, giving their points. I’ll make two references here: I think I get about, I don’t know, 100 emails a day just on this wind energy from MPP Lisa Thompson, her motion—

Interjection: Only 100?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Per day—her private member’s motion which calls for the moratorium on further Industrial wind turbine development until third party health and environmental studies have been completed. So, I know this is an issue and I’m hearing every day that people support this motion. I hope in the House later on, when we debate, that we’ll pass this motion. But as I’m saying, they are letting me know, and with the caregiver leave I have yet to hear anybody. Maybe when I get back to my office today I’ll have a few.

Another point here that I know is big out there—and I know it’s a huge issue because I’m getting lots of emails, and more now. I don’t know if you guys are getting them, on the value for money, the horse racing issues that are out there. You know, that’s an urgent problem that needs to be debated, and I hope the government will bring that up for debate in the House.

Interjection: It could help us out.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Well, exactly. I mean, I’m hearing here that the government, at the end of the day, has taken in over $1 billion that they can spend on health care and education, and with one fell swoop of the pen they’re going to break an agreement that’s revenue-sharing and that $1 billion is going to disappear. I don’t know where they’re going to get that money to replace their costs in health care and education.

But I mean, these are just various issues that actually come across my desk. Again, as I’ve made earlier, I have yet to hear a support or a yea or nay on the caregiver leave act. And I’m just wondering.

I mean, I think the government works under perception. They want to give us the perception they’re actually doing something when—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Actually, yeah: They’re ignoring the economy, the jobs; things that we need to be dealing with. They go on the perception that they’re doing something, so they’ll say they’re discussing, they’re passing these laws. “It’s something that is good for Ontario; working together”—their usual spin.

But they also tried perception on other issues, like Ornge. They say Ornge is under control; there are no problems; they’ve replaced the board of directors and everything is hunky-dory, but really, in the perception, Ornge has been a total disgrace to our province. I think Mr. Smitherman, when he wrote the legislation, made huge errors and the government has not picked up on them over the seven or eight years.

Interjection: eHealth.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: eHealth’s another one.

Perception on our deficit: “No problem. We’re actually ahead.” This year, in their economic statement, they said they’re ahead of projections on the deficit: It’s $16 billion instead of $16.5 billion. The debt: “No problems.” But you look at the Drummond report, and we’re headed to a $30-billion deficit in four years and $400 billion in debt. You try to run this government when you’re $400 billion in debt—you think the services are suffering today, you wait. In four years’ time, what are services really going to be like?

So we need the government to stop living in the world of perception and just giving people—like, we’re working on giving this caregiver act. We need them to start working on some hardcore issues.

The other thing I’ve noticed in reading about this: This is the sixth new leave of absence introduced in the past seven years. Six in seven years. What have they done for job creation? What have they done for fixing the tax structure in the last seven years? I haven’t seen it. I think, before I personally dissect this part of the bill, this bill itself is sloppy. There are too many open-ended questions and not enough

definitions. I think it should be pulled back and rewritten. I think it’s a sloppy, sloppy bill. But I’ll dissect parts of the bill, and parts of other bills—personal emergency leave, declared emergency leave, family medical leave, reservist leave, organ donor leave.

Personal emergency leave, just to review that one: There’s actually a cut-off there for small businesses. If it’s 50 or more employees, this leave affects them. There’s got to be a reason why there is a cut-off for small businesses. I think it’s pretty obvious that businesses with few employees find it harder to replace staff who leave. While I support the personal emergency leave, I’m glad there is a cut-off there for small businesses. It has a definition of “emergency,” and it’s limited to 10 days. I think any business can get by with an employee leaving for 10 days on short notice. I think that’s fair. I think that was a good idea and it’s a good leave.

For family medical leave, eight weeks are allowed, which is fine. I mean, we do get emergencies. There’s a clear definition of why you can leave. Sadly, it’s because someone will pass away within 26 weeks. We understand that; we’re a compassionate province and a compassionate country, and we understand that in your lifetime when those stresses occur, it’s good to give support, to go and support your family member. The other benefit of this is that the federal government has actually said that they would support it for six weeks of EI insurance, to help fund the person.

So they’re taking a leave from work, and instead of having the hardship of worrying about paying the mortgage or the car payments or their high energy costs, they are able to collect some unemployment insurance and they can focus on their family member, or whoever, to take care of them. It is only for a spouse, parent, child or family member, and that makes sense.

Now, in this bill they talk about how a person can take a leave because they have a “serious medical condition.” That term is not defined. How can employers and employees manage this kind of leave if the definition has not been set? Every other leave has a definition of how you can take that leave. I looked up the definition of “serious health condition.” One definition: “‘Serious health condition’ entitling an employee to ... leave means an illness, injury, impairment, or physical or mental condition that involves either (1) in-patient care or (2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.”

The definition of “in-patient care” is relatively straightforward. “‘In-patient care’ means an overnight stay in a hospital, hospice, or residential medical care facility, including any period of incapacity or any subsequent treatment in connection with such in-patient care. The term ‘incapacity’ for the purposes of this definition means inability to work, attend school or perform other regular daily activities due to the serious health condition, its treatment, or recovery from it.”

The definition of “continuing treatment” encompasses numerous different scenarios which are discussed in detail in the regulations that I was talking about; this comes from the United States.

A serious health condition involving continuing treatment by a health care provider includes the following—now, this is a different definition:

“‘Incapacity and treatment’ requires a period of incapacity of more than three consecutive, full calendar days, and any subsequent treatment or period of incapacity relating to the same condition, that also involves:

“(

a) Treatment two or more times within 30 days of the first day of incapacity, unless extenuating circumstances exist, by a health care provider, by a nurse under the direct supervision of a health care provider, or by a provider of health care services under orders of, or on referral by, a health care provider; or

“(

b) Treatment by a health care provider on at least one occasion, which results in a regimen of continuing treatment under the supervision of the health care provider.

“The two treatments referred to in (

a) above and the initial treatment referred to in (

b) above must be in-person. The first (or only) in-person treatment visit must take place within seven days of the first day of incapacity.

“In-person treatment or the regimen of continuing treatment may take place after the period of incapacity has ended and the employee has returned to work. Therefore, leave that may not have qualified” for the leave-of-absence leave “at the time it was taken may later meet the requirements” of the leave and need to be retroactively designated as such. Confusing.

Where are the

definitions in that? It’s leading to problems in this area in the States.

What is a “serious health condition”? An “illness, injury, impairment or any physical or mental condition that involves either (1) in-patient [medical] care or (2) continuing treatment by a health care provider.” Is that emphysema, a ruptured appendix, asthma, heart attacks, a bad back, arthritis, cancer, stroke, spinal injuries, nervous disorders, any serious injury caused by an accident on or off the job, emotional distress, migraine headaches?

What is the definition going to be? I think if you have this bill and you don’t have the definition set out, I think that’s truly unfair to employers—and employees, those wanting to take the leave.

Now, I’m going to talk about consultations with stakeholders. I just wonder if the government has taken the time to actually talk to small businesses. Has there been an impact analysis on how this will affect them in running their businesses? This government here does have a habit of being indifferent to how legislation affects the job creators in communities, especially in small-town areas like St. Thomas, and I’ve seen it first-hand at my pharmacy.

Our party here has campaigned on a promise to bring about a small business bill of rights, and I fully agree with it. The main point was to consult with businesses before any new legislation or regulation is tabled, so there’s the fact that it will be known how a regulation or legislation will affect a small business. We, as a party, do recognize that small businesses are the engine of growth and the job creators.

This bill here has no exemption for small business and family medical leave—whereas family medical leave has a cut-off of 50 employees. I’ll just take this to a personal level. Back at Yurek Pharmacy, we’re currently at 60 employees, so we’re good. We have enough coverage now. We’ve grown our business—not with the help of the government; we did it on our own—and we’re now over 60. But back about 10 years ago, we had about 12 employees. I can tell you now that if a pharmacist left my business out of the blue to go on caregiver leave, that would have devastated my business.

Number one, a pharmacist is a highly skilled worker. They can’t just be replaced by anybody in the business. Number two, there is a shortage of pharmacists, especially in rural—not in Toronto; Toronto has a lot of pharmacists. But if you go to rural communities up north or down south, it’s hard to find a pharmacist to come in to work, especially in small cities like St. Thomas or Aylmer or Port Stanley. To actually find a pharmacist overnight would be quite hard. I tell you, 10 years ago we ran into a position where we actually ran out of pharmacists.

Being the employer, I was working around the clock every day, my brother and I, and it was tough.

The third part about it is, if this pharmacist left and I was able to find a pharmacist to bring in—they’re called locums. They don’t work for me; they work for themselves. But their rates are one and a half times higher than what we pay employees. It’s highly expensive to bring these people in to work for us and to have them trained to how our operations work. That would have been a high cost to our business 10 years ago. It would be a high cost now, but I think we would be able to manage it with the higher staffing that we do have.

So I just wonder if the government actually thought about how, economically, this could be devastating to small, family-run, independent businesses out there.

I think the government is so removed and focused on multinational corporations. Not every business out there is a big multinational company. I think the larger employers out there, the factories that we have and the industrial sector—their union agreements probably already have a caregiver leave in their contract. I would bet money that the majority of them already do have it. So really, is this bill going to affect them or be any benefit to them? As I said before, I think the government should be focusing on our economy.

Again, the structure and the operations: Employers are going to need to be more flexible with their hiring. It’s not going to be easy just to pick someone and train them for one specific job. They’re going to have to do some cross-training, and maybe that’s going to inhibit people being hired, because they don’t have the skills to be able to work more than one particular skill set in a business. So you might actually be hurting jobs. I know this is a stretch, but you might actually be hurting jobs with this caregiver act.

Again, the employer has to continue to pay benefits, has to bring in a replacement and has to pay their salaries. In this day and age, when costs to businesses are high, for those that are running borderline, this might actually put small businesses out of business. The Auditor General’s report states that electricity bills will rise 46% over the next five years. I think that cost alone is going to be hard enough on businesses, let alone pulling away staff.

The questions that they ask—like, how long do you hire? I mean, person can take a week at a time, up to eight weeks. Do you hire for a week? Do you hire for eight weeks? And then if someone comes back in three weeks, you’ve got double, and you’ve got to pay them out.

I think they need to sit down and review this bill and actually call up some small business owners. I’ll give them a list, and they can call them up, and they’ll get it first-hand. They’ll get an honest opinion from the business owners, because they don’t like government—either way, opposition or the sitting government—being involved in their businesses. They’ll tell you up front how bills like this would affect their businesses.

I also have a concern in the agricultural sector. With this type of bill, especially during the spring planting and the fall harvesting, if an employee leaves, there’s the fact that the farmer has to go and find someone to replace them. In rural Ontario, I don’t know if there are really that many out there to pull in to help with the harvest, let alone for them to pay—if it’s a bad harvest year and their yield is down and yet they still have to hire someone to come in, that might actually have a higher cost.

I also want to talk about the financial crunch that this bill could have on people. The fact that the government has only expressed an intention to press the federal government to offer employment insurance benefits—so they put forward this bill for us to pass, and they’re going to expect people to leave work, being compassionate, but they’re not going to have any employment insurance to cover them in paying their mortgage or paying for food. So I think the right thing to do would be for this government to actually talk to the federal government and get this agreement in place before the act is passed.

I think that’s a smart thing to do; it’s actually planning ahead. Again, I always go back to the fact that the government needs to start planning for this $30-billion deficit we’re headed for and start dealing with the problems at hand. The federal government is working hard to balance its budget and may not be able to afford extra payments into this caregiver act; they might actually just deny it. So you’ve done this act—good for you—but no one can really take advantage of it, because there’s no money for them to live their lives.

The government, as I said, likes to say everything is under control; I have, from the Auditor General’s report, some words that kind of prove they’re not: “It is important to note that while the government has presented a plan to eliminate the annual deficit by 2017-18, no clear strategy or forecast has been articulated for paying down its existing and future debt.”

I take that to heart, because we have the Drummond report sitting on someone’s desk in the government, and that’s a plan to get the deficit down. I’m sure they can come up with a plan, and waiting until April, when they give out the budget—we’d rather have that plan sooner than later so we can start working towards being fiscally responsible in this province.

Another thing is, the Minister of Health has talked about increasing home care coverage for people, and I think that’s great. I have worked with a lot of home care workers quite a bit—I’m now a politician, and I guess I’m not working with too many right now—and I think the nurses and the physios who visit are hard-working people, and it gives people a sense of comfort in their home. If we have money going in to develop this home care system, maybe we don’t need to rush into this caregiver leave act, because there is someone there who is going to be taking care of your family member while you work.

I know that’s a tough thing to say, but it’s tougher times. We want to focus on supporting our small businesses and supporting family members, and we can’t have everything. I think if we’re putting money into home care and having the visitations and having someone there with your loved one while you’re able to still work—

Interjection.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: As a review; I mean, as a small business owner—you just took me right out of my talk.

Interjections.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’ll take a rest. I could start talking about golf, but I won’t.

So, just to review, we need to define medical illness, we need to protect small businesses, and we need to get the federal government on board with covering the leave.

Thanks for your time, and I appreciate your comments.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Comments and questions? The member for Parkdale–High Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Thank you, Madam Speaker, and might I say it’s good to see you back in the chair again.

I’m pleased to respond to our friend from the Progressive Conservative honourable opposition. Certainly, their concern for small business is laudable; we don’t see much of that concern reflected on the government side of the House these days. In fact, there was a very problematic comment made by the finance minister just yesterday in question period, seeming to say that the New Democratic Party was not on the side of small business. Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, we had the lowest small business tax rate as part of our party platform of all the parties. Government simply assumed our platform, which we’re thankful for, but it’s hardly their innovation.

We’re very sensitive about small business. It creates 90% of the jobs in Ontario, and it’s been particularly hard-pressed by this government; I look forward to talking about how hard-pressed in my minutes coming up.

I also listened to his concerns about the actual efficacy of this bill, which clearly is not going to be very efficient at all in helping those who want to spend time with their loved ones, since who can afford in Ontario, particularly this Ontario, the Ontario of the McGuinty Liberals, to take eight weeks off of work without pay? You show me that person and I’ll show you a person that probably could take it off before this bill was even introduced.

So again, the problem is not for most businesses and most people taking time off to look after a loved one who’s in distress; most employers that I’ve talked to have some way of doing that. The problem is the pay when you do it, and this bill does not address that whatsoever.

Like all the feel-good bills that this government brings forward that go an inch when you need a thousand miles, we will probably support it, only to see it go to committee so we can make valuable amendments, which this bill desperately needs. But the idea that the federal government is going to come and save their bacon on this one, Madam Speaker, is a joke. One would think they would have consulted first and acted later.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: A few points that I would like to make: First of all, in regard to how a serious medical condition can be defined in the proposed bill, it would leave it up to the doctors; it leaves to them the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an individual has a serious medical condition. The term is hard to define in legislation because, similarly to family medical leave, it would give the doctors the discretion to determine on a case-by-case basis whether an individual has a serious medical condition. So it may not be practical to define this term.

For who can afford to take the eight weeks off, I would like to stress that it can be taken in increments of one week. I would also like to say that my experience has been that some constituents that find themselves in this situation end up losing their job, whether they can afford it or not, because they’re trying to take care of the person in the family that is seriously ill. At least this bill would prevent that. At least their job would have to be kept.

Now, we all know that a lot rests upon the relationship between the employer and the employee. As far as the supports for small businesses, one thing I would like to say is that it does try to really prevent potential abuse by employees requiring the medical certificates and putting in place other requirements as well.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I want to compliment the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London. He spoke in a very informed way and I think helped members of the Legislature understand what he calls some of the sloppy sections of the drafting of the bill. I think I should reinforce the fact that he is a health care provider; he’s a professionally trained pharmacist, and spoke with great authority in terms of some of the medical glitches as well as the impact on small business. I like the way he wrapped it into a context of where Ontario is today.

In fact, he said quite clearly—and I’m sure our leader would say the same thing—that we’re all for compassion and honesty and integrity and transparency with the people of Ontario.

But if you look at this particular bill, Bill 30, you find out that there’s this lack of clarity. It’s similar, as he mentioned, to—some of this has parallels to Ornge, the air ambulance system in Ontario. It’s a travesty when you look at it examined. Every day for the last three or four weeks, the Minister of Health has failed to admit that she completely messed up the file and put Ontarians at risk.

Now, the issue with this thing is, as the member from the NDP caucus said, who can take eight weeks off without pay? Really, it’s as simple as that. They’re saying people can take eight weeks off—and by the way, they’re going to blame Stephen Harper for not giving them employment insurance. It’s a travesty, a sort of a shell game here for the people of Ontario.

We’re for compassion. The most compassionate thing you could do is provide an economy for jobs for young people. That would be a good start. We have 600,000 families in Ontario out of work. They can’t afford to heat their homes.

What they’ve done to seniors, increasing—

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s my pleasure to comment on some of the other speakers today—especially Elgin–Middlesex–London? Cool, I remembered that.

A bill like this is like voting against motherhood and apple pie, and that’s kind of the way it’s written. It’s almost like it’s written in a way that, yes, you can’t criticize it because it’s like criticizing motherhood and apple pie, but that’s part of the problem. It’s almost like it’s made to divide us on something that we should be working together on.

There will be other issues coming in the House later on where they take issues that we should have serious discussions on, but they’re making it “either you’re with us or you’re against us,” and that’s a big problem. And the government side is looking—yes, it’s the guys on this side, but a lot of times it’s the government side doing the “you’re with us or you’re against us.” They’re making things complicated for both employees and employers.

If you’re a small employer—I’m under 15. I have employees, and I have under 15, so do I qualify? Do my employees qualify under that? Can they qualify? It’s things like that. We have to be much more clear. And, yes, all motherhood and apple pie is great, but we’ve got to be a lot more clear on who qualifies. I know my employees; if they had to take a lot of time off, they couldn’t afford it.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The member for Elgin–Middlesex–London has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I want to thank the comments from the members from Parkdale–High Park—that’s right, these seating arrangements work well for me—the member from York South–Weston, thank you; Durham, thank you; and Timiskaming–Cochrane—never been there. It’s pretty up north though, I imagine.

Mr. John Vanthof: You’re cordially invited.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Well, some day I’m going to come up there.

Thank you and thank you for your comments. For the record, I do love my mom.

Interjection: Do you like apple pie?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I love apple pie. I’m not a fan of baseball, though, but that’s another topic.

I’ve checked with my EA, and I still have yet to receive any emails, so I don’t know if people at home are watching or what have you, but if you are watching and you have an opinion on this act, please let me know because they’ll help me formulate my decision on this bill.

But I think the bill is too broad. It needs to be more clear, more defined, and we need to deal with the small business aspect. This bill is coming out—and maybe I’m just taking it a little too personal, the fact that you actually need a bill because businesses are all bad and that.

I have operated my business; my dad started in 1963, and I’ve been at it for 16 years now with my brother. We’ve had to deal with these issues before in our business. It’s just basically sitting down and talking with our employee. We’ve given people time off, the time they need, and it wasn’t set like, “You’re off for this week.” It worked for both of us.

We said, “We understand your position, but do you understand our position and the fact that you’re a key member of our team and you can’t fill in the time?” The way it usually works out is they’ll get some of the week off but they’ll come in and work a couple hours on the night shift. It’s working together, and I don’t know if the government needs to set laws to make people work together. I think small business owners out there are compassionate and they are working with people if these instances do come up.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always an honour to rise in this place and stand for the people of Ontario, many of whom do not feel they have a voice in this place. So it’s always, I think, incumbent upon us to try to give them that voice.

Let’s look at the backdrop behind this bill in the province of Ontario. The backdrop behind this bill is a province that is experiencing record poverty levels, unprecedented homelessness and waits for affordable housing. The backdrop to this bill is a record number of bankruptcies in small business. The background behind this bill is joblessness and people who are in very precarious employment, good manufacturing jobs lost for precarious part-time contract labour, minimum wage labour. That’s the backdrop behind here.

By the way, the health care backdrop behind this bill is waiting lists, a half a million Ontarians without a family doctor, nurses being laid off and our seniors—seniors who might be the ones who are in some ways recipients of the concern of this bill—sitting in emergency rooms in hospitals when they should be in long-term care or be sent home but they don’t have home care, but there aren’t long-term-care beds waiting for them. So that’s the backdrop.

Now, against that myriad of problems, that horrendous scene I’ve just described, which, for someone who was born in Toronto, raised in Ontario, we have never seen before—it’s never been this bad in my lifetime. It was this bad in my father’s lifetime—it was called the 1930s—but it’s not been this bad in my lifetime.

Against that backdrop, we have this little bill. It’s a very little bill. It’s a miniscule bill. It’s a bill that gives people what they probably, in most cases, already have, which is time off from work to look after somebody who is extremely ill or dying or dead. That’s what this bill gives. It doesn’t pay them. It doesn’t give them any money for doing it. It doesn’t provide home care. It doesn’t provide long-term care. It doesn’t provide any of the supports medically that they need; for example, equipment or pharmaceuticals or anything else that might be weighing down the finances of that family. No, all it does is give them time off work so that they won’t be fired.

Now, Madam Speaker, this is cynical. I would sort of second the motherhood and apple pie, but I would say it’s pretty cynical. It’s not really motherhood; it’s kind of guest parenting. And it’s not really apple pie; it’s some synthetic variation of the same. I mean, this is a cynical bill. This is a little bill that gives to someone dying of thirst a teaspoon of water and then expects them to survive a little bit longer. That’s this bill.

But, of course, it’s a teaspoon of water, isn’t it, Madam Speaker? So we can’t vote against it. But, boy oh boy, can we say some things about it, which is what I intend to do.

Okay. You know what they could have done? Let me tell you about another jurisdiction in the world, Madam Speaker, where, if you have someone at home who has a disability and needs ongoing help or, for example, Alzheimer’s—any of the problems that might ask for somebody to come home, and some relative might want to take care of this individual full-time. In Sweden, do you know what they do? In Sweden, if you have a relative who needs your help full-time at home, the Swedish government will send you on a course so you know how to look after that person; get you involved in a union, so you’re a union employee; and then pay you a full-time salary to go home and look after them.

Now, that’s not a teaspoon of water. That’s actually enough water to bathe in and have some left over to cook and never go thirsty again. That’s dramatic. The distance from that kind of reality to this kind of reality is an ocean’s worth, quite frankly. It is an ocean’s worth, to be literal about it. But surely we can do a little bit better than this.

By the way, to again paint a picture of the backdrop, Ontario is a province where Workers’ Action has told us that about 50% of the employers that they surveyed weren’t even matching the labour code such as it is. That is to say that these employers weren’t paying minimum wage—and by the way, I hear these complaints in my constituency office all the time—but the employees were frightened to complain about it because they’d be fired.

This is a province where migrant workers are killed. By the way, did their relatives get compassionate leave to come up and be with them? Did they get anything? What’s happening with that case? What’s happening with migrant workers and their lack of any kind of labour oversight?

But for the rest of Ontario, let’s look at those employees who don’t even get their regular vacation time pay. There’s lots of them, and they’re frightened to complain. Why? Because they might be fired.

Here is a province where only one in every 100 employers ever gets a visit from somebody who’s going to enforce labour standards—ever—one in 100. I’m not even talking about the employers—and we all know about them in our immigrant communities—that fly right under the radar, that aren’t even picked up by the Workers’ Action survey. These people are simply employing illegals, paying them illegal amounts, subjecting them to all sorts of abuse—that goes on here too, and we don’t do nearly enough about it.

We have the Ontario Federation of Labour in the building today about other matters, but they can tell you that one of their campaigns, “Kill a worker, go to jail,” has been met with deaf ears from this government. So workers have been killed in this province and nobody has gone to jail—nobody has gone to jail. Why were they killed? Lack of safety, lack of safety enforcement—we know that our construction sites are dangerous places. Again, where is this government on that file?

So in light of the labour backdrop, this is a cynical little piece of legislation; again, the teaspoon of water when the patient is dying of thirst. This is a cynical piece of legislation in light of the reality of provincial life, of the life of the average Ontarian.

I don’t know anybody, including the members of this chamber, many of whom could afford to take eight weeks off without pay—now, the member across said, when I said that the first time in my two-minute hit, “Well, they don’t have to take eight weeks.” That’s nice. What if you want to take it; what if you have to take eight weeks? Ontarians can’t afford to take eight weeks off without pay. How out of touch can this government be?

We know that most Ontarians are a paycheque or two away from being impoverished themselves. We know that the record levels of debt in this province are unprecedented. I couldn’t afford to take two months off without pay. Can I imagine how someone of middle income or lower could take two months off without pay? Maybe I could take a week. Come on.

Against the great needs of those with great health needs, this bill is sad. It’s sad; truly, it’s sad. Against the huge problem in our labour force with actually enforcing any kind of employment standards whatsoever, this bill is sad. It’s sad.

I don’t know anybody—I actually don’t know anybody of my friends and family who could afford to take advantage of this bill. Now, if I don’t know that, who does? In a large company with a union, this bill is irrelevant because they probably, in many instances, already have this. For most compassionate leave, even small business employers—if someone is deathly ill, most small employers will make do. I know I’ve had two in my family. I used to be a small employer, a small business person; my son is a small business person. Would they work around something like this? Absolutely; they would do it already. They would do it already. This bill is not going to—I mean, how many people?

Do you know what would be really, really interesting? What I challenge this government to do—I challenge them to do something that they rarely do around these kinds of bills—is to actually do a follow-up study and to actually report back to this House—because I assume this bill will pass, hopefully with some necessary amendments—about how many people have actually taken advantage of this bill after it has been in place for a couple of years.

Now, I suppose the government has the out that they may not be in place in a couple of years, so there’s always that. But to be a little less cynical than they are, let’s assume they are still in place; let’s assume this bill does pass. Let’s ask them, “Show me the numbers.” Show me the numbers of people that actually get any kind of benefit out of this tiny, little bill, a teaspoon of water when the patient is dying of thirst. Show me the numbers. I would love, love, love to see them. It’s interesting.

Now, the member, of course, as they always are wont to do in the loyal opposition, talked about the impacts on small business. The members opposite quite rightly pointed out that this bill exempts some small business owners. But let me tell you that small business is also really hurting in this province, and unless this bill is very carefully administered and very carefully communicated, it’s going to be hurt even further.

You know, I had some garage owners, Madam Speaker, come into my office the other day and talk about how much the new Drive Clean program is going to cost them in this province. The average independent garage owner—it’s going to cost them between $6,000 and $20,400 a month. And they have to purchase their equipment from a sole source and, trust me, it sounds very suspicious, a sole source company. They’ve been told they have to do this by the government. They were given about two months’ warning in January about this. So the government doesn’t care about them, because this will drive some of them over the edge into bankruptcy as well.

This government didn’t care about independent butchers. Remember that situation long ago? I had a couple of independent butchers go out of business in my riding because they were smoking their own sausages, and although the Toronto Board of Health had for years told them they were fine, this government said, “No, no, you’re not fine. You have to spend $200,000 to update your butcher shops.” Guess what? They’re all out of business now, too. And of course, in that instance, talking about a health concern, who was responsible for the listeriosis scare? It wasn’t small butchers. It was Maple Leaf Foods, a contributor to the Liberal Party.

So that’s where this government sits, and let’s make no bones about it: This government is not a friend to small business. It never has been. It probably never will be because they’re not the ones who can afford a $10,000 seat at a fundraiser. It’s banks and insurance companies, let’s face it, and developers, too—very good friends of developers.

So small business was not on their radar when the bill was developed either. And it’ll be interesting again to track—but note, I’m challenging them to track too—how this bill, once implemented, actually impacts anybody in the community. I would say to my colleagues in the PC Party and also to those small businesses in my riding and across Ontario, though, I don’t think you have much to worry about, quite frankly, because I honestly don’t think that much is going to come of this bill whatsoever except public relations.

Public relations is something that this government tends to excel at, Madam Speaker, hence they’re still across the aisle. Public relations bills like this and others that sound good, look good at first blush, accomplish extremely little but make a sound bite, are how they’ve been governing for the last eight years.

To go back to where I started at the beginning of this, that is what’s led to the backdrop behind which this bill is invoked—the backdrop of loss of jobs, loss of manufacturing, delisting of essential health services, challenges to the health care system, unenforced labour standards, a terrible labour record and, again, no dollars in at the bottom to help people up; rather, huge corporate tax giveaways at the top, hoping that that will trickle down.

Of course, we saw as well that this government is still—presumably, who knows? They voted against our bill that asked them to stop the next round of corporate tax cuts, but then they seem to be in favour of it. So, typically Liberal: yes-no-maybe is the answer—absolutely on the fence on that one. But it looks like, Madam Speaker, they’re going to go ahead with even more corporate tax cuts, which will then—again—steal from the tax base, the revenue base that goes to afford any kind of health care, education or social services that we already have. So this is all behind this little cynical bill. This is all behind this little cynical bill.

You know, it makes one weary. It makes one feel a little old when you get up and you talk about the same things over and over again. For me, it’s been six years without seeing much change. But I have to—you know, credit where credit’s due: They’re masters at this kind of bill, absolute masters at the kind of bill that purports to do something and does nothing; that looks good but doesn’t benefit anyone. This is the latest of the Liberal offerings.

I should also add that the other backdrop behind this bill, of course, is the Ornge scandal, a scandal on which, of course, they’re desperate to change the channel, because when $25 million of taxpayers’ money is missing from the health care file, when the OPP is probably knocking on the Premier’s door or the Minister of Health’s as we speak to find out what they knew and when they knew it, you’ll want to change the channel. You don’t want to have the focus on that—and the focus has been on that in this House ever since we came back, every single day. I suspect today won’t be much different.

They want to change that channel. How better to do the changing of the channel than with, you know, as my friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane said, a motherhood-and-apple-pie bill that—eh, not a very good mother and a store-bought apple pie, but at least it sounds nice. It sounds nice; it purports to help somebody. Certainly not the people who are relying on an air ambulance service; not the people who relied on the eHealth card either; not the people—when I was first elected, $35 million went out the back door to a cricket club.

We’ve all forgotten that when we moved on from there to the scandal of eHealth, and moved on from the scandal of eHealth to the scandal of Ornge. But hopefully a little bill, a little cynical bill will, you know, get some media play and kind of—just maybe—people won’t think about what’s going on behind the bill.

So, Madam Speaker, I’m going to stop there, and I’m going to say, “Oh yeah, we’ll probably vote for it.” I mean, a teaspoon of water to a person dying of thirst is better than nothing. But it’s cynical, it’s shady and hopefully it’ll go to committee where we will make some necessary amendments before we bring it back to this House. But at the end of the day, even with the necessary amendments I doubt that this bill will really help many. I doubt it will really cost much, which of course is what they’re also counting on as well, because if it doesn’t help many, of course it won’t cost much.

I also, of course, challenge them to rethink their whole approach to employers and start to think that, you know, 90% of jobs created are small business. Start to think about them a little bit, which is just to echo the words of my colleagues to the right here.

So: eight weeks, no pay, good luck. Nobody will take it. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I believe we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear purple ribbons in recognition of Epilepsy Ontario and the Epilepsy Cure Initiative’s Epilepsy Action Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The minister has asked for unanimous consent. Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’d like to welcome some guests who are here for Epilepsy Action Day: Margaret Maye; her husband, Gary Neumann; her son Thomas Drag; and his friend Margaret Aniol. They are all here to raise awareness about the issues surrounding epilepsy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very delighted to welcome all of the representatives of the Epilepsy Cure Initiative and Epilepsy Ontario.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’d like to extend a warm welcome this morning to some family members of our page Katie: her aunt Sheila Burkman is with us today, as well as her grandparents Patricia and Richard Gorwill.

Mr. Frank Klees: I would like to extend a welcome to the grade 5 class from Aurora Senior Public School, along with their teacher, Ms. Lindsay Clement.

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s my pleasure to introduce the mayor of Temagami, John Hodgson.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to introduce some guests from Thunder Bay: the president and vice-chancellor of Lakehead University, Dr. Brian Stevenson, and director of alumni relations, Richard Longtin. Actually, I also see the president of the Thunder Bay Chamber of Commerce, Harold Wilson.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, Lakehead University will have the first northern Ontario faculty of law coming in 2013—the first new law school in Ontario in 42 years. So welcome. We’re very excited to have you here.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d like to welcome the students from Our Lady of Good Counsel School from my riding who will be joining us momentarily.

Miss Monique Taylor: Today, I’d like to introduce Mr. Todd Downey, who is here from Energuy and working really hard and who would like to meet with many MPPs of this House regarding the retrofit program.

I’d also like to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Don Valley East.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Do you have further guests?

Miss Monique Taylor: I was also fortunate enough to meet with Epilepsy this morning, and I would like to introduce Ms. Cynthia Milburn and Ms. Kristin Welton. Thank you very much, and welcome today.

Mr. Michael Coteau: I’d like to welcome back to the House former member of Parliament from Don Valley East David Caplan.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to introduce members of Epilepsy Ontario’s action day here at Queen’s Park: Dianne McKenzie is the executive director of Durham region, Deanna MacDonald is the outreach coordinator, and Thom Appleby and Miranda Zeppieri.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m happy to introduce to the House today Katie Monat. Katie is part of the grade 5 class from Aurora Senior Public School. She’s the niece of my executive assistant, Josh Arnold.

I’m also happy to welcome the president of Lakehead University, Brian Stevenson, and the president of our chamber of commerce, Harold Wilson.

Mr. Steve Clark: It gives me pleasure to introduce in the west members’ gallery Ruth Kitson, the executive director of Community and Primary Health Care in my riding. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’d like to introduce today—they’ll be arriving shortly—Lynn Zeppieri, who is with Epilepsy Peterborough and Area, and Thom Appleby, who is the executive director of Epilepsy Peterborough and Area.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I’m pleased today to introduce John Spencer. John is the vice-president of operations at PGI Fabrene, the last remaining operation of their multinational here in Canada, North Bay’s largest manufacturer and largest user of power.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: The Minister of Natural Resources probably forgot this, but I wanted to also welcome Dr. Brian Stevenson here today. We have central Ontario’s university in the city of Orillia, and it’s Lakehead University.

Mr. Jack MacLaren: It gives me great pleasure to introduce the family of page Katelyn Hochgeschurz. Katelyn is having her page captain day today, so it’s a very special day for her. In the members’ gallery is her mother, Colleen Hochgeschurz, and Colleen’s sister Linda Warren, who’s the aunt of Katelyn, and Katelyn’s grandparents Ric and Jan Latimer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from Leeds–Grenville, on the last second.

Mr. Steve Clark: Thanks, Speaker. I mentioned them this morning in one of my addresses, but I’d like to recognize the group from Epilepsy Ontario who came and met with me earlier: Peter Andrews, Pamela Murray and, last but not least, Susan Harrison, who’s a constituent of mine. She’s with the Epilepsy and Seizure Disorder Resource Centre in Kingston. Welcome.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, in March 2011 you signed a memorandum of understanding with Mayor Rob Ford to invest $8.4 billion from the province of Ontario in subways. We in the PC caucus believe that was the right thing to do; world-class cities build subways.

Premier, are you now backing away from your signed memorandum of understanding to build subways with Mayor Rob Ford here in Toronto?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this issue. It’s very important to all of us, not just those residing in the Toronto area but to all of Ontario, that Toronto work well for the benefit of not just this community, but all Ontarians.

My colleague references a memorandum that I entered into with Mayor Ford, which is true; we did. But there is a specific provision in that agreement that stipulates that the mayor must seek the approval of the council. This is a matter of respect for the expressed will of the municipal council.

So we’re looking forward to continuing to work with the council. We are determined to invest in better public transit, as I say, not just for the benefit of people living in this community, but for all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier has been backing away from what we think is the right thing: an investment in subways here in Toronto. In 2008, the $8.4 billion had been set aside. We have a major gridlock problem here in Toronto and the GTA, among the worst in North America.

Premier, you lack a jobs plan. If you want to attract jobs and invest in the city of Toronto, if you want to see a world-class city building subways, we should invest in subways, not tearing up existing streets and taking away lanes permanently. Premier, any good jobs plan will involve a subway investment—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I’m going to remind the members on the government side that, quite often, what we were having was a question placed without interruption. I’d like to continue that trend and remind members of the opposition that when the answer—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Since all members are making comments, I will take the time to restate what I was saying without interruption, please.

Up until recently, the members on the government side have been relatively quiet while questions are being put. I’d like that to continue. On the government side, when the question is put, I would like quiet for the answer. All members need to hear the question and the answer.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s hard to keep up with my honourable colleague’s position with respect to subways. There was a time when he wanted to bury subways, and now he wants to give life to subways, so it’s hard to keep up with where they stand on subways.

I think our shared responsibility at all times is to respect the expressed will of our municipal councils. The council has spoken on this matter. We think we are getting very close to a decided position. We look forward to working with the council in that regard.

My honourable colleague is late to the party but he is welcome nonetheless. We are strong champions of public transit. We have investments that we’re making in this community, in Kitchener–Waterloo and in Ottawa. We want to expand GO Transit throughout much of southern Ontario.

I welcome my honourable colleague’s support for the first time for—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here’s the reality of this situation. This is $8.4 billion that has been allocated since 2008 flowing through the province of Ontario—100% provincial dollars. It flows through Metrolinx, an agency of the province of Ontario. Clearly, the province has a very important role to play here to make the right decision: to invest in subways, to build underground, not rip up existing streets.

Premier, I don’t think you standing on the sidelines is good enough. You standing outside of this is not leadership. If you truly want to break gridlock and attract investment and create jobs, you invest in subways. Will you do the right thing and direct Metrolinx to work with the city to invest in subways in the province of Ontario, not tearing up more and more—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, we on this side of the House happen to believe that local democracy is pretty important. So unlike the party opposite when they were in government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Peterborough, come to order. Minister of Transportation, come to order.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Unlike the party opposite when they were in government, we are not forcing municipalities into amalgamations that they don’t want. We are not downloading new responsibilities. In fact, we’re uploading; we’re reversing the damage that they put in place.

I ask my honourable colleague, what other considered positions of municipalities across the province of Ontario is he now prepared to disregard and substitute his own personal discretion? I just don’t think that is the way to run a railroad. I don’t think it’s the way to run a provincial government. I think what we have to do is respect local—

Interjections.

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

New question.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: We in the PC caucus believe world-class cities build subways. It’s the right thing to do. It will help bring jobs and investment to the province of Ontario.

Premier, just to make sure the record is clear, you did force Innisfil into Barrie. You forced the amalgamation base of Innisfil into Barrie without compensation. When you announced the expansion of the subway network into Vaughan, you didn’t go through this process; you made the right decision to extend it into Vaughan. We think the right decision today is for the Eglinton crosstown route underground, not tearing up streets.

I think the mayor was very clear in the most recent election that he was going to stop the gravy train and he was going to build subways. He had vast support across the city. It’s time for some leadership on this issue, Premier. Will you invest in subways and help—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I think the Leader of the Opposition should know that many of the transit systems in major world-class cities have hybrid systems. They have subways, buses and light rail. Let me just review some of the world-class cities that have subways and LRT: These include Boston, Paris, Geneva, Sydney, Calgary, Edmonton, Jerusalem, London, Houston, Berlin, Dublin, Tokyo, Vienna, Brussels, Prague, Bordeaux, Amsterdam, Oslo, Barcelona, Stockholm, Edinburgh, Ottawa, Baltimore, San Francisco and Adelaide.

And you know something? Toronto is a world-class city. Toronto has a hybrid system, and this is the right decision to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Hold on a second here: Now you’re saying this is the right decision to be made. This has been a change in position, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Now you’re saying it’s the right thing to rip up city streets, to take away lanes permanently on Finch, on Eglinton, on Sheppard. That’s what the minister has said.

So, clearly, if you think that that’s the right decision, you’d better tell the Premier, because the Premier seems to say he has no opinion on this.

We have an opinion. We’re clear. We believe you should invest in subways. We live in Canada. You should build it underground to break gridlock, and it’s what commuters prefer. Minister, your own Metrolinx chairman, Bruce McCuaig, said on February 6, 2012, in the National Post that the subway version of the Eglinton crosstown delivered better results.

We think it’s the right thing to do. You want to tear up city streets. I ask you to reconsider: Will you support the right thing and build underground, not—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, we believe in the democratic process. We respect municipalities.

I’m going to choose my words very carefully: In 22 years as an elected official, the resolution of the Leader of the Opposition is the most intellectually shallow, uninformed and politically opportunistic I have ever seen. He asks us to respect the memorandum of understanding. The memorandum of understanding was signed by the mayor. The mayor knowingly put a condition in respecting city council, by making the agreement conditional on city council approval. So the mayor is showing disrespect for his own agreement that he negotiated and signed.

We are showing respect to the city council and we are showing respect for the memorandum of understanding that we signed with the mayor.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, the minister talks about respecting democracy. Mayor Ford ran in a race of 40 candidates and he said two things: He said he would stop the gravy train and he said he’d build subways. He received 47% of the vote on that in a 40-field race. So for the minister to say that that position is intellectually shallow is an insult to the voters in the city of Toronto who endorsed this plan.

Clearly, Minister, the right thing to do for convenience for travellers, to attract investment to the city, to attract more jobs and to break gridlock is to build subways; to build underground. This is a time for provincial leadership. It flows from the province of Ontario—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question?

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s a provincial agency. Will you do the right thing to help create jobs in Toronto and our province and endorse the plan supported by—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Speaker, we support local government. We support local government by being fiscally responsible, by supporting—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I absolutely want to know what you guys had for breakfast.

I have asked all sides and all members to tone it down a little, and I’m asking one more time. I will tell you, to make it perfectly clear: When I name someone, it’s as a result of one and only one warning. That’s all I do, and I think you know that.

I’m asking you: I’d like to hear, as do most members, and I don’t like it when somebody’s answering and then someone on the same side is heckling or someone is asking a question and someone on the same side is shooting comments. At least let the questions get out.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need the reminder.

Carry on.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, our Toronto Liberal caucus advocated for, and was able to obtain, a commitment of $8.4 billion for the transit users in the city of Toronto. That’s a tremendous commitment to local government.

Something the Leader of the Opposition likes to gloss over, having taken fiscal responsibility in his own mind, is that building entirely underground transit on Sheppard, Eglinton and Finch would cost more than $15 billion, at least $7 billion more than the $8.4 billion that we have on the table. Will the Leader of the Opposition—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, come to order.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: —support additional taxes to pay for the subway that he is now saying he wants—

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

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. In February 2011—

Interjection.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: —the government signed a contract with Silicon Knights in St. Catharines to the tune of $2.5 million. They promised to create 90 jobs and sustain a further 100 jobs. Instead, they laid off 45 employees. Last November, the Premier told this Legislature that one instalment of provincial money had been provided to the company.

Exactly how much money has Silicon Knights received to date, and have further instalments since been made?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: As is becoming a pattern with NDP questions, they continue to ask questions about investments that have been made, expecting, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps we shouldn’t be working with businesses across this province, we shouldn’t be working to attract foreign direct investment, that we should be ignoring that responsibility to create jobs and promote economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, we’ve been working very closely with Silicon Knights. It actually is a very fascinating company, a company with great potential. We’ll continue to work very closely with them. They’re in a field, Mr. Speaker, that’s a challenging field, that does have ups and downs. We’re willing to continue to work with them. We’ll ensure that anything that would be invested in that company—and nothing has been yet, but anything that would be invested—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government has censored the contract that we obtained through freedom of information. It’s also refusing to release the jobs targets for the support of the multi-billion dollar hedge fund, Apex funds. In fact, the copy of the Silicon Knights contract that we obtained contained one appendix, consisting of only 26 censored pages.

Don’t the people of Ontario have a right to know how their money is being spent and whether companies that are getting public money are meeting their job creation targets?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition brought up the Apex application or the Apex grant yesterday. Let me talk about that a little bit. This is a $350,000 contribution over five years. Mr. Speaker, this just was approved in November, so this is something that’s over five years. Again, no money has flowed to Apex yet. They will be creating 50 jobs, but they’ll be investing $17 million in our economy. That’s a pretty darned good leverage rate for the $350,000 that we’re investing, and they’re investing it in our financial institutions sector, a sector we are a global leader in. This is creating jobs in the financial services sector. It’s important—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, I have to say that initially we were told there were going to be 90 jobs created, and now the minister says there’s going to be 50 jobs created. I guess they really don’t know whether there are going to be any jobs created whatsoever.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Durham, come to order.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: You know, the government did censor our contracts; they’re not giving us the information. I think it’s pretty clear that what we need in Ontario is a much more targeted approach to job creation. There are far too many examples where companies that are taking the public’s money are firing rather than hiring here in Ontario.

Can Ontario families expect anything at all from this government? Can they expect jobs to actually be created from their financial support? Or do we see more examples of things like Silicon Knights, where good money seems to be going after bad?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The strategic jobs and investment fund has invested $206 million in Ontario businesses. It has leveraged $2.8 billion of investments from the private sector. It has supported or created 5,400 jobs. I think that’s good for Ontario’s economy. I think that’s good for Ontario workers.

I want to thank the NDP for supporting the southwest Ontario development fund yesterday. I want to thank them for supporting the eastern Ontario development fund. But, Mr. Speaker, if they support those funds, why would they not be supporting the strategic jobs and investment fund that’s bringing foreign direct investment into—

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

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. A targeted approach to job creation means rewarding companies that actually create jobs that will last in Ontario. Unfortunately for families in Niagara, Silicon Knights isn’t the only example of a company that has taken public money and cut jobs. Last month, St. Catharines-based New Food Classics took a government grant of $1 million and then closed up shop. Why is public money going to companies that are laying people off in Ontario?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I’ve said many times, there are accountability mechanisms within all of these grants that are forwarded, and indeed, Mr. Speaker, we take those accountability mechanisms very seriously. But when you look at the amount of grants that go out, our economic development funds have leveraged $8.6 billion of private sector investment in our economy. Imagine where our economy would be without that $8.6 billion. That’s created 12,000 new jobs in Ontario and protected 19,300 jobs.

Where we may be able to agree with the leader of the third party is that we feel we need to do something that the Drummond report recommended: We need to consolidate some of these programs. We need to look at a one-window approach. We’ve been very clear that that’s the direction we plan to go in. Mr. Speaker, we’re looking forward to doing that, and I welcome the support of the leader of the third party in accomplishing that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in Niagara, in London, in Toronto, in Thunder Bay are all concerned about jobs. Not only are there nearly 600,000 people without a job in this province, but a recent poll found that more than one quarter of Ontarians are worried that somebody in their family is going to lose their job. Instead of a jobs plan, we are seeing example after example of companies taking public money and closing up shop. Isn’t it time for tax measures in this province that really reward the job creators?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Mr. Speaker, let me just use a few examples of companies that have worked with us, partnered with us to create jobs:

—in the riding of Carleton–Mississippi Mills, Ciena Canada: 353 new jobs, supporting 967 million jobs; that’s with a grant from the province of $25 million;

—the General Electric Smart Grid: We’re providing $7.9 million, and the number of jobs being created is 146; that’s in the riding of Mississauga–Streetsville;

—Huawei Technologies Canada: They’re announcing a $6.5-million investment, with 164 jobs in all being created; again, that’s in the riding of Carleton–Mississippi Mills.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, come to order, please.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just asked for order, member.

Hon. Brad Duguid: On this side of the House, we’re concerned. We’re determined to continue to create jobs. We’ll continue to partner with companies and make smart investments—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There’s an unemployment rate of 9% and 25,000 people without a job in the city of London. Windsor’s unemployment rate is nearly 11%, and 15,000 people can’t find work in Oshawa. For families in these communities, stories of companies packing up after taking public money leave them shaking their head in absolute disbelief. Will families soon see a job creation program that actually works for them, or is it going to be more of the same in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This government is going to continue to invest in our people. We’re going to continue to ensure that we have the best-trained workforce in the world.

It’s not by accident that we’re the second most desirable destination for foreign direct investment. That’s not by accident. That’s because we’ve put in place the fundamentals to build a strong economy, the strongest workforce in the world, one of the most competitive tax environments in the world, investments in infrastructure and a commitment to an agenda on innovation. All of these things combined helped us create 121,000 net new jobs last year in the province of Ontario. All of those things combined helped us ensure that we created over 300,000 net new jobs since the recession.

We’re going to keep creating jobs. We’re going to keep moving forward—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: Yesterday, the Minister of Health admitted that she knew nothing about an international directive that issued warnings about the structural integrity of the 10 AW139 helicopters in service at Ornge. Today, I want to ask the minister if she is aware that an Ornge-contracted PC-12 medivac Pilatus fixed-wing aircraft crash-landed at the Timmins Airport on January 13 of this year. The reason: Its single engine failed.

What does the minister know about this incident? And can she tell us what she thinks about the decision by Ornge to purchase 10 Pilatus fixed-wing, single-engine aircraft to serve in our air ambulance service?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, what I do know is that the member has made various allegations in this House and outside this House. We always follow up to ensure that whatever steps can be taken have been taken. Most often, those allegations turn out to be completely unfounded, as was the allegation the member opposite made yesterday.

We have put in place very strong leadership at Ornge, and I thought it might be helpful to actually inform the people who are concerned about this issue about the calibre of people who are now in charge at Ornge. Ian Delaney, who is the chair of the corporate governance committee and chair of the board, is the chairman of Sherritt International Corp. and he served as president and chief executive officer. He has also served in executive positions at Viridian, the Horsham Corp., Merrill Lynch Canada Inc. over the past—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The allegations I made yesterday were confirmed by people at Ornge. It shows what the minister knows about this.

Once again, we have to marvel at how much the minister can be kept out of the loop about what’s going on both at Ornge and in her ministry. Once again, we have to question the decision of the leadership at Ornge for making the decision to purchase those single-engine aircraft. No other jurisdiction in this country uses single-engine aircraft for their air ambulance services. BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Quebec and Newfoundland all use twin-engine aircraft. When the minister and her cabinet colleagues travel, they use twin-engine aircraft.

I’ve been asked by the pilots and the paramedics of our front-line service to ask the minister if she would venture a guess as to why two engines would be better than one?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it’s important that the people of this province understand that the plane that the member opposite refers to—he tried to leave the impression it was an Ornge aircraft. It was not an Ornge aircraft.

However, let me talk some more about the people who are now in leadership positions at Ornge. Charles Harnick is a member of the corporate governance committee, human resources and compensation committee and the audit committee of the board. Charles Harnick, Q.C. is a founding principal of Counsel Public Affairs Inc. He’s a mediator and arbitrator on the panel of Yorkstreet Dispute Resolution Group. He served as Attorney General of the province of Ontario and minister of native affairs from 1995-99 and as MPP for Willowdale. He was awarded the law society medal in 2005 and sits as—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Premier, I have been asking questions about Ornge for quite a few weeks now, but unfortunately many of these questions remain unanswered. In order to move on, in order to rebuild trust in our air ambulance system, we need to know who knew what, when.

My question is simple, Mr. Speaker: When did the Premier learn that at least three employees in his office, including his principal secretary, were aware of Ornge for-profit schemes and ventures?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It’s on the public record that there was a meeting in January with Ornge and members of my staff and my ministry that reviewed some of the changes that were being made at Ornge on the corporate side.

Unfortunately, we did not have the tools we needed to prevent that from happening; this work was under way.

I will be introducing new legislation very shortly that will require the minister to approve any changes that could have prevented what we have seen.

The OPP is investigating the financial irregularities. The Auditor General is releasing his report. I’ve asked them to release that as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question was not to the Minister of Health, my question was to the Premier, so back to the Premier.

In January 2011, we all know that a 35-page briefing note was given to the Premier’s office, including Jamison Steeve, the Premier’s right-hand man. It detailed a complex web of for-profit companies connected to Ornge and its executives. It referred to extra pay for some of its executives, including Dr. Mazza.

When was the Premier made aware that these schemes were going on, and why the delay before action?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there was no delay in action. We were aware that there was a complex web of corporations that was being created. We received assurances from Ornge that there was no intermingling of public funds and private funds. We attempted to get answers to questions to verify that assertion by Ornge. We failed to get those answers. They did not provide us with the information we needed, which is exactly why a few months later, we took the action we did: We sent in a forensic audit team; we replaced the CEO; we replaced the entire board of directors. This matter is now with the OPP.

WOMEN’S ISSUES

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question today is for the minister responsible for women’s issues.

As we all know, this is International Women’s Week. As a matter of fact, International Women’s Day has now been observed for 100 years.

As we all know, the 1900s were a time of great change in the status of women because that’s when women began to agitate and advocate for equal rights. Since then, International Women’s Day has gained broad acceptance across the developing world and the developed world. As a matter of fact, it is an official holiday in many countries such as: Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cuba, Georgia, Eritrea and Zambia.

This week, I believe, is a recognition of how far women have come but also a time to reflect as to how much further we still have to go. For instance, women still experience much higher rates of poverty.

Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell this House what the government is doing to improve the economic status of women in Ontario?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Thank you very much, Speaker, and I want to thank the member for Mississauga East–Cooksville for raising this important issue and bringing the importance of International Women’s Day and International Women’s Week to the floor of this Legislature.

Issues surrounding the economic independence of women are very complex, and that’s why I’m so proud to have been part of a government, to be part of a government, that deals with these issues in a cross-ministerial fashion.

There’s excellent work being done by the Ontario Women’s Directorate with respect to ensuring that women have programs for IT training, for skilled trades and technical programs. Whether it’s at Mohawk College in Hamilton, Conestoga College in Waterloo or Collège Boréal in Timmins, women are receiving the skills and training that they need to lift themselves and their families into a better future, and that’s something that everyone in this Legislature should—

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

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Minister, there are challenges around women in the core working age group, from 25 to 44, and participating in the workforce, something I’m sure some women in this Legislature might be able to relate to. Women also remain significantly underrepresented in leadership positions in the private sector. For instance, men are more than twice as likely as women to hold senior management positions. This hasn’t changed in almost 20 years. Men are also one and a half times more likely to have positions in middle management.

Many of the women are not working because of the high costs of child care. Speaker, will the minister tell us what this government is doing to increase access to child care?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very pleased to be part of a government that invested $63.5 million per year to permanently fill the child care funding gap left by the federal government. Through the investments we’ve created, nearly 43,000 more children are receiving fee subsidies each year. We’ve created 22,000 new licensed child care spaces. We’ve increased investments in child care over the past eight years by 46%, and that’s in addition to the investments in all-day kindergarten: $1.5 billion at full investment, Speaker.

We know that there continues to be work to do with respect to modernizing child care, but I can tell you that we are proud of the record of this government. We stepped in when government stepped away, and we did not see allies in the fight for child care.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: Speaker, the minister continues to refer to the leadership team that is now in charge at Ornge and expresses great confidence in their ability. The truth is that there is a new volunteer board and a CEO who has no experience in air ambulance. However, we also know that the two individuals who are in control of the day-to-day operations at Ornge are Mr. Rick Potter and Mr. Steve Farquhar. Not only were these two individuals intimately involved in the helicopter purchase that’s now under criminal investigation, they were involved in the decisions that resulted in operational decisions that put patients and crews at risk.

I ask the minister this: Why has she embraced Mr. Potter and Mr. Farquhar as key members of the so-called new leadership team at Ornge? Knowing their role in the past, why has she endorsed those two individuals?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have complete confidence in the new board of directors at Ornge, and there was a time when the member from Newmarket–Aurora also had confidence in that team.

Let me introduce the people of Ontario to yet another member of this new board of directors: Barry McLellan. He is the chair of the medical oversight committee at Ornge and a member of the corporate governance committee. He’s the president and CEO of Sunnybrook Hospital. Prior to this position, Dr. McLellan was the chief coroner for Ontario. He’s a professor in the department of surgery at the University of Toronto. He’s a graduate of the University of Toronto, with a medical doctorate, in 1981. He subsequently trained in emergency medicine, receiving a fellowship in 1985.

He was the director of the trauma program and vice-president of specialty services at Sunnybrook and was also the director of the—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, anyone watching the proceedings here today will know that a board of directors has nothing to do with the day-to-day operations of an organization.

The minister’s credibility is wearing thin. She has publicly denounced Mr. Potter for falsifying his credentials. When asked what she would do if a member of her own staff resorted to the kind of behaviour that Mr. Potter demonstrated, she said, “I would fire him.” She’s heard repeatedly that Mr. Potter and Mr. Farquhar were at the centre of decisions that put patients and crews at risk, and yet the minister continues to herald them as key members of her leadership team.

There’s nothing new at Ornge. The same people are in charge. Why does the minister refuse to see that and continue to endorse people who quite frankly have the credibility—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have complete confidence in the new board at Ornge. I tell you, I have a lot more confidence in them than I do in the member from Newmarket–Aurora.

Let me introduce another member of the board, Patrice Merrin. Patrice is the chair of the human resources and compensation committee. She’s a member of the corporate governance committee and medical oversight committee. She’s the chairman of the board of CML Healthcare Inc., a leading provider of medical laboratory testing services in Ontario and the largest provider of diagnostic imaging in Canada. She’s a former president and CEO of Luscar Canada, Canada’s largest thermal coal producer. She’s a director of the Climate Change and Emissions Management Corp. and is a former director of the NB Power Group.

She has served on many not-for-profit boards, including as a trustee of her alma mater, Queen’s University.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s auto insurance companies—

Interjection: To whom?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. This question is to the Minister of Finance.

Ontario’s auto insurance companies are reporting huge profits, in fact, while accident victims are suffering due to government cutbacks in 2010. For example, Co-operators reported profits of $150.3 million in 2011, up 100% from the year before. Co-operators explained, “Significant improvements year over year can be attributed to favourable claims experience in the Ontario automobile insurance portfolio.”

Will the minister admit that slashing auto insurance coverage benefits big insurance companies and not drivers and accident victims?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, Ontario’s coverage is as robust as in every other province in the country. Now, the member opposite doesn’t want to acknowledge that insurance rates have come down considerably, doesn’t want to acknowledge his own party’s checkered history on these issues.

I think you have to listen carefully. They spoke this way prior to becoming a government, Mr. Speaker. They said that public auto insurance was the way to go. Then, lo and behold, they became government, and they rejected public auto insurance.

Our record is different. Our record is a record of bringing down insurance premiums. Our record is making auto insurance more accessible to people. It’s a record of building a better insurance system for all Ontarians that’s saving all Ontarians money each and every day of the year.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: Through you, Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Finance: Let’s talk about the Minister of Finance’s and Ontario’s track record. In December, I raised the fact that insurance companies are basing their premiums not on drivers’ records but on where they live and what neighbourhood they live in in Ontario. The same driver with the same age, gender, marital status, driving record and car model will pay over 150% more simply based on where they live in Ontario. That’s simply unfair.

When will this minister put an end to this practice so that people’s premiums are based on their driving record, not based on where they live and what neighbourhood they come from?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, assessment procedures are the same in virtually every jurisdiction.

What the member opposite doesn’t recall is that when his party was in power, insurance premiums went up almost 27%, as opposed to ours, which have been at or below the rate of inflation over eight years.

My most recent package of reforms gives people more choice. Choice is important. For instance, the type of car you drive is important. If you drove a Chrysler that was made in Windsor or Brampton, you’d probably get a lower rate than if you drove an expensive sports car like a BMW. I think that kind of choice, Mr. Speaker, is extremely important to consumers. We’re seeing rates coming down day in and day out.

I welcome the member’s further questioning. I can assure him that under this government, insurance rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I point out that I stopped the clock—a little unorthodox, but the Speaker does have a little bit of leeway in this.

As invited guests of mine, in the Speaker’s gallery today we have His Worship Rev. Mark Curtis. And the dad of all dads, Walter Gretzky, is with us—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Is he taking over Joe Peters’s club?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): He’s my other brother.

I thank you for your indulgence and move to a new question. We’ll start the clock.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. David Zimmer: Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I’m hearing from my constituents up in Willowdale, especially the seniors and their children. They’re getting anxious about long-term care. The seniors expect and, indeed, their children expect that when the seniors need it, they’ll get it. Their clear sense is that they’ve earned it over the years, and they’re entitled to it.

I understand and I realize that we’ve made some great progress in long-term care in recent years, but those seniors and their parents in Willowdale still want to hear and know that we’re going to guarantee long-term-care availability for them when they need it, that we’re committed to long-term care.

Minister, what are you doing to assure seniors and their families that you’re committed to long-term care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the wonderful member from Willowdale for this thoughtful question. I’m very happy to take this opportunity to talk about what we’ve done for residents in long-term care.

We’ve made significant progress in creating new beds and improving services and care in long-term care. We’ve opened 9,100 new beds across the province, and we’ve redeveloped thousands more. We’ve increased funding—because funding does matter when it comes to long-term care—by almost 80%. We spend $3.76 billion each year on long-term care.

We will continue to invest in long-term care, but our healthy change action plan is shifting our focus to provide more supports in the community. We’ll be creating more capacity in homes and in the community, because that’s where people want to be for as long as they possibly—

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

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, here’s what triggered the concerns up in Willowdale from seniors and their children. There have been a number of recent reports, particularly this last fall, that brought really significant attention to some of the long-term-care issues and raised a whole lot of concerns about the safety of seniors in the homes. The reports dealt with things that no one ever expected to hear about and no one wants to hear about and, indeed, should never happen in Ontario or anywhere.

Since these reports have come to light, there’s been this new anxiety about the future of long-term care and our government’s commitment to it. Minister, what are you doing to deal with the issues that raised these concerns? And how are we going to assure the seniors that we’ve dealt with the issues so they are confident in our long-term-care prospects?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We all have very big expectations of long-term-care homes. After all, they have the responsibility to care for the most vulnerable people in our health care system, to provide them with care and to treat them with respect and with dignity.

The reports that the member refers to demonstrated that we must continue to do better, and that’s why I called together representatives from the parents’ associations, the residents and the long-term-care providers, and they have now launched a task force. That work is under way, focusing on what we need to do to further protect the residents in long-term care. This task force is open to the public for comment. The task force website is longtermcaretaskforce.ca. I would encourage anyone who wants to contribute to this work to take the time to do that.

They will be reporting back by the end of April. That report will be made public. We all have a shared—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Health. On October 25, 2011, the emergency health services branch of the ministry was notified that Ornge is violating the Ambulance Act.

Ron Smith, director of transportation for the union representing paramedics, wrote your ministry and called for an investigation into understaffing at Ornge. Mr. Smith said, “The actions of Ornge allow for potential harm and injury to both patient and paramedics. We feel that this is a violation of the Ambulance Act, land ambulance certification standards, and basic and advanced life support patient care standards.”

Can the minister confirm she is aware of this allegation that patients and paramedics are being put at risk, and will she inform us about the outcome of the investigation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite. The ministry has a very robust process. They follow up on absolutely every complaint that comes to them. They do it in a thorough way, and they do not close the file until they are satisfied that the appropriate steps have been taken.

But we do think there’s more we can do. That is why, under the new legislation and the new performance agreement, we will actually be putting in place quality improvement performance measures, just like we have done in our hospitals. We know that if we measure quality, we can improve quality. So we look forward to improving even further the quality of care that is provided at Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Again to the minister, because the minister did not respond to the question. I repeat: The date of the request was made on October 25, 2011, not all that long ago. It was under your watch. It was for an investigation to be made by your ministry, not Ornge, and I quote again from the letter: “We believe (this) to be a violation of the Ambulance Act and request that your ministry investigate these allegations and take action as necessary to stop this practice.”

Minister, I ask you today: Are you aware of the many, many issues within your ministry and the concerns at Ornge, and will you now acknowledge, since obviously you’ve not indicated your awareness of them, that it’s time for a select committee to be set up in order that we can get to the bottom of it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Part of the responsibility of the emergency health services branch of our ministry is investigating complaints that come from air ambulance but also from land ambulance. They do their work in a very diligent and systematic way. I can tell you that the number of investigations that my ministry undertakes has been fairly consistent over the past several years. But I want to make it very clear that every incident that is reported is investigated. It’s important that we learn from problems, that we learn from mistakes, that we continue to improve the quality of care.

I am very much aware of the work of the branch, of this particular unit that does investigations, and I can assure you they are very, very diligent in their work.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. Last year, the government changed the way low- and modest-income people received their income tax refunds. You made the change without consultation with the people who were affected, and they had literally no idea of your change of regulation.

Robin Smith, a working mother of two, wrote to me last week. She was going to use her tax refund to put a down payment on a car so she could take her children camping or to visit relatives.

Will this government work with Ontarians who choose to have their refunds paid as a lump sum and give them the choice by simply changing the regulation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: The member opposite is absolutely correct. It wasn’t just income tax refunds; in fact, it was tax credits. We made the deliberate choice to flow money throughout the year, so every month people of more modest means will get their cash flow rather than have the province sit on it. So, yesterday, I indicated I will be bringing forward a regulatory change to give people choice.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you very much to the Minister of Finance for agreeing to do that.

The question, though, still remains: Why did the government choose to pass this regulation in secret, and why did they withhold this from the people who were affected? Why did they have to find out when they were expecting their income tax?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: There was overwhelming advice to do this, Mr. Speaker. Again, when you look at the sales tax credits that people get, with now the Ontario Trillium benefit, people have cash flow every month. This is designed to help people as they deal with their monthly expenses.

Interjection.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A member opposite reminds me it is, in fact, their money, Mr. Speaker. We didn’t think it was appropriate to continue to hold on to that money. I’ve heard from others since we introduced this benefit—and remember, Mr. Speaker, most of the tax credits contained in that were passed by this government and voted against by the Conservatives. That’s energy and property tax credits for seniors, that’s a whole range of credits.

This is all about making sure people, particularly of more modest means, have income flow. But yes, we have announced that we will be giving them choice.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, just last week, it was made public that Environment Canada is exploring the possibility of reducing coal use in Canada. As a physician, I know there are serious health concerns, but there are also economic costs associated with burning dirty coal. I’m pleased to see that the rest of Canada may be following Ontario’s lead by phasing out dirty coal-fired generation and replacing this source of power with cleaner sources like wind and solar.

Minister, can you please share with the House the economic impacts of getting out of this dirty form of electricity?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Oak Ridges–Markham, as a former medical officer of health and a physician, has rightly identified a very important fact here. Getting out of coal is not only the right thing to do for the environment but, most importantly, it’s the right thing to do for our health. When we talk about the $4 billion a year it costs Ontario taxpayers in their health system by burning dirty coal, it’s important to know what is behind that $4 billion.

Getting out of coal will mean 668 or more fewer premature deaths every year. It will mean over 900 fewer hospital admissions. It means over 330,000 fewer illnesses. This is an incredible human cost that’s being avoided, a cost that is borne not only by those people affected and their families, but by the taxpayers. That’s why getting out of coal is the right thing to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Minister. My constituents in Oak Ridges–Markham and all Ontarians expect clean air, but they also need a strong and successful economy. We need to do everything we can to ensure they have good-paying jobs in stable industries, and that is why it’s so important to ensure that Ontario’s clean energy economy remains a global leader and continues to attract jobs and investment.

Despite the official opposition’s constant call to end green energy in Ontario, companies continue to succeed and create jobs. Minister, can you please tell us what the future of our clean energy economy looks like?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Once again, the member is absolutely right. We’re getting out of coal in a way that not only brings on clean, green energy, but helps create an economy here in the province of Ontario that is green.

We have solar manufacturers from Welland, throughout the north GTA part of Toronto into the east. We have wind manufacturers who are not only located in Tillsonburg, but down in Windsor. We have the related electricians and the plumbers. But we’re building on that. There are already 20,000 jobs directly related to green energy; we’re on the route to 50,000. That’s 50,000 families who are benefiting from our investments in clean energy in Ontario.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Good morning, Minister.

Minister, there are two words on every employer’s energy bill that were not there a couple of years ago: global adjustment. This new charge is to pay for your solar and wind subsidies.

In the first year, Ontario employers paid $700 million in global adjustment. The Auditor General told us they will pay $8 billion in global adjustment in 2014.

Minister, your failed energy plan is bankrupting Ontario businesses, costing us thousands of jobs. How many more families have to suffer before you cancel the FIT subsidies?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Speaker, we know where we started in 2003. We started with diesel generators