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

March 22, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-22 (PDF)

L027 - Thu 22 Mar 2012 / Jeu 22 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 22 March 2012 Jeudi 22 mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT REVIEW

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

RENEWABLE ENERGY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

WATER QUALITY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

MEMBER FOR YORK CENTRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY

SMALL BUSINESS

DEATH PENALTY

PICKERING MUSEUM VILLAGE

THISTLETOWN REGIONAL CENTRE

FOR CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS

BIRTHING CENTRES

HOME CARE

SEPTIC SYSTEMS

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO FORESTRY INDUSTRY

REVITALIZATION ACT (HEIGHT

OF WOOD FRAME BUILDINGS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA REVITALISATION

DE L’INDUSTRIE FORESTIÈRE

DE L’ONTARIO (HAUTEUR DES

BÂTIMENTS À OSSATURE DE BOIS)

TAXATION AMENDMENT ACT

(PAYMENT OF THE ONTARIO

TRILLIUM BENEFIT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES IMPÔTS

(PAIEMENT DE LA PRESTATION

TRILLIUM DE L’ONTARIO)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

VOLUNTEERS

ENSEIGNEMENT COOPÉRATIF /

CO-OP EDUCATION

CO-OP EDUCATION

VOLUNTEERS

VOLUNTEERS

CO-OP EDUCATION

PETITIONS

RURAL SCHOOLS

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

KIDNEY DISEASE

CLIMATE CHANGE

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

KIDNEY DISEASE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

AFFORDABLE ENERGY

AND RESTORATION OF LOCAL

DECISION MAKING ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ÉNERGIE ABORDABLE

ET LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DE LA PRISE

DE DÉCISIONS LOCALE

FAR NORTH REPEAL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 ABROGEANT

LA

LOI SUR LE GRAND NORD

REDUCING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PREMIUMS BY ELIMINATING

FRAUD ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À RÉDUIRE

LES PRIMES D’ASSURANCE-

AUTOMOBILE PAR L’ÉLIMINATION

DES ACTIVITÉS FRAUDULEUSES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

AFFORDABLE ENERGY

AND RESTORATION OF LOCAL

DECISION MAKING ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ÉNERGIE ABORDABLE

ET LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DE LA PRISE

DE DÉCISIONS LOCALE

FAR NORTH REPEAL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 ABROGEANT

LA

LOI SUR LE GRAND NORD

REDUCING AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

PREMIUMS BY ELIMINATING

FRAUD ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 VISANT À RÉDUIRE

LES PRIMES D’ASSURANCE-

AUTOMOBILE PAR L’ÉLIMINATION

DES ACTIVITÉS FRAUDULEUSES

AFFORDABLE ENERGY

AND RESTORATION OF LOCAL

DECISION MAKING ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR L’ÉNERGIE ABORDABLE

ET LE RÉTABLISSEMENT DE LA PRISE

DE DÉCISIONS LOCALE

FAR NORTH REPEAL ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 ABROGEANT

LA

LOI SUR LE GRAND NORD

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL ADVOCATE FOR

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT REVIEW

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Standing Committee on General Government review the Aggregate Resources Act and report to the House its observations and recommendations with respect to strengthening the act. In developing such recommendations, the committee’s focus shall include, but not be limited to, the following areas: the act’s consultation process; how siting, operations, and rehabilitation are addressed in the act; best practices and new developments in the industry; fees/royalties; and aggregate resource development and protection, including conservation/recycling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Mr. Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 21. Shall the motion carry? Carried.

Motion agreed to.

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 March 21, 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?

Mr. Rob Leone: I am pleased to stand on behalf of the PC caucus with respect to this bill, Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act for workers. I have listened intently to the debate that has happened and occurred in this House on this issue—very intently. I think it’s an important issue for when people have loved ones who are ill. I think the sentiment is that we should do everything in our power to help.

But one of the things that I had heard in the debate over the last little while had to do with respect to the fact that the government has created a bill, they proposed a bill, that is intended to provide some relief, but they actually want the official opposition, the PC caucus, to pick up the phone and call our federal cousins and effectively help them implement a bill that, for all intents and purposes, is flawed.

Now, I have to ask about the competence of a government that can not only ask us to pick up the phone on their behalf, but they can’t even pick up the phone, dial 10 digits and call them themselves. I don’t understand how it’s possible for a government to not be able to dial 10 numbers on a telephone, pick up the phone and ask for themselves. I say that with particular reference, because over the last little while we heard this governing party across the aisle making reference to and picking fights with their federal cousins.

I kind of know why they don’t want to pick up the phone. It’s like, you know, Mr. Speaker, maybe when you asked a lady on your first date: You call them up, you were a little nervous about it; you might have had some fear, some anxiety, and you might have had that anxiety because of the fear that those people or your potential date, potential girlfriend, might say no. That’s why there’s some anxiety.

So what do you do? You ask someone else to ask that person for you, in the event that they might say yes; or if they say no, it might not feel as bad. It might not hurt as much because you heard the no indirectly, and you know that person is going to be somewhat gentle in letting you know that you’ve been denied the request of something very important.

So I think I actually figured out why they can’t dial the 10 digits: It’s either pure incompetence, an inability to look up 10 digits in the phone book, or it has to do with the fact that they have some anxiety because they know the answer is going to be no.

Why might that answer be no? I think we know the answer to that, too, Mr. Speaker. Because over the last eight years, since 2003, federal transfers to the province of Ontario have increased by about $8 billion—$8 billion. It’s not some small amount where you’d expect that if I asked for a couple extra million or $100 million or whatever this is going to cost, I might say yes. It’s $8 billion—billion. This is an astronomical figure: $8 billion, Mr. Speaker. And we know what $8 billion has actually bought in the province of Ontario. It’s bought a $16-billion deficit, going on $30 billion.

So revenues have increased; transfers to the province of Ontario have increased. Ontario, for the first time since Confederation, has become a have-not province, a have-not province, and the Minister of the Environment knows. You know that we’re finally getting equalization payments to the tune of billions upon billions of dollars.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Order.

Mr. Rob Leone: We are finally, finally successful in coming to Confederation’s welfare payments. We’re receiving welfare payments from Stephen Harper’s government in Ottawa.

Interjection.

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s not a handout.

That’s why they’re afraid to pick up that phone, because they know that if they ask for yet more money, the answer is going to be no. And that’s the issue here, Mr. Speaker. They’ve come up with a policy that has some effect. It touches at the heartstrings of people right across the province of Ontario. I know we’ve all had loved ones we wish we could spend more time with in their final days to help them feel better, to help lessen the pain. So on the face of it, reading a title like the “family caregiver leave for workers act” kind of feels good. It feels great, actually.

We’re actually helping people do what they want, and yet what will help people actually do what they want is the money to leave work, to maintain a sense of income.

So in effect, Mr. Speaker, this policy is basically a smokescreen. It doesn’t get to the heart of what I think the bill wants to do, because there’s just no money for it. There’s no money in Ottawa to spend here in the province of Ontario, more than they already have. And this government has sunk us in such a deep hole, $16 billion—Don Drummond says it’s going to $30 billion. The size of our debt has almost doubled in the last eight years. There’s just no money. And every time we see a new policy from that side of the House, we have to reach deeper and deeper in our pockets to actually make sure it happens.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Like for that new hospital in Cambridge?

Mr. Rob Leone: What about that hospital in Cambridge, Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: You must want it.

Mr. Rob Leone: Well, you know, you raise an interesting point, because it was your government and your party that actually made lots of promises of hospital expansion projects right across the province of Ontario to either retain or gain Liberal seats. And consistently what we’ve seen is a pattern of lack of accountability, of promises made and promises not kept. That’s the story of your government over there, Minister. I’m proud to speak to that any time you want, so keep heckling if you wish, because that’s the reality.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Minister of the Environment, come to order, please.

Mr. Rob Leone: It’s a good thing you called the Minister of the Environment to order, Mr. Speaker, because he raises the important issue of the fact that promises are made and never kept. I actually would consider this bill part of that. You see that this bill is supposed to do these great things for people, but they actually want Ottawa to help them implement it. To me, that’s not a promise made and a promise kept; that’s a promise made and a hope that the other party and the other government in Ottawa actually keeps it. So that’s a great problem with that, Mr. Speaker.

Let’s talk about a few issues that might arise on this. Certainly there’s a flaw in the implementation of such a bill that we’ve seen from almost every policy that’s come on that side of the House, where you try to see what the need is, where the need exists; you create a policy; and then it falls far short of achieving its objective. That happened in the case of this bill, I think, because you can’t ask a person to take some time off and put their livelihood on hold in order to accomplish what I think they want with this bill.

We’ve seen it with other things, like the Ontario tuition grant, which speaks to the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of students in the province of Ontario who are paying tuition, like every other student in the province of Ontario, and about two thirds of those students aren’t even qualifying for the Ontario tuition grant on the basis of all the little rules, the qualifications, to actually be able to successfully receive what this is. It looks great: You get a nice hashtag, you put up a nice website and you tweet it. But it doesn’t achieve the objectives they set out. In fact, it is a promise made and a promise not kept, something that we’ve seen over and over again.

We obviously have to talk about some of the effects of this bill on what we see in the greater and broader economy. This involves, I think, a lot of employment and labour law, of course, which is an interesting topic as well, because if anything, other than the fact that we’ve seen a multi-billion dollar deficit in the province of Ontario—a crisis that, if left unchecked, we’re not far from becoming the next Greece, all right? If we compare that crisis with the other crisis which is relevant to this discussion—the jobs crisis, the employment crisis in the province of Ontario—we really can speak, I think, to the problems inherent in what we’re doing.

So let’s talk about that employment crisis. We have folks in our labour force who, each and every day, have a desire to work, have the skills to work, even have the experience to work, who simply can’t find that work: almost 600,000 Ontarians—600,000 Ontarians—who cannot find work in the province of Ontario. In fact, our unemployment rate in the province of Ontario has been greater than the national average for more than five years—five years, Mr. Speaker. It’s a job crisis, I think, of epic proportions.

We used to be the proud province, the economic engine of Confederation, a province that has, for generations, provided a wealth of employment. In fact, my parents—and I’ve spoken about this before—came to the province of Ontario in the 1960s because they wanted to provide a better life for their kids and their grandkids. That’s what drew people to the province of Ontario for generations. They came here because they could provide that better life for their kids and their grandkids. I think that we’re losing that.

And rather than addressing that core issue of having jobs that feed families—jobs of the future—we are talking about a bill here that does neither. It does not provide the kinds of employment opportunities that our young people desire. It doesn’t provide the opportunities for families who have been struck with financial hardship because maybe their factory closed down or their office has moved and relocated or simply gone bankrupt.

We need to have some policies, concrete policies, to address those core concerns and to address the fact that we have a serious job crisis in the province of Ontario. Unless we’re talking about that, unless we’re spending 20 minutes—which I’ve been allotted today, and I thank this Legislature for giving me the opportunity to speak to this for 20 minutes.

Unless we’re spending time debating those issues—how we can jump-start our economy, how we can reignite private sector employment growth once again in the province of Ontario—I think we’re doing a disservice to the people of this great province, to the people who elected us in this Legislature to do the work, to solve the pending problems that we face in our society.

So, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about priorities, our priorities should be not only in fixing that fiscal crisis, but they should also be about fixing our jobs crisis, finding reasonable solutions to those competing problems—problems that, if we worked collectively together, I think we could actually solve. That’s what I think the goal should be.

Rather than spending 20 minutes on those issues, maybe I can spend a bit more time talking about the real proposals for private sector job growth and for getting our fiscal situation back on track.

We’ve long advocated in this party, since we started in October, an unwavering commitment for a public sector wage freeze that would provide a couple of billion dollars in savings, until we get ourselves out of this fiscal situation, this crisis that was created, not by us in this party, but by them in that party—$2 billion.

We’re also talking about reforming the arbitration system to try and provide some relief to not only the provincial government, who has to pay wages, but to our municipal partners, to our colleges and universities, to our hospitals—which the Minister of the Environment has said recklessly they’re trying to abandon some of the commitments that they already previously made.

These are some solutions that will provide a reasonable response to the fiscal situation, the fiscal crisis, that we find ourselves in in the province of Ontario.

We’ve also made commitments on the jobs side, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have a commitment to retraining individuals who have lost their jobs and to get them in a position where they can find gainful employment. By 2021, we’re going to have about a million people in the skilled trades—a million people in the skilled trades who—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Point of order.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, I believe in the standing orders, 23(b)(i)—if you want to consult that

section in the standing orders. It appears that the member from Cambridge may be drifting somewhat, so we want to get it right back on the bill, Mr. Speaker, if you please. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member from Cambridge, I would ask you to confine your remarks to the bill that’s in front of us.

Mr. Rob Leone: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. I do take that point of order under good consideration from the member for Peterborough, particularly because when he speaks in this House, all he does is really talk about Peterborough and with little reference to whatever bill we’re talking about. But, Mr. Speaker, I’ll go back to the report—

Mr. Jeff Leal: Just representing my constituents.

Mr. Rob Leone: And certainly, as the member for Peterborough says that he represents his constituents, I do the same thing for mine, Mr. Speaker.

But I think this does speak to the bill. What I’ve talked about does speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is in order to have the kind of social policy that we want, like the family caregiver—whatever it’s called; Bill C34—if we are here to talk about those issues, I think we have to make sure that we have the fiscal capacity to enrich our social safety net. We just don’t have that anymore, and that does speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. It does speak to the bill, because that’s exactly what we need.

Without having that ability, bills like this—that look great on paper, that have nice titles, that touch at our heartstrings, that really make us feel that we are doing something positive for the people of Ontario—really become simply a smokescreen, really become an opportunity to have a nice title, to make us feel warm and fuzzy, but at the end of the day, don’t really focus on what we’re trying to achieve. That is, in essence, what I’d like to suggest on that point. I think that getting our fiscal house in order is very important, and I think that that’s very true.

I want to sort of end on a very personal note, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that when I first read the title of the bill, it reminded me of last fall when my grandfather passed away, and it reminded me of that because I, like many of my family members—my cousins, my brother, my parents, my aunts and uncles, and my grandmother—we spent a lot of time in that hospital by his bedside, waiting for him to pass away. So I was very hopeful, Mr.

Speaker, that although I had the opportunity to spend that time—and we took turns—I worried about the people in that hospital hallway that didn’t have the time, where their parents or their grandparents or a sibling was about to pass away, and they just were essentially dying alone. I want to know how we can collectively work on a solution that enables those people, in their last few moments on this earth, to actually talk about and spend that time and lessen the pain and comfort those who are about to pass on, Mr. Speaker.

I was very hopeful that we were going to see something in this bill that would allow them to get to that step. Unfortunately, I don’t see that. Unfortunately, I disagree with the fact that they want Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition to pick up the phone rather than doing it themselves to enable that. On that basis, I have some serious reservations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’ll be sharing my time with my colleague from London–Fanshawe.

It is really a privilege and an honour for me to speak on Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, in respect—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Sorry, Michael, this is a two-minute hit.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I did say questions and comments, not further debate.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Then I will continue on with what I was going to say. I will just change it back. It’s a rookie mistake.

I share some of the views with my colleague here. I understand some of the concerns that he has with the actual bill. It’s a similar bill to something that the government of the day actually introduced a little while back, where it helps some but really doesn’t address the core issue and does not help the mass. That is really something that we really need to get a hold of in this House and really need to put a real effort going forward to bringing the benefits to all Ontarians—not just some, but all of them.

It is so important that we seize these opportunities that we have, and this is another one of those opportunities. A little while ago, we had the opportunity, and we still have an opportunity, to help our seniors in our communities by providing them—all of them, not just some of them—with real benefits, real opportunity for them to help enhance their way of living.

This, again, is that opportunity that we have in front of us, where we need to implement the proper checks and balance in order to help all Ontarians—everybody: full-time, short-time, part-time, all employees. And we really need to make sure that this makes it easy for them, so that we have a definite role between “What is the employer expecting from the employee? What is the employee expecting from the employer?” so that they can go and address the compassion that they need for their family member. This is where we really need to go with this bill and we really need to take the opportunity to do it right.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: Good morning, Mr. Speaker, and I’m glad to join the debate and comment on the family caregiver leave. I just want to remind people what we’re talking about this morning, and I wanted to comment on something that the member from Cambridge spoke about.

He began his comments being rather flippant and, I would venture to guess, even insensitive to people who are struggling with this issue. But he ended on such a really telling comment with regard to his grandfather, and I wanted to offer my condolences. It’s a very difficult issue when somebody you love is dying in hospital or struggling with a very serious illness. None of us know what will happen when that occasion happens, what kind of time we’ll have, how we’ll react.

Certainly, I want to remind people what we’re talking about. It’s about job protection. We’ve done a lot of consultation and we’ve talked with people like the Ontario Home Care Association, the Canadian Home Care Association, the Ontario Caregiver Coalition, the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Canada, the Alzheimer Society of Ontario and the Canadian Cancer Society. These are organizations that approached us prior to the election, asking for the possibility of providing leave for those caregivers who are struggling with juggling family commitments, a job and all of the surrounding extraneous issues that tie up your hands when what you need most is time—time to be with the person that you love.

Certainly, the member from Cambridge made it painfully clear how much that struggle was within his own family. It happens across this province and I really would encourage members to provide constructive, helpful suggestions. We had it previously from the NDP side, offering some suggestions with regard to

definitions. I appreciate that kind of constructive dialogue. I would encourage everyone in the House to think about how we can make the bill better. I encourage it, and I respect the interests of this debate to inform that legislation going further.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m pleased to comment on the speech by my colleague from Cambridge as well.

I want to touch on the comment of the Minister of Labour. She said, “What people need is time.” Well, there’s a saying that is much older than this Legislature, and it’s “Time is money.” There’s not a nickel in this bill. There’s not a nickel in this bill to help those people who are looking for that time off for a family person who is ill under the Family Caregiver Leave Act.

Speaker, without dollars attached to it, it’s meaningless. In this day and age, people are struggling. Eight weeks off without pay is not something that people can look forward to in this day and age. Eight weeks off without pay? Some people don’t even have eight weeks of savings. So when you think about that—

Mr. John O’Toole: They don’t even have a job.

Mr. John Yakabuski: They don’t have a job. Well, if they don’t have a job, they’re not going to get time off, but—you don’t get time off from something you don’t have; I understand that. But the reality is, eight weeks off without pay is not something that people can afford.

But do you know what this bill is all about? It’s a deflection from the sad reality of how this government has failed. This bill is designed to do one thing. They should have sat down with the federal government and said, “Is there something we can do with regard to family caregiver leave with respect to people who are ill?” No. They would rather bring out this bill. They’re going to bring out this bill, and when this bill passes, as it most likely will, they will then go out on the hustings and blame Stephen Harper and the federal government because there’s no federal money to pay for their promises.

I mean, this is just so characteristic of the Dalton McGuinty government since it has been in office—

Mr. John O’Toole: Spend, spend, spend.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Spend, spend and hope somebody else is going to pick up the tab. It’s time that they actually took responsibility.

I don’t have time right now. I hope I have time to speak to this bill later, but let’s talk about Ornge. You want to talk about abdication? Let’s talk about Ornge.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member from London–Fanshawe.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Thank you, Speaker, and good morning to everyone in the House.

I want to thank the member from Cambridge for his presentation today, my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin and the Minister of Labour for her comments with regard to some of the productive input that they’ve had on this bill from our side of the House.

If I recall, it was the member from Nickel Belt discussing the definition of the medical person who would actually be authorized to sign the certificate and authorize the condition, perhaps, of the patient who might need the family loved one to be looked after, determining whether it’s a serious medical condition. That is very important because part of that process is going to be getting that certificate.

We need to clarify, as well, how that certificate will be obtained with regard to the financial issue. Will the employee be expected to pay for that certificate? And if so, we have to think about—the people who perhaps are going to use this eight-week leave are going to be people who are in precarious jobs. They may not have that extra $50 to pay for that certificate, and with that eight-week leave without pay, that could be a very big strain, that extra $50.

So I would hope that someone who is in a precarious job, should they find themselves in that unfortunate and sad situation, is able to take a week or two, or whatever up to the eight weeks, if they’re able to scrape by and make that financial sacrifice for that time. But we don’t need to add to that if they are willing to try to get to that stage to help their family members and add to that other certificate cost.

So I would urge the government, when we’re at committee, to really look at that as well and define that as well, where that would come from. If anything, I hope that there wouldn’t be a cost.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Rob Leone: Can I get a response, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Cambridge, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to begin my response by thanking the member for Algoma–Manitoulin, the Minister of Labour, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke and the member for London–Fanshawe for their comments.

I want to thank the Minister of Labour first off for those condolences and warm wishes. I appreciate those comments and concerns.

But I want to address a remark that she made in terms of the beginning; I may have been a little bit insensitive. I think the picture that I was trying to draw is that this is an issue that I care about quite a great deal. What I find problematic—and maybe I can use the word “insensitive”—is that the people who are going to rely on such a policy aren’t going to be able to benefit from it because there’s simply not the money to do it.

I think the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke made the point quite clear that, during the next election, if this does not succeed or this does succeed and it doesn’t get enacted, the blame’s going to lie on Ottawa. This is a pattern we’ve seen over and over again.

So rather than being insensitive, what I’m trying to suggest is how we can be a little bit more constructive, how we can actually implement this bill so that people can have a direct benefit from the province of Ontario, and recognizing that does involve the expenditure of funds. If we were in a better financial position and fiscal position today, we’d have the funds available to produce a policy that I think would have some meaning to the people who are affected by the passing of a loved one, a close relative, a mother, a father, grandparents, brother or sister or very close friends. That is what I’m trying to get at in my remarks.

So rather than being insensitive, I hope those comments were considered to be constructive.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? Further debate? The member for Etobicoke–Centre.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Good morning, Mr. Speaker. I’m—

Mr. John O’Toole: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The people who are speaking next are the NDP.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Nobody stood.

Mr. John O’Toole: Nobody stood?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Nobody stood.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Would the member from Durham please—I recognize the member for Etobicoke Centre.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’m pleased to rise, and I know we’ll all have an opportunity to share in the discussion on this particular bill. I’d like to raise a couple comments, first, probably from a personal perspective involving work that I had the privilege of participating in but also from a broader perspective of why this bill is particularly important at this time within our aging community.

A lot has been said about the relationship with the federal government, and I must admit that I have a very good relationship with my federal member, and the discussions around how we’ve dealt with employment insurance, for example. The inconsistencies with which Ontarians are dealt with in comparison to other jurisdictions such as Alberta—he is very, very empathetic with those. I suspect it would be exactly the same because this bill was put in place, in fact, to respond to a federal bill that was put in place on compassionate leave to help us deal with some challenges that folks are facing.

Interestingly enough, I just spent an afternoon about a week or a week and a half ago with the CEO of a very large pharmaceutical company who has actually put this into place in his business practice already. He has recognized that there are challenges with the people who are working in business trying to struggle with and deal with the end of life care in particular or a catastrophic situation in their family.

It’s interesting: 40 cents of every dollar we spend in Ontario goes to the federal government, so I have no difficulty asking them to be a partner in helping us as we deal with some emerging and challenging issues, especially in our aging community. I think that they have a responsibility to work with us. You have to have lived on another planet not to realize that the challenges of this fiscal situation, regardless of what government you’re involved with, are that we have to find new and innovative ways to deal with those challenges that face us.

Interjection.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’d like to speak about the challenge. People say this is up to eight weeks. It’s not eight weeks necessarily—it could be or maybe two days. So let me draw on my personal experience and chat with you a little bit about the end-of-life palliative care that I’ve been involved in for over 20-some-odd years, first as a volunteer coming out of my church, so it gave me an opportunity to work directly with families.

Some 93% of all the people who are at end of life want to die in their own home. They do not wish to die in a hospital. In order for that to happen, you need support services in place. You need to be able to provide respite to families who are caring for those loved ones. You need to be able to provide medical support, and that’s what palliative care or a hospice would be able to do and actually does do right across this province. They’re able to provide the kind of spiritual support, respite support, intellectual and physical and psychological support to the families as they’re struggling with end-of-life care.

But what’s most important as a volunteer when you go in and you’re with the families is that you recognize that, at some point, that individual wants to be with that person as they are nearing the end of their life. So how do we provide a mechanism that allows that to happen? It may be up to eight weeks or in fact it may be a couple of days or it may be a few hours. The one thing about the human spirit is that we cannot definitively say when someone is going to die. What happens is that we give them a time frame and then they may or may not die within that time frame.

That person who is there with that loved one needs to know that they can stay with them without any repercussions of leaving their job for a few days or a few weeks. That’s exactly what this law is planning to do.

I think my colleagues across the way have identified a number of issues that can be discussed within committee and need to be addressed. I agree with you. For example, who determines the medical leave in terms of the payment? But I think the most important

part is, how do we as a civil society deal with an aging population who are dealing with these catastrophic events in their life, such as death? And how do we help the families? If you want to look at the economic reality, a hospital bed costs $1,800 a day; to stay in a residential hospice is about $465. To stay at home is relatively less than that; it’s just you’re looking at the medical care at the end of life. Why wouldn’t we put those supports in place to help folks deal with something that is so traumatic in their lives? Why wouldn’t we provide them the choice? Because that’s what it is: It’s a choice. Nobody is saying they have to do it. But it gives them a choice of which to do.

When I listened to the CEO, he said that one of the things he discovered with his particular employees was that they were so stressed out over what was happening in their private lives that they weren’t productive in their business lives. So he was prepared to give them that kind of support so that they could deal with that tragedy or the event that was occurring and then come back. He had a better employee for it, because they understood that he understood their need for compassion. He understood their need to be with someone at end of life.

He understood that they needed to be able to have that relief that you do have when you ultimately say goodbye and you’re not rushing from your business to do it; you’re beside that person, holding their hand as they leave their life.

You know, we forget about this. I’ll use my own example. I’ve been married 44 years. That’s a long time, and my Bill is pretty important to me. I would like to think that if something happened to Bill that I would have the opportunity to be with him at the end, or vice versa, with no implication. I maybe have that option by virtue of what I do.

But if I was in business and I was forced to take only my holidays and I had exhausted them, or there were no opportunities and that employer said, “It’s either you leave or you’re toast; your job is gone,” and I need that job because I have children at home, then what recourse do I have? None. And the existing leaves do not supply the kind of support mechanisms that this law will actually give to those folks.

So to me it just makes a great deal of sense to be able to ask how we can help people at the time of need. It’s interesting, when end of life occurs, sometimes you have to go to the hospital because of medical intervention issues. But even then, you want to be with that person 24-7. You don’t want to be there all night and leave to try to go to work the next day. You want to have the peace of mind that you’re with that person, whether it’s your child or whether it’s your husband or your partner or your parent.

And remember that today in our society, parents are torn between the aging parent and the younger children in their families. They have obligations as well. There are only 24 hours in a day.

You need the kind of support that allows you and gives you permission to do the things that are required in order to support that family. And you can’t do everything. You do everything you can, but you cannot do everything. You need to be able to find the time, and this is what this bill gives you. It gives you up to eight weeks of relief from your business to be able to do that. People say, “Oh, well, you know, all the business will collapse, the world will go to hell in a handbasket,” because some people are going to take end-of-life care.

I actually heard someone suggest yesterday, which was disconcerting, that if they had a bad cold, they’d take time off. Now, think this through. This is unpaid leave, so nobody is going to take it unless they need to take it. Nobody is going to take it unless it’s at that time of life where there’s medical evidence that is required for them to be with that individual. I think it’s actually disrespectful to suggest that someone would just have a cold and take the time off. After all, people have to work, and I think that was identified here.

There was another suggestion to just pick up the phone and bring it to the feds. The federal government does have a responsibility. I mean, they put $1.2 billion into the tar sands, in the oil and gas industry in Alberta; certainly they can help out with compassionate care leave. Why not? All our tax dollars come together, so I think it’s really important that we work together to find the solutions that are really important if we, in fact, are going to deal with the issues that are facing an aging society.

Go off the end of life and go into a situation where you are a working parent, two parents working, four children, and suddenly your son or your daughter gets leukemia or they break their leg in an incident or they’re in a catastrophic collision in a traffic situation. Those parents need to be with that child. There’s no question in my mind. Family comes first. Family must come first as part of a civil society.

We, as government, must support that family. That’s the other part of civil society. We have a responsibility and an obligation to say to people, “What is it we can do to help you?” Whether they’re people with different abilities, whether they’re people who are going through extraordinary changes in their lives, whether they’re people who are dealing with end-of-life or catastrophic situations, we have a responsibility just as human beings to help each other.

As government, we have a broader responsibility, a fiduciary responsibility, that says, “What are the things we can put in place that are enabling these people to do the things that we believe in fundamentally as individuals?” That’s this kind of policy. This piece of legislation actually says that we’re going to help people deal with things in their lives that they have very little control over, and that we’re going to give and provide for them the kinds of support mechanisms they need.

As I said, it’s interesting, because it’s really just based on what the federal government is doing. They’ve already recognized this in their compassionate care protection leave. It’s exactly the same and all we’re doing is complementing that.

Yes, there will be situations that I think will arise that will be difficult, but either you look at something as what is the art of the possible or you look at it as what you can’t do. I tend to be someone who says, “What is it we can do? What is practical and reasonable?” I’m not suggesting that everything is possible; it’s not. As I said earlier, we do everything we can; we can’t do everything. What we can do is work together very collaboratively with one another to look at this bill and to say, “Where are the gaps? What is it we can do better?

What have we missed?” That’s the whole idea of going to committee, ultimately going out to consultation, putting in those amendments and finding the things that will make a difference for the people we ultimately want to serve.

I’ve spent over 20 years with end-of-life care and I can share with you how important this bill will be to those people who are impacted and affected by end of life, whether it’s your grandparents and you want to spend some time with them—because today, in this global world, our children are not always with us; they are all over the world. Many of our new families to Canada do not have extended families. They don’t have the people to come in, so they rely on hospice to support them at end of life. That’s maybe when they have one or two.

But the other is that we also have an aging population. In my particular area, just in one portion of my riding, one small portion of the Mississauga Halton LHIN area, by 2013-14, the number of people over the age of 85 will grow by 71.2%. I call it a tsunami. This is a real challenge.

Then we forget, as well, about people who have comorbidity issues. Now we’re living with Alzheimer’s and dementia, but we also could be living with Alzheimer’s, dementia and cancer, so it’s even more important.

Bless the folks who have been able to help our people with different abilities, disabilities, to live longer, but they too are getting comorbidity issues. We need to put in place the mechanisms and support systems for families to help them as they struggle with this challenge, regardless of whether it’s a short-term—hopefully, it’s always a short-term—or an end-of-life situation.

I actually believe everybody in this House feels this way. I can’t see where they can’t. You can put out all the economic reasons you want, but at the end of the day it’s not about dollars, it’s about people. It’s about a standard of life that we all aspire to. It’s about the care that we all want to give. It’s about the support we believe in for one another. That’s what this is about.

You can do the economic argument, and I can give you the dollars on the other side to say it’s much cheaper to support this, as that CEO of that pharmaceutical company did. It was much cheaper for him to be able to support this because he had a better employee that was more productive, once they had had that situation dealt with in their family. But that isn’t why he did it. He didn’t do it because it was economical for him. He did it because it was the right thing to do, to help and support his employees. He cared enough about the people that worked for him.

Well, I care enough about the people in Ontario to find ways and means to support them in any way that I possibly can, and I think this is a good example of what we can do. I really do. I know that there’s been a lot of—well, there’s not one nickel attached to this. We go on and on—again, it’s the nickel. Sometimes it’s not the nickel. Sometimes people are prepared to take those few days off and forgo the nickel in order to be with the person they love at end of life. Sometimes they need to hold the hand of that child in the hospital as they’re struggling through an operation. They don’t need the nickel.

They’re prepared to forego the few dollars that they would receive. It won’t be easy, and I wish there were other opportunities. I will continue to work with my federal partners to find those opportunities.

But, really, when you think about it, that nickel wouldn’t be my first—I wouldn’t say, “Gee, I can’t take eight weeks off—or two days, or four days or a week—because I’m not going to get paid for it.” I’m going to say, “Thank you that I’ve got a job to go back to, and there’s some job protection so that I can be with my child, my grandparent, my husband or whomever in a particular time.”

I think the nickel argument is a poor argument; it rings hollow in my mind. It would be interesting to ask those people who are dealing with end-of-life crisis whether the nickel was that important to them or not. I would share with you what’s far more important: that they have the opportunity to have that person die where they choose to—be it at home, a hospice or a hospital—with people around who support and love them, surrounded by those people that care for them and, also, with the dignity that is required, that all of us must support for end-of-life care. There’s no question in my mind that that is part of who we are and what we need to be able to do.

I know there was also a discussion about picking up the phone and dialling. I used to say, “Pick up the phone. I’m very ready; just work with me.” I would like to think that when I phone my federal member, he answers the phone—and actually he does answer the phone—and we do work together. It doesn’t mean we always agree on every situation, but we do share the same constituency; we do share the same concerns. We may have different approaches on how to resolve them, but at least we work together to try to resolve those approaches.

It isn’t a matter of them and us—not on this situation. There may be others, but not on this situation, because all of us have grandparents, all of us have had families, husbands, partners, children; all of us have been touched, one way or another, by the situation of end of life or a catastrophe.

I had an example where my son was very seriously injured, and my husband was still in Africa. Had I been a working mom, I would have needed some time to be able to spend with my child as he went through some very significant challenges at Sick Children’s Hospital. That would be a relief for me to know that, at the end of it, I still had a job to go to and that some employer wasn’t going to say to me, “Too bad, so sad.” There will be those situations, possibly, where an employer might have done that.

I’d like to think that they’d be more like the CEO of the pharmaceutical company that said, “I value my employees, and I really can and will make a difference in their lives by helping them out and recognizing the challenges in their communities and in their own personal lives.”

So, Mr. Speaker, for me, it’s a part of who we are. I think it’s a little bit in the DNA, if you like, in the House that we all care, and we all want to be able to support one another and make a difference, and I think we have an opportunity to do so.

I think we also have an opportunity to listen to one another to make this bill even better. I think that’s part of our obligations to each other, because nobody should be able to stand up and say, “I can’t support supporting people who need some time,” whether, as I said, it’s two weeks, three days, four hours—who knows?—or up to eight weeks, so that they’re not feeling threatened that they don’t have a job to go to at the back of it.

One of the areas we didn’t touch on, and hopefully, my colleague from the other side, from the NDP, will, is the distance issue. We forget that not everybody lives south of Highway 7 and that when someone has a parent, for example, who is in the north, they travel great distances to be with that individual. You don’t want them travelling back and forth. You want them to be able to stay with that person and to be able to care for them. That’s a whole other situation.

I used to look at that one particular riding in Kenora, and I called it geographically insane; it was so large. But I was just thinking—just think of the challenge of someone who has a parent who is ill, who would try to struggle, going to support a parent who is ill and then back to work the next day. I mean, it’s virtually impossible, and not just the geography—add the weather. So, it makes so much sense.

My plea to my colleagues is, how do we work together to make this bill even better than it is? How do we help the people of Ontario at the time they have some greatest need, and how do we do it with the kind of compassion that I believe each of us has inside of us?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I just want to straighten it out. First of all, Tim Hudak and this side are in support of this intent. However, we would expect it will go to committee.

I have to clarify a number of things that the previous member—who was a minister—said, which are wrong. You cannot take single days off to take your mother, or other person conflicted, to the hospital and then return to work the next day. You have to take them off in weekly blocks, which is the first error.

Right today, in law today, under the Employment Standards Act—I worked in personnel for 10 years. You should be familiar with the Employment Standards Act: today, pregnancy leave, parental leave, family medical leave, donor leave, personal emergency leave, declared emergency leave, revisited leave. This is an extension in the existing law under the Employment Standards Act, which is a federal component, and it’s the family medical leave established in 2004, which provides up to six weeks of entitlement. Your bill establishes eight weeks. If you’re trying to make the federal government pay for it, why don’t you harmonize with the federal government?

You’re trying to act like you’re doing this magnificent, compassionate motherhood stuff, which we all agree with. Don’t imply that we don’t. The way they go about it, Mr. Speaker, is so ham-fisted, it’s troubling. The real issue here is they’ve politicized—they promised this in an election, and they still haven’t got it right.

It’s the same as the Ornge ambulance event. They took a very good idea and ruined it. That’s what they did. They took a very good idea on renewable energy and ruined it. Now people can’t afford to pay the electricity; it’s so expensive because of the commitments they’ve made for expensive renewable options.

This is simply a case where the leadership doesn’t know what they’re doing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Essex.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I want to thank the member from Durham for a little bit of clarification on some of the contents of this bill. I awoke last night to the voice of the member for Durham on the legislative channel, who was clarifying—

Mr. John Yakabuski: I hope it was on television.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: Yeah, it was on television. He had stated that, potentially, this bill offers leave if a family’s animal was sick, and then he clarified that, indeed, it didn’t offer that type of protection. I mean, of course there are questions about the coverage of this bill—and he’s chuckling because he knows he said that. Of course we all have questions. I think we’re all in agreement of the intent, but it has implications in terms of employers’ ability to let some people go, the ability of people to actually afford to take this leave.

One of the things that I think it focuses on and tries to do is mandate some morality with our Employment Standards Act; the fact that if one of your employees’ family members is sick, you should be afforded some leave to go take care of them. I don’t think anyone would disagree that that’s important.

But there are other aspects within our Employment Standards Act in terms of wage theft, where employers actually aren’t paying their workers for the work they do, that has completely left the focus of this government. They understand, they know it’s out there, yet no remedy is found to ensure that workers who actually work on an hourly basis get paid the wage they’re supposed to be paid. Should we not focus on that as well? I hope that the Minister of Labour has a plan to focus on that. Of course, it would ensure that folks who get into this scenario would at least have the money that they’re due to be able to afford to take some leave.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I wanted to compliment the member for Etobicoke Centre for her thoughtful, instructive debate. It’s not unusual for the member for Etobicoke Centre to do that. That’s pretty typical of her. She provides a thoughtful, non-partisan view of most legislation in this House. She’s always done that and I appreciate that she did that this morning again. I think she wants to reassure Ontarians that the one thing that they need most, which is time—that this legislation is designed to have that debate come forward and help us manage an issue that we all struggle with from time to time.

When you have a sick or an injured family member, this is a struggle that you have going forward, and I appreciate that she provided that perspective in the House this morning. I realize we’ve had some comments from the other side that have been not as constructive as they could be, but I appreciate that the member from Etobicoke Centre encouraged everyone to bring forward constructive suggestions, as did the member from Nickel Belt previously.

She spoke a little bit about the kinds of practical suggestions that I’ve been talking about. At the time, she spoke about the value of nurse practitioners and how we need to bring them forward. Those are the kinds of insights that help inform better decision-making when we talk about legislation and that’s what I would encourage all members to do.

We want to give working Ontarians the one thing that they need. They need some time to care for sick or injured family members. They want time to be with their loved ones; it’s a matter of compassion. It’s the right thing to do for Ontario families and I would encourage the opposition to find constructive ways to amend the legislation so that we can do what we all have, I think, acknowledged this morning: Address an issue that we all struggle with when somebody in our family is ill or is diagnosed with something that is very serious.

That affects everybody in the family; there’s no one that remains untouched, whether you’re a politician or not. We all are brothers, sisters or daughters, and we all have someone that we care about. This is about doing the right thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’m pleased to be able to respond to the member from Etobicoke Centre. Obviously, we share the same kinds of views with regard to societal compassion and the opportunity to provide for people in those times of greatest need. But I think that, having said that, we also have to look at some of the practical restrictions that this bill provides.

One of the things is that it strikes me on first glimpse that it’s another example of the kind of gesture politics that this government prides itself on where certainly there’s the impression of the kind of concern for each other that is expressed in the bill, but there’s no money. The ability of people to be able to set aside no pay for up to eight weeks is something that is really, I think, quite unrealistic. So, as I say, while it gives all the right impressions—and, obviously, we have no quarrel with the intent of the bill.

Also, just for the sake of putting it on the record, no one has come to me, as their representative, to ask for the potential of eight unpaid weeks. What they have come to me and asked about is the fact that the government has made a commitment, through the Auditor General’s pre-election report, to a significant decrease in funding the issues on long-term alternative care beds, on CCACs. These are also vehicles of compassion for all of us.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Etobicoke Centre: Response.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to thank the minister and the members from Essex, Durham and York–Simcoe for their concerns and for their comments.

I mean, in essence, what we’re saying is if you’ve got some good ideas, bring them forward and let’s work together to find a better bill. But I don’t think the intent of the bill should be changed. You can talk about the CCACs and those other challenges that are there, and they’re going to continue to be there in an aging population. But what we’re actually talking about here is helping people at end of life. I’ve only had 20 years in end-of-life care. It’s restrictive, and I’ve dealt with individuals. But I can tell you that I have had people who say, “I wish I could have stayed with my grandpa. I wish I could have stayed with my child.”

Right now, if my daughter were diagnosed with cancer, the law says that I could get up to 28 or 26 weeks if the doctor says she’s going to die within that period of time. But if she doesn’t, because it’s that human spirit that we don’t know—I can tell you of so many times when the doctor has said, “This is the end: next week, today,” and it doesn’t happen—then we have to find a mechanism that allows the people to be with their folks at end of life, and that’s what this bill is all about.

If, in fact, the member from Durham is unhappy with the bill, I say don’t vote for it. If it’s so difficult, that’s fine. But I would like to think that all of us, by working together, can find a solution if we want to, to be able to say we can make a difference in the lives of a lot of folks. That’s sort of what this bill is proposing.

Is it perfect? Are there things to do? Can we do more? Absolutely. Should we? Of course we should. And I would like to think that, again, the responsibility of this House is to continue to challenge and to look to how we can work on behalf of the people of Ontario in a far better and more productive way than we have by debating this bill in a more pejorative way.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Mantha: I’m pleased to talk to Bill 30,

an Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000 in respect of family caregiver leave.

I was very encouraged by some of the comments that the member from Etobicoke Centre had actually indicated, that the points that we’ve highlighted from the NDP are going to be considered and taken seriously and looked at when we go into committee to have those discussions in order to enhance this bill for it to be effective, in order to bring the changes that we need for all Ontarians.

She talked also about having a choice and giving that choice to the individual to take the leave. Under certain circumstances, that choice is easy—in a perfect world, where we all have great CEOs, where we all have great employers, where the relationship is fine and everything is doing great.

I’d also like to inform the Speaker that I will be splitting my time with the MPP from London–Fanshawe. Thank you very much for that, my friend from Essex.

It’s great to have that relationship with your employer, but unfortunately, it’s not the reality. I hear from friends across the way that they do have that relationship with their employers and that they’ve never heard of a denial ever happening. You always hear that the doors are open for employees to walk into their employer’s office. “We have an open door policy. Come on in. Let’s have that discussion.” Well, I’m sorry, you know. Stop living in the bubble, because it’s not the reality.

Sometimes, yes, the door will be open and you’ll walk in, but unfortunately, as soon as you walk out, the door slams behind you, and that’s where the relationship between employer and employee starts deteriorating, and that’s where the unease starts happening. That’s where the issues for the relationship start breaking down, and the walls get built, the fences are there, and the mechanism, the relationship, is now gone and destroyed. It takes a very long time in order to build that trust once again. It takes a very long time for an individual to build that relationship up again, if that door remains open.

So we really need to make sure that we have those mechanisms in place, and that there is a clear explanation of what the role of the employer and employee are so that there is no discomfort when you’re going through this process and you’re asking for this leave.

I’m also happy, and we’re open to the idea that—yes, there is a long distance between communities in northern Ontario. If I heard my member from across the way correctly, there might be a premium for long travel. Maybe that’s something that we should discuss over in committee as well. That would also be nice to see. But in essence, this bill is a good bill. It is an essential bill. It’s positive, but it just doesn’t go far enough. It just doesn’t go far enough, and we should be able to get it there.

Again, I was encouraged by the member’s comments that we will be discussing this in committee. That’s where we need to bring this to—to committee—to get those discussions, to have a good, effective bill that will help all Ontarians. That’s where we need to go with this.

Again I want to reiterate that there have to be proper checks and balances here so that we know what the roles of individuals are when they’re asking for this leave, so that there is no discomfort and that the employer knows their rights and the employee knows his or hers as well.

There were some concerns with this bill that were raised in regard to how far does it go in regard to who gets the entitlement to the leave. I need to stress something from my particular constituents that I’ve heard for many, many years now, because I’ve been in—we’ve all been in the job of serving our communities. But I just want to highlight one particular point. Under subsection 4(2)8, it says, “Any individual prescribed as a family member for the purpose of this section.” And above, there are seven

definitions of individuals who are family members.

Well, in northern Ontario, where we don’t have large communities, where my next-door neighbour just happens to be a quarter-mile down the road, and it turns out that she’s not the spouse, she’s not my stepbrother, my father; she’s not my cousin, aunt, uncle: She’s a woman who’s on her own who needs care. I’m her neighbour. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a family member to me. That is important, and that is not covered in this bill. She is part of my family. I am the only family that she has around her. Her children—her entire family is in southern Ontario. She’s alone.

She needs care as well, and she’s being left out here. The constituents need the ability to care for her. Let’s not forget about her because CCAC does not always get to those locations.

Another point that was raised by my colleague from London–Fanshawe is that when we’re going to be asking for this leave to our doctors—and I believe our doctors and our nurse practitioners have that ability to define what the illness is, for us to take the time off, or the need to take the time off. However, there’s always a fee attached to that. There’s always a time that you have to wait to get to that doctor, because it’s not always that easy. I’m sorry; in northern Ontario, sometimes it takes anywhere between three weeks to maybe four, five, six, seven weeks in order to get that appointment.

That time will seethe and will create more friction because the employer is waiting for you to justify the time you need to be off.

Again I understand that in a perfect world we all have great CEOs, we all have great bosses, but get out of that bubble; it’s not like that for everybody in this province.

Ça fait que je veux toucher un peu sur la nécessité de ce projet de loi. Est-ce qu’il est nécessaire? Absolument. On ne questionne pas qu’il est nécessaire, ce projet de loi-ci. Les communautés dans le nord de l’Ontario et à travers tout l’Ontario, oui, ils en ont besoin. C’est essentiel à leur communauté. C’est essentiel à leur vie. Et puis, tout le monde devrait avoir la chance de prendre le temps qui est nécessaire.

I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; you look like you’re going to rise. I’ll give you the—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The time for debate has expired.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): This House now stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let’s just keep it that happy. Introduction of guests.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Mr. Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to recognize the members of the Grain Farmers of Ontario, who hosted a great breakfast here this morning in the legislative dining room. The members in the gallery are the chair of the Grain Farmers, Henry Van Ankum; the CEO, Barry Senft; and board member and grain farmer from Kent county Mark Huston. I want to thank them for coming to Queen’s Park today.

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s my pleasure to introduce this morning, from the Niagara North Federation of Agriculture, the president, Albert Witteveen, as well as Ken Durham, Robert Bator, Torrie Warner, John Sikkens and Cathy Mous. Welcome.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to Queen’s Park today a young man, Noah Alter, from Associated day school. He is job-shadowing me. He comes from the great riding of—no, not Thornhill—Eglinton–Lawrence.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to welcome members of the South Central Federation of Agriculture who are joining us at the Legislature today. It’s a big group, but there are a few of the local presidents that I would like to specifically welcome: Roy Shuker from Hamilton–Wentworth is here; Joe Schonberger from Niagara South; Vic Janulis from Norfolk; Nick Huitema from Haldimand; Steve Sickle from Brant; and Norm Richardson from Halton.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to have everyone in the Legislature give a warm welcome to the Perry family: Gillian and Don and their children Ashton, William, Meghan and Leanne. They’re from the beautiful community of Midland. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome Karen Philp, the executive director of the Canadian Patient Coalition. Welcome, Karen.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, this morning it gives me great pleasure to introduce to the Legislature my mother, Lena Fedeli, and my mother-in-law, Mrs. Erma Kelly.

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: It’s my pleasure to introduce six members of page Ammaar Jan’s family: Arif Jan, Shahla Jan, Meryam Jan, Zara Jan, Nash Jan and Dawn Jan. Ammaar is our page captain today. Welcome.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m pleased to welcome today, from the Canadian Patient Coalition, Emily Wills, Harlon Davey and Joanna Valsamis.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’d like to welcome Megan Perry from Trinity–Spadina to Queen’s Park today. Megan is the wife of Jason Kuzminski.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It’s a pleasure to welcome an association with the Grain Farmers of Ontario, who are here today visiting us at Queen’s Park. They offered a wonderful breakfast to members of the Legislature this morning, again reminding us that farmers continue to feed families and they continue to feed members of this Legislature. So I’m particularly happy to welcome them here today.

M me France Gélinas: I’m glad to welcome members of the Canadian Patient Coalition. This is Cindy Anthony, the executive director of the Aplastic Anemia and Myelodysplasia Association of Canada; Wady Dyson—the last name is a little hard—Nierszhauss, who is a member of the board of directors of the Canadian Pain Coalition; and Karen Philp, who’s the executive director of the Canadian Patient Coalition. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

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

I’m taking a chance here, but I want to personally welcome the member from Nipissing’s mother for being here.

I want everyone to know and put them on notice that I’ll be inviting all of your mothers and fathers and relatives.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Newmarket–Aurora.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, how did you know that?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): You had that look on your face.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. A key foundational principle of parliamentary government is ministerial responsibility. It is considered a foundational principle because it’s one of the cornerstones of our parliamentary system of government. According to Bagehot, ministerial responsibility begins with parliamentary scrutiny. He argues that “If a minister does not know what is happening in his or her department, that person will be quickly exposed. Once exposed, it is the expectation of Parliament that the government find a replacement.”

My question to the Premier is this: Can he tell us if he considers the doctrine of ministerial responsibility a foundational principle of our parliamentary system of government?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Deputy Premier?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: To the best Minister of Health Ontario has ever had.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you. The member opposite raises a very important issue, and that issue is one of ministerial responsibility. It’s very clear that the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order. All members, come to order.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

The issue of ministerial responsibility is, of course, a vital one, and I do want to acknowledge that the auditor did, in his report, say that we could have done a better job. I completely accept that. I agree with the auditor.

I also want to acknowledge that I consider my responsibility to be fixing problems in my ministry as I become aware of them, and that is exactly what I have done at—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The minister’s responsibility under the doctrine of ministerial responsibility is to resign. That is her responsibility. She has already proven that she is incapable of overseeing even the smallest portion of her multi-billion dollar ministry.

The question we have to ask is, if she couldn’t exercise accountability and oversight of that small portion of her ministry called Ornge, how many other Ornges are there spread throughout that entire ministry? I want to ask the minister: Does she know that?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I understand that the member opposite has a role in opposition to do exactly what he is doing. He is doing his job; I am doing my job.

I think it’s important to listen to what the Auditor General had to say, because the Auditor General is an independent Auditor General, and what the Auditor General has written is, “The ministry has recently taken substantive action to address many of the issues raised in this report. Certain issues will take additional time to resolve in the most cost-effective manner....”

The Auditor General himself reports that we have taken substantive and concrete action. I take the Auditor General’s word as—his is the advice that I take, Speaker.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: The Auditor General’s report is an indictment of this minister. That’s what it is. The Auditor General clearly said that this minister failed to exercise her responsibility, and the very fact that this minister is refusing to take responsibility is sending a message to the thousands of public servants in this province, and especially under her ministry, that those at the top don’t have to account and don’t have to have consequences for their lack of responsibility. It is, I suggest to you, Minister, an insult to the oath of office that the minister took and is undermining the respect of this Parliament.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I have taken significant action when it comes to Ornge, and that is action that has been recognized by the Auditor General. The Auditor General said, “When they replaced the board of directors”—that was my action—“When they replaced the board of directors, we noticed a total—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —change at Ornge. If we were to ask for information, it was a tough time getting it prior to the new leadership. The pendulum has gone so far the other way that everyone at Ornge is falling over themselves to be co-operative and to provide information.”

The actions that we have taken have been recognized by the Auditor General, if not the member opposite.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health. Yesterday’s report by the Auditor General was a condemnation of all that has occurred under your watch. The Auditor General confirmed that you and your ministry officials ignored for three months his explosive draft report about an abuse of public dollars by those at Ornge and serious concerns about patient safety instead of taking decisive action. It confirms that this minister turned a blind eye and allowed the scandal to develop, fester and grow.

So I ask the minister, given the auditor’s scathing report about your failure to uphold your responsibilities and duties of office, will you assume responsibility and finally, today, be held accountable and—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite has raised an issue that I would like to address. The Auditor General did release a draft report to the ministry in September. I think most people in this House remember exactly what we were all doing in September. We were on the campaign trail. The ministry was operating in a caretaker role. It would have been completely inappropriate for the ministry to share that report with a person who was a candidate in the election, Speaker. I was not sworn in.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I have now gotten to that point where I cannot hear the answer.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite knows as well as anyone in this House that when a writ is dropped, the responsibility of the minister changes, and that the ministry is in charge of the operations.

When I was reappointed as Minister of Health, Speaker, in late October—by then I was sworn in—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, my question is again for the minister. It’s certainly disappointing, I’m sure, for the public to hear the minister state that she had absolutely no responsibility for the report that she was provided with by the Auditor General.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: She said she was on the campaign trail.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: She was too busy on the campaign trail.

I would say again to you, it is about a minister in this case who has failed to uphold the duties and responsibilities of her office; it is about a minister who is now ignoring the historic principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

So I ask you again today, will you do the honourable thing? Will you resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Auditor General did make it very clear that we could have done a better job. I completely accept that observation by the Auditor General. But I do object to the opposition’s characterization of my activities because when I was sworn in as health minister, in October, I was shortly thereafter briefed, and within weeks, we had a forensic audit team in at Ornge. We had people combing through all of the records at Ornge. That investigation has ultimately led to an OPP investigation.

Speaker, within weeks of becoming minister in October, I took decisive action. We have seen the results of that action, and the auditor—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Durham will withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: I withdraw that you would—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member does know better. The member will withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: I withdraw.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Speaker, again to the Minister of Health: It’s beginning to look more and more like a cover-up. We know, according to the—

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I do so.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Finance will stop.

Final supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, we know that the minister and the Premier’s office were informed last January about what was going on at Ornge. It’s time to stop pretending that she did not know.

She has completely lost the confidence of the public. So I ask you again: Will you do the right thing? Will you assume ministerial responsibility and accountability, and resign?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the auditor was very clear in his report: that we have taken substantive action to address the issues that he identified at Ornge.

The Auditor General had serious issues with access to information at Ornge. We had problems as a ministry getting access to information. That is why we have taken the action we have. That is why we have a new performance agreement in effect right now. That is why I have introduced legislation to strengthen transparency and oversight to ensure this does not happen again.

I take my responsibility very seriously, Speaker, to the people of this province. What they want is for me to fix Ornge and get on with the other challenges—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the Auditor General told us that he provided that draft report outlining the problems at Ornge to the ministry in September. Now we’ve just confirmed with the clerks’ table that the cabinet stays in effect, charged with all of their responsibilities, during an election campaign.

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: So my question, Speaker, is to this minister: Why were the concerns—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will allow the member to ask her question.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. My question is, why were the concerns that were raised in that draft report dismissed and not addressed by the minister?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the action that we have taken, in quite short order, speaks for itself. We have completely new leadership, a new CEO and a strong new board. We have a new performance agreement in place. We have introduced legislation that will tremendously increase transparency and patient safety. We have taken decisive steps. The Auditor General acknowledges that success and it’s time for me to continue on with my other responsibilities—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, it’s very, very clear that this minister had a heck of a lot of information available to her and did nothing about it for far too long, yet she is constantly claiming that she’s as shocked as anyone at the mess at Ornge. But she’s been acting shocked for over a year. In November 2010, she told a committee on estimates, “We will do the work required to get answers to the questions you’ve raised about Ornge.” That was in 2010, Speaker. What exactly did the minister do for that year? And what did she do since September, when the draft report confirmed the concerns that had been being raised for over a year? Why does she think she should keep her job?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock, please. I do know, as everyone recognizes, that it’s rather heated. I will tell you that I’ve been hearing some words being used that are unparliamentary that I cannot assign to individuals. That is not the reason why one would do that. All members are supposed to hold themselves to that high standard, and I ask that it be done.

As for points of order, any point of order during question period is not the convention and will be heard after question period. As for us—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Bring it down. And I don’t need a comment in the middle of my sentence.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Auditor General is a highly respected officer of this Legislature. I think all of us are united in our respect for the Auditor General. The Auditor General has done a thorough audit of Ornge. He released that audit yesterday. In his report and in his press conference, he acknowledged that we have made significant, substantive, concrete changes at Ornge that go a long way to addressing the concerns. I have introduced legislation in this House. I hope that all members of this Legislature support that legislation to strengthen Ornge.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Auditor General described a scheme whereby Ornge used government-backed debt to purchase a building and then leased it back to themselves for a healthy profit. This scheme was described in a letter sent to the minister in January 2011, Speaker—well over a year ago. The auditor said that that scheme should have raised a red flag. Why did the minister ignore that flag, and why does she still think she should be keeping her job?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I have said, the actions that we have taken to strengthen oversight at Ornge have met with the commendation of the Auditor General. My responsibility is to fix problems as I become aware of them. My responsibility also is to lead the transformation of our health care system that is essential for the protection of universal health care in this province.

I have released an action plan; I am now implementing that action plan. Earlier this week, I introduced a complete reform of how we fund our hospitals. That is the important work that we are doing as we move forward.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Auditor General pointed to a various number of signs that there were serious, serious problems at Ornge. A number of signals were there—serious waste, serious risk to patients. Time and again, this minister ignored the red flags, which, the auditor said, “should have been questioned much earlier.” Why did the minister ignore all of this and why, once again, I ask, does she think that she should be keeping her job?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I respect the work of the Auditor General. I accept his findings, Speaker. I take full responsibility for any actions I may have taken that contributed to this. But I can tell you that I moved quickly when I became aware of the problems at Ornge.

We have entirely new leadership; we have a new performance agreement; we’ve called in the forensic audit team; the OPP has been involved. These are strong and decisive actions, and I have yet to hear from the opposition what more they think I should be doing to fix the problems at Ornge. They are playing a political game; I understand that. The partisanship is evident in this House, Speaker—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg at Ornge, but it should be enough to sink this minister once and for all. For over a year the minister said that she was concerned. Then she spent a year approving shady business deals, property flips and hidden salaries that belong more in a gangster movie than they belong in our health care system. For more than a year she ignored the warning signs—warning after warning after warning—even about patient risk. Why does she think she should still be the Minister of Health for the province of Ontario?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The reason I think that I should continue on as health minister, Speaker, is because I have addressed the issues at Ornge. But that is only part of my responsibility. A larger part of my responsibility is to manage a $47.1-billion budget. But more importantly, it is a health care system that people rely on. When a loved one gets sick, you need the health care system to be there for you—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I would ask: If the minister can’t manage a $135-million ambulance scheme, how can she handle a $47-billion Ministry of Health?

Speaker, the most frustrating and anxiety-producing issue for me is that this minister knows it is an important time for our health care system in this province. Patients are very worried that the system will not be there when they need it. We need to make some smart changes if we’re going to get ready for the future. This minister has lost all credibility to do this, to manage this change because of the failures at Ornge. So, considering that she has lost all her credibility, will she finally do the right thing and actually resign?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite has identified exactly the most urgent issue in our health care system today, Speaker. It is: How are we going to drive the change in our health care system that we must do if we are going to be able to protect universal health care? That is why I released the action plan in January.

It is all about getting best value for the dollars we spend in health care; it’s about focusing more on prevention and wellness; it’s about faster access to stronger primary care; and it’s about making sure that people in this province get access to the right care in the right place at the right time for the right price. It is my total focus to transform the health care system—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): This House will take a 10-minute recess.

The House recessed from 1100 to 1111.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Minister of Health. It was rather shocking to hear the minister say that the campaign—election—got in the way of her doing her job and assuming her responsibilities as Minister of Health. She confessed in here that she wasn’t able to provide the oversight to Ornge in response to the auditor’s report. I would remind the minister that, according to the Executive Council Act, you do hold office at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor, even during a writ.

Will you now acknowledge you are not aware of your responsibilities, be held accountable and resign?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Be seated, please. Thank you. Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Minister of Health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker.

The member opposite knows full well that when the House is dissolved, when we are in that interim period between the writ dropping and the new cabinet being sworn in, there are limitations on the activities of ministers.

I can absolutely tell you that when I was sworn in as minister in October, after the election, I was made aware of the issues that were examined by the auditor and I became aware that the auditor was having trouble getting information from the people at Ornge, so I called the Auditor General and I asked him about that. I told him that I would do what I could to help get the information he was looking for—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Well, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister: The minister is still the minister during the election writ period. The minister is still responsible, the minister is still accountable, and it is very disappointing to stand in this House today and for her to acknowledge that she was not able to assume that basic responsibility because she was too busy campaigning.

I ask you, Minister, do the honourable thing, acknowledge you failed in your responsibilities and resign.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Auditor General has acknowledged the substantive action that we have taken to change the leadership, to change the protocols, the transparency and the oversight at Ornge. The auditor specifically says that the ministry has taken substantive action to address many of the issues raised in this report. Certain issues will take additional time to resolve in the most cost-effective manner, Speaker.

The Auditor General himself acknowledges what we have done to address the issues that have been raised. I can tell you that I fully accept the auditor’s report. It is unacceptable what transpired, and that is why we are taking the actions that we are taking. We have a new, stronger performance agreement that is now already in effect; we have new—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Health. Yesterday, the Auditor General drew particular attention to the millions of dollars of fees paid to one law firm. Of course we know now that this is the law firm of one Alfred Apps, the former president of the Liberal Party of Canada. Yesterday, the auditor described how those very lawyers stonewalled his investigations, a scheme created by a Liberal government that was paying millions in legal fees to the—of the Liberal Party of Canada and in order to keep Ontarians in the dark on this very scheme.

Mr. Speaker, it’s clear that in order to get to the bottom of the scandal that happened at Ornge, we have to start at the top, and the top starts with you, Minister. Will you submit your resignation today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I was very pleased yesterday to introduce legislation on this very issue. We have introduced legislation that amends the Ambulance Act to provide much stronger oversight at Ornge, a much more transparent operation. This reinforces changes already in effect through the new and amended performance agreement. Speaker, we will be bringing in quality improvement mechanisms at—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland will come to order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —Ornge, just like we have done in our hospitals, to ensure that we are measuring and improving quality of care. There will be a patient advocate that will ensure that patients’ voices are heard. We will continue to improve the quality of care at Ornge and improve the fiscal—

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: These weren’t just warning signs; they were warning billboards and flashing lights begging for attention, yet a detailed January 2011 memo sent to the minister’s office discussing the web of for-profit companies at Ornge was ignored. Countless whistle-blowers were disregarded, and a draft auditor’s report discussing threats to patient safety given to the ministry in September was completely dismissed.

When did this minister start to care? When it showed up on the 6 o’clock news. It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the majority of this House has lost complete confidence in this minister and the ministry, and of course the members of this province have lost confidence in the minister. Will you do the honourable thing, Madam Minister, and submit your resignation today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, it sounds to me like the member opposite will be supporting the new legislation that I have introduced because it addresses some of the issues that he has raised in that question. The new legislation does protect whistle-blowers. The new legislation allows the minister to appoint a supervisor to Ornge. It is a power that we have in our hospitals. It is one that is exercised only in very unusual circumstances, but I can tell you, had I had the power to appoint a supervisor at Ornge, I would have exercised that power. The new legislation will give us the oversight, the transparency and the ability to act.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, it would be helpful if you did not heckle while your member is answering.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And any other comments that are made while the Speaker is standing.

Ten seconds.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The new legislation, I think, is worthy of very careful consideration by all members of this Legislature.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, my question this morning is for the Minister of Energy. Minister, the feed-in tariff program has been a focal point of Ontario’s clean energy economy. Ontario’s investments in clean energy are creating jobs and cleaning up the air we breathe, ensuring that our children and grandchildren have a bright and healthy future. In addition, our clean energy economy has brought forward over $27 billion in private sector investment and created over 20,000 jobs.

Minister, I know that with these uncertain economic times, families are concerned that the FIT program will not be sustainable. In my riding, my constituents are concerned that the gains we have made will be erased. Minister, what is being done to ensure that Ontario’s FIT program remains strong and stable in these uncertain economic times?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I thank the member from Peterborough for the question. We did make a commitment to clean up the air, to bring on clean energy and to develop a strong, stable, clean energy economy here in the province of Ontario. The member from Peterborough has correctly outlined the progress we’ve made. Today I spoke to our clean energy strategy by speaking to the review we’ve conducted over the past couple of years, a review which will make that sure we can continue to build projects. We’ve streamlined the approvals. We’ve listened to communities, to farm organizations and to others.

We’re going to prioritize projects which have broad-based support. We’re going to be able to build them faster and continue to strengthen our clean energy economy in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thanks very much, Minister, for that comprehensive answer. I know that my constituents in the Peterborough riding will be pleased to hear that the release of Ontario’s feed-in tariff review will have a positive impact on Ontario’s clean energy economy, ensuring the long-term sustainability of the program.

Minister, Ontario’s clean energy economy has attracted over 30 manufacturers to produce clean energy technology in Ontario. As a result, Ontario’s clean energy economy now employs over 20,000 people. It’s not dirty money at all, Mr. Speaker. Minister, these jobs are important to Ontario’s economic future.

Minister, it’s important for the FIT two-year review to ensure that Ontario’s clean energy economy continues to thrive, prosper and create jobs. Can you please share with this House what is being done to ensure that the long-term success of these jobs in the clean energy economy is protected?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: The member from Peterborough is right. Families and businesses are looking to the future. They want to know where the jobs for the future come.

You know, I was at Ryerson University this morning and speaking with some undergraduate and graduate students, and it’s amazing, the projects that they’ve not only been working on, but they’re working with private sector and energy partners to commercialize that research. That’s the future. Over the next decade, the annual investment in clean energy is going to double from about $200 billion to $400 billion. Our clean energy strategy will make sure that with that strong energy economy here in Ontario, Ontario families and Ontario businesses will be able to benefit from the jobs as we sell our products and innovation around the world.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, clearly this side of the House believes in ministerial responsibility, and clearly at this point, you do not. When I was Minister of Health, I stood down—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Mr. Jim Wilson: —from my ministerial responsibilities. I resigned on a matter far, far, far less serious than this Ornge scandal; in fact, quite a trivial matter now. And we had a couple of other ministers who did the same on rather minor matters. We did so because we believed the parliamentary doctrine of ministerial responsibility is fundamental to our system of democratic government in this province. It is the glue that holds you accountable. It’s the glue that holds the system together.

When we have high and mighty cabinets and high and mighty Premiers, the only thing that the electorate can ask is that a minister step down and be accountable for the actions of her department, and in this case, for her own actions. Minister, will you do that?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. I can assure all members of this House that I take my responsibility as minister extremely seriously, and I do take my responsibility to the entire health sector extremely seriously.

We are in a time of transformation in health care. We’re having to make some tough decisions about how we’re going to protect universal health care and at the same time continue to improve the quality of care.

I think that the people of this province expect me to exercise my responsibilities as minister to ensure that they and their loved ones get access to the care that they need—to excellent care—in a timely manner, in a cost-effective way. That is my focus as minister.

I have absolutely addressed issues at Ornge. We are continuing to do that work. But I will not lose sight of my responsibility to the entire House—

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, you have lost sight of your responsibilities. You’ve lost sight of why you’re here. You’ve lost sight of any accountability to the people of Ontario. You’ve lost sight of the providers in the health care system, the staff at Ornge, the pilots. You’ve lost sight of our democratic system.

You’re in danger of thumbing your nose at 500 years of parliamentary democracy by refusing to step down. What makes you, your cabinet and your Premier so superior, so high and mighty, that you can thumb your nose at 500 years of tradition in this province, in this parliamentary system? People have died for this system. They’ve gone to war for this system. You thumb your nose at them as if you’re not accountable to them. Resign today. Do the honourable thing—

Interjections.

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

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Auditor General released his report yesterday. It is a report that I’ve read carefully—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I was pleased to see, Speaker, that while—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Complete your answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the Auditor General did, as he does, offer some very constructive advice on what we need to do to remedy problems at Ornge.

He also acknowledged that we have taken concrete, substantive steps to address issues that were raised in the report. I’m very happy to tell you that we will be acting on each and every one of the recommendations in the Auditor General’s report. I think that is what the people of this province expect me to do, and that is what I intend to do.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

The Auditor General’s report on Ornge paints a disturbing and shocking picture of the Ministry of Health failing to protect patient safety. What I’m hearing this morning disturbed me to the core. How can it be that the minister chose to campaign for her seat rather than protect patient safety at Ornge? How can she say this to this House? She has to resign. Will she agree?

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thought the 10 minutes would have been enough.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker. The member opposite has raised issues about patient safety. I want to assure the public and the members of this House that patient safety is the number one issue at Ornge, Speaker. When we put in place a new board, I was very clear with them that the number one priority was to look very closely at patient safety protocols, how they are measuring patient safety and how they are reporting issues related to patient safety.

I can tell you, Speaker, that I have visited Ornge bases. I have spoken to those front-line paramedics who were very pleased to show me the changes that had already been made as a result of the new leadership as it pertains to patient safety.

There is no question that patient safety is the number one priority of the new board. I am delighted that Dr. Barry McLellan, the CEO of Sunnybrook Hospital, is leading that—

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

M me France Gélinas: What I’m hearing doesn’t make sense. We have an Auditor General’s report that is delivered to the Ministry of Health. The Auditor General’s report clearly states—it’s in the paper—serious patient safety issues. We hear on one hand that patient safety is number one. Why was there no action? She was the Minister of Health. She had the responsibility in September, and nothing happened till after it hit the media.

This lack of action put patient safety at risk. She has to go, Mr. Speaker. She has to resign.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The Auditor General specifically referred to what he called a sea change at Ornge when new leadership was put in place—what the Auditor General noted.

Now, the members opposite may have their own opinions. I’m listening very carefully to what the Auditor General has to say. The Auditor General said, “When they replaced the board of directors, we noticed a total sea change at Ornge. If we were to ask for information, it was a tough time,” getting information. But the pendulum has swung “so far the other way that everyone at Ornge is falling over themselves to be co-operative....”

It is a new era at Ornge. Patient safety is the number one consideration, and that’s what should be, Speaker.

WATER QUALITY

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, today is World Water Day. World Water Day draws attention to one of our most valuable resources: clean water.

Clean water is crucial to our well-being. Conserving water supplies and protecting our water quality is essential to ensuring the health of our families, our communities and our economy. Ongoing research, testing and evaluation of the current drinking water system throughout the province are crucial to the improvement of our current water technologies.

Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment speak to some of the initiatives under way that continue to support excellence in the water sector through training and education?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I can tell the member and the House that, through the Water Opportunities and Water Conservation Act, a key part of our Open Ontario plan, we are driving innovation, creating economic opportunities and promoting water conservation.

Innovative Ontario companies are already leading the way, employing 22,000 people in the clean water sector. We want to help foster new and innovative water technologies to encourage people to use water more efficiently. In doing so, we can strengthen our economy by helping industry tap into the $400-billion global water technology market while protecting our vital water services.

The 2011 Ontario budget outlined the water strategy and announced funding of $30 million over three years for community demonstration programs and municipal water sustainability planning and to support education and public awareness of water conservation.

As stated during the recent throne speech, it is our government’s goal to become the continent’s water innovation leader by 2015 and work with environmental experts and community groups to develop and introduce a Great Lakes protection act.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Water technology also plays a fundamental role when it comes to the types of everyday products we purchase for our households. Families want to make green choices when it comes to buying products, especially products that use water.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of the Environment, can he explain to the House how Ontario is helping families not only conserve water but also save money?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Excellent question. Our government is helping families conserve water and save money through the labelling of water-efficient household products that they can buy. The new WaterSense label identifies household products, such as faucets, shower heads and toilets, that use 20% less water. Using less water protects Ontario’s natural resources—that reduces demand on water heaters so people save money on their energy bills.

Under the program, Ontario manufacturers can now get water-efficient products certified and labelled “water efficient.” Water-efficiency labelling builds on Ontario’s expertise in clean water technology and makes the province a leader in water innovation to help address global water challenges.

We all want to do our part for the environment and make green choices when purchasing products. This new labelling system ends up doing just that.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: My question is for the Minister of Health. Earlier in question period, the minister seemed rather confused about her obligations under the Executive Council Act. You hold office at the pleasure of the Lieutenant Governor even during a writ.

Interjection.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The minister stated earlier today to this House that she wasn’t responsible as health minister during the writ.

On September 22, the London Free Press covered a story that starts with this: “Dropping a home turf election bombshell, Ontario Health Minister Deb Matthews revealed Wednesday the Liberals will raze London’s South Street Hospital.”

Let me quote from the minister, “‘It’s great news,’” said Matthews to the London Free Press. “‘I’m pleased as the health minister and as the MPP ... I’ve been able to give it the attention it deserves.’”

She couldn’t give attention to Ornge because she was making an election announcement in her own riding to benefit her. Who should we believe? The minister on September 22 or the minister of today—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. Please be seated. Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m reminded of former Speaker Peters as he urged us to look at the carvings in this Legislature—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Northumberland is now warned, and only once.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: —to understand our responsibilities. The opposition is the hawk, I believe, to keep us accountable; government is the owl to keep wise.

I understand the partisan nature of today’s question period. I understand that the opposition has a job to do, and they are doing that job.

I also understand what my responsibility is, and my responsibility is to ensure that our health care system is strong, so that the people who need health care get access to the care they need, when they need it, as close to home as possible.

I have addressed issues at Ornge. There is more to do, and we are doing that. Part of that is the legislation—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Speaker, she’s caught in her own web of deceit. She is now a minister of convenience.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The members on the government side will come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the opposition.

The member will withdraw.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Withdrawn, Speaker.

This speaks to the minister’s credibility in cabinet. She was spoon-fed a 30-page briefing about Ornge in September. It raised alarm bells to everyone who listened, but her. Even the Auditor General said she knew about the problems in Ornge when she was making campaign announcements in her own riding. She did nothing.

She is incompetent. She has lost the respect and the confidence of her ministry. She’s lost the respect and confidence of this House and, more importantly, she’s lost the respect and confidence of the people of Ontario. She needs to resign.

Interjections.

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

I will acknowledge that that’s the best part of this so far: You’ve been able to comply to that. Say it twice, you’re down. I thank you.

Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the auditor’s report, of course, we take extremely seriously. As we do with every Auditor General’s report that comes, we learn from what the Auditor General has found. That is absolutely true of the report that was released yesterday. The Auditor General, as I have said, acknowledges that we have already taken substantive, concrete action to address issues at Ornge.

The auditor also raises some serious concerns about the former leadership. We also agree with that finding; we faced the very same challenges. Former leadership at Ornge hindered the Auditor General in obtaining the information he needed to fulfil his duties.

The changes at Ornge open up that process—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Health. It’s a very sad day for Ontario, really, and there’s nothing funny about this concern that we’re addressing.

The minister has indicated that she wasn’t on top of her file during the campaign because, again, the campaign came first. Not only was she making announcements in her own hometown of London but, quite frankly, she was also making announcements as Minister of Health in downtown Toronto—at Toronto Sick Kids, no less.

On September 18: “Sick Kids is the place where they discovered the cystic fibrosis gene, and it’s where they invented Pablum,” said the Minister of Health. “Supporting the Research and Learning Tower and bringing together these talented researchers under one roof is ... where discovery happens.”

Well, we’re discovering, Mr. Speaker, what’s happening at Ornge. We’re asking the minister now, once and for all—she didn’t take responsibility. Will she take responsibility? Will she resign?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have taken full responsibility and I have made significant changes at Ornge. We have a completely new board in place. We have a new CEO in place. We have a new performance agreement. I have introduced new legislation. I sent in a forensic audit team. The forensic audit findings led to my ministry referring this issue to the Ontario Provincial Police. The Auditor General himself acknowledges the sea change in leadership at Ornge, and so do the front-line paramedics, the pilots and the front-line staff that I have met with.

Things have changed at Ornge. I take my full share of responsibility for the findings in the Auditor General report and I am acting on every single one of those recommendations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Actually, looking ahead, the reality is, still, Ornge will be exempted from freedom-of-information rules, Ornge will still let executives line their pockets with limited health care dollars, and Ornge will not be able to be called before the government agencies committee. So nothing’s going to change, Mr. Speaker.

Absolutely nothing is going to change under this minister and with her ministry. She hasn’t taken responsibility, she’s not going to take responsibility. Will she at least do the honourable thing and resign and let the Ministry of Health get on with their work?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite might think that this legislation doesn’t change anything, but she’s completely wrong. I would urge her to read the legislation, to understand that the changes are significant and real, and will make a tangible difference to Ornge people. The people who rely on Ornge to get the care when they need it expect us to do our job. That is why I have brought in this legislation that will give us significantly more oversight.

One of the changes in legislation is that under the former performance agreement, we could not change that performance agreement unilaterally. Under the new legislation, we will be able to unilaterally change the condition under which we relate to Ornge. It will allow us to send in a supervisor. That’s a significant change and a power I wish I had—

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

Interjections.

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

New question.

The customer service standard came into effect for Ontario businesses on January 1 of this year. Minister, can you outline what this standard means for businesses and consumers?

Hon. John Milloy: As I’ve often said, I think all members in this House, on all sides, should be very proud of the AODA, which was passed in 2005 and outlined a series of reforms that we’d bring to make Ontario fully accessible by 2025.

As the member mentioned in her question, the customer service standard has come fully into effect on January 1 of this year. What it means is that those businesses who deal with the general public—restaurants, stores and businesses of that nature—have been asked to come forward and develop a standard to deal with individuals with disabilities.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is about changing a culture and a mindset. It’s about looking at how businesses, restaurants and other places operate, making sure that those with disabilities can be accommodated. It may be as simple as rearranging the stores, making sure staff have training on how to deal with people with individual disabilities, or—

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

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: Thank you, Minister, for that response. From where I was before I was elected, I know how positive these changes are on our communities and for all our constituents that require some of these changes. I’m happy to hear that businesses are complying, because I know, at the time of the act, there was some question with respect to what the requirements were going to be.

Although bringing in the legislation was unquestionably the right thing to do for Ontario, what other impacts has the act had on Ontario? Through you, Speaker, to the minister: What are some of the economic benefits of providing accessible services?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I would ask the members to come to order. Start the clock.

Minister.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think people recognize that following the AODA, there’s obviously a good in terms of corporate responsibility, but it’s also good in terms of the bottom line. There have been numerous studies that have been done, one by the University of Toronto, for example, which has shown that in terms of both tourism and retail, there’s a potential for billions of dollars in additional business in the sense of making your place of business accessible to people with disabilities.

In terms of tourism—people coming to Ontario, as well as people here—there is a huge untapped consumer base which is in the best interests—as I say, the enlightened self-interest—of businesses—

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

MEMBER FOR YORK CENTRE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On a note for our guests that are here: When we can indicate to you, when we do come together as a group to celebrate one of our own—I’m sure the House will join me in offering Monte Kwinter a happy birthday. He’s 81 years old. If I—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Oh, stop heckling. If I have my information correct, it is two years shy of an Ontario history record in the House.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order for Mr. Kwinter.

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I hate to correct you, but on January 26, 2013, I will be the oldest member ever to have served in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On this occasion, the Speaker does stand corrected. But thank you and happy birthday.

There are no deferred votes. This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bob Delaney: Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to introduce, in the members’ east gallery, a name that many people here will recognize. From the city of Toronto, I’d like members to recognize Sarah Thomson, a former mayoralty candidate and a former Liberal candidate in the riding of Trinity–Spadina.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the recent news that the government is backtracking on its hospital expansion projects that they promised leading up to the 2011 general election. Time and again, we’ve seen promises for hospital infrastructure made before an election and quickly abandoned afterwards. As hospitals are the most important provincial institution in many communities, it is disappointing that they are at risk due to the government’s constant bad spending habits on priorities that do not align with the people of the province of Ontario.

I have always been concerned that the government was going to break their promises regarding these showy announcemen