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

March 8, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-08 (PDF)

L023 - Thu 8 Mar 2012 / Jeu 8 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 8 March 2012 Jeudi 8 mars 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SENIOR CITIZENS

WIND TURBINES

TEACHERS

VIOLENCE AGAINST

ABORIGINAL WOMEN

MINING INDUSTRY

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

RENEWABLE ENERGY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

VERONICA PENNY

WIND TURBINES

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY

HRANT DINK

YOUTH OFFENDER FACILITY

PARLEMENT JEUNESSE FRANCOPHONE DE L’ONTARIO

RENEWABLE ENERGY

MEMBER FOR NIAGARA FALLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SUPPLY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2012

MOTIONS

ORDER OF BUSINESS

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN’S DAY /

JOURNÉE INTERNATIONALE

DE LA FEMME

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

WIND TURBINES

HYDRO RATES

WIND TURBINES

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

KIDNEY DISEASE

LONG-TERM CARE

WIND TURBINES

WIND TURBINES

VISITOR

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

MAJOR-GENERAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DU MAJOR-GÉNÉRAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

WIND TURBINES

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2012 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2012

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

MAJOR-GENERAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DU MAJOR-GÉNÉRAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

MAJOR-GENERAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

DAY ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE JOUR

DU MAJOR-GÉNÉRAL SIR ISAAC BROCK

WIND TURBINES

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2012 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2012

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

WIND TURBINES

The House met at 0900.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Let us pray.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 6, 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 Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate?

Ms. Soo Wong: I’m pleased to rise in the House today to give my comments in support of Bill 30. I’m proud to stand here and discuss an important bill that will help Ontarians during a difficult time. I’m proud to stand here as this government continues to follow through on its platform promises.

The purpose of this bill is simple: It is to create a new unpaid, job-protected leave of absence of up to eight weeks per calendar year for an employee whose family member has a serious medical condition that requires care and support. I want to stress the job protection portion of this legislation.

We all know how stressful it is to go to work while thinking about the health of our loved ones: mothers thinking about their sick children, husbands thinking about their wives, sisters thinking about their brothers and children thinking about their parents. Surely this stress causes enormous distractions at work and losses in productivity.

The proposed legislation allows for Ontarians to take the time off to care for their loved ones while ensuring that they have their jobs to return to. This is an important point because when employers recognize the needs of their employees, it builds a healthy relationship between employers and employees. It creates community in a workplace. It builds confidence among employees toward their employers. Most importantly, it allows employees to take the time to care for their loved ones so that they can return to work and be productive employees.

As a registered nurse, as a former public health nurse, as a former nursing professor and long-term-care administrator, I have witnessed first-hand the many struggles of my patients and their families. Let me share a couple of life experiences with you and how the proposed legislation would have supported these families.

Consider one patient, an 87-year-old man with dementia, stroke and diabetes. His medical condition got worse; he was admitted to a long-term-care facility. His 47-year-old daughter, who works as a registered practical nurse, is a single mom with two adolescent children and is the only next of kin. The daughter has utilized all her vacation and sick days during the past year and is struggling to provide support to her elderly father and to care for her two teenage children. The proposed family caregiver leave legislation would have enabled Kelly, the daughter, to take up to eight weeks of unpaid leave without being concerned for her employment to care for her father.

Recently, a teacher in my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt had to leave for Hong Kong to provide care and support to her elderly father, who was diagnosed with a serious medical condition. This teacher works for an understanding and supportive employer who granted her the leave of absence. Bill 30 would ensure that this teacher, or any employee in Ontario, could take up to eight weeks of unpaid, job-protected time away from work to care for a family member with a serious medical condition.

Very shortly, one of my constituents, a parent, will be coming to visit the Legislature. She has taken her daughter for a medical appointment at the Hospital for Sick Children. I know Natalie well as a friend and as a constituent, and this family care leave will enable her, if she was needed, to provide support for her family.

This legislation is important because there is a gap in the current leave of absence under the Employment Standards Act. The ESA does not provide long-term job protection leave for employees wanting to care for family members with serious medical conditions that require care or support where there is no risk of imminent death.

We currently have the family medical leave program. This program is unpaid, job-protected leave of up to eight weeks for employees who wish to care for a seriously ill individual who is at risk of death within 26 weeks. Employees on the family medical leave program can apply for the federal EI compassionate care benefit.

Additionally, the personal emergency leave program also exists, which provides a short-term, unpaid leave of up to 10 days each calendar year for a broad list of emergencies and illnesses. As a nurse, Mr. Speaker, this number of 10 days is not adequate. That’s just two weeks of working days. I can tell you as a registered nurse that many of the medical conditions, especially with chronic illnesses—a family member will need more than 10 days of leave in order to provide care and support for an ill member of the family.

The difficulty is that if an employee has a young daughter who is diagnosed with cancer and her physician does not believe there’s a significant risk of death within 26 weeks, the employee is not eligible for family medical leave. Yet, through this proposed legislation, the employee would be able to take up to eight weeks of unpaid, job-protected leave to care for his or her seriously ill child.

Now, my colleagues may have stated that this would be a significant cost on small businesses. In this case, I would like to remind my colleagues across the floor that this is just the right thing to do. Our employees need to know that their employers will let them have the time off if they need to take care of their loved ones. Moreover, it is an unpaid leave and employers wouldn’t have to pay for it.

Other colleagues have complained that this program is unpaid, that people can’t take up to eight weeks of unpaid leave. Here I would like to remind my colleagues that the EI premium benefits are paid out by the federal government. The Minister of Labour has already written to Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to encourage the federal government to extend the EI coverage to this program, and I would encourage my Conservative colleagues across the floor to contact their federal cousins up in Ottawa to let them know that the EI premium should be extended to this program once this legislation is passed.

Additionally, not all the eight weeks have to be used at one time. They can be staggered, which will allow greater flexibility for employees, should they need it. I gave the example earlier, Mr. Speaker, about my constituents coming to visit the Legislature. So if a family member only wants to take one week instead of the full eight weeks, this particular legislation will allow that. Most importantly, employees need to know that they can take the time off to care for their loved ones with the security of knowing that they have a job to come back to.

In a recent survey by the Human Resources Professionals Association, the respondents stated the following—let me share some data with all of you. Almost 96% support family caregiver leave either fully or in part. Over 30% of the respondents are either currently caregivers or have been in the past. Over 50% have noticed an increase in requests for caregiver leaves over the past five years.

A majority of the respondents to the survey noted that this issue is timely and urgent, and has an impact on many Canadians. Respondents also noted that this is a complicated issue, difficult to legislate and difficult to administer, and that they will give the government support and credit for addressing it, noting that the legislation is progressive and a step in the right direction for Ontario.

Many have noted that the issue of aging and ill family members affects productivity, and that regardless of the financial impact, it is in the employer’s best interests to have the legislation passed. Respondents in general stated that failure to address this issue will result in expensive turnover, claims of short-term disability, sick leave and stress leave.

From this survey, Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that both employers and employees recognize the importance of allowing employees to take unpaid leave away from work to care for family members with serious medical conditions, provided their job is protected during the leave.

Across Canada, there’s similar legislation to support workers. Quebec allows certain employees to be absent from work without pay for up to 12 weeks over a period of 12 months to stay with family members because of a serious illness or a serious accident. Saskatchewan allows employees to take a maximum of 12 weeks—not the eight weeks we’re proposing in our legislation—12 weeks off without pay in a 52-week period for a serious illness or injury of dependent immediate family members or 12 days total in a calendar year for a non-serious illness of a dependent family member.

Ontario would be the first province to provide stand-alone, unpaid job-protected leave of up to eight weeks for employees to provide care for a family member with a serious medical condition.

The proposed legislation has received stakeholder support, Mr. Speaker. They include the Ontario Home Care Association, which “welcomes the government’s proposal to introduce amendments to the Employment Standards Act that would protect jobs for workers taking time off work to provide care for a family member.” The Alzheimer Society of Ontario stated that “family caregivers who provide the bulk of care for people with dementia will especially benefit” from our proposal. The cancer society listed family caregiver leave as one of the measures it hoped to see implemented by this government to help Ontarians living with cancer.

There are a number of benefits to the proposed family caregiver leave legislation. It is anticipated that the proposed leave would help to reduce the financial and human resource burdens on health care services and reduce stressors that can lead to ill health among employees who are caring for their ill relatives. Families may avoid costly privately funded caregiving. With the growth of the aging population, the issue of aging and ill family members affects productivity, and regardless of the financial impact, it is in employers’ and employees’ best interests to have the proposed legislation passed.

The proposed legislation, as I said earlier, may prevent high turnover rates for some of our organizations and reduce claims for short-term disability, sick leave and stress leave. I’ve seen that one too many times in my career as a registered nurse. I’ve seen request after request when registered nurses, staff and colleagues have consistently asked, “Can I take a leave? I’ve already exhausted my sick benefits and my vacation plan; therefore I need to take unpaid leave, okay?” And this is the right thing to do, Mr. Speaker.

I can share many stories with this House. Just last year around this time, I was at a well-renowned rehabilitation hospital. When you do rehabilitation nursing, it’s not one day or one week; it’s months, okay? I have met with many families, patients, extended family, who take long leaves—two to three months for cardiac rehab; two to three months or even years for neurological rehab. This is not days. We’re talking about compassion. We’re talking about care. Most importantly, it’s about the right thing to do.

The proposed legislation is, most importantly, to protect jobs. No employees need to be fearful of losing their jobs when they have to take care of a loved one. Protecting jobs, the leave benefit, is what this proposed legislation is about. The employers would be creating a positive, loyal and productive workforce.

Our government wants to give every employee in Ontario the one thing they need during the difficult time caring for a loved one: the time to be there to listen, to provide care and to provide support. That’s what this legislation is about. The proposed family care leave legislation, Mr. Speaker, is about taking care of Ontarians during difficult times. It is the right thing to do.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I did listen reasonably closely to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt, and I’m very impressed. She’s a former nurse, and I believe she was a school trustee before she came here.

I think the key issue here if you look at the bill—in general, the sentiment would be that we would be supportive. However, in closer detail, I think the member who spoke yesterday from our side, the member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, who himself is a health care expert—he’s a pharmacist—explained, in terms of his small business where he operates, what it means to small business.

I think the NDP in their comments—also I think the requirement to take a week at a time when it may only be necessary for an appointment, a day to take your mother or a loved one, put it that way, to an appointment or to the hospital for a procedure. You could maybe go back to work for a couple of days until she was being discharged or they were being discharged.

It’s the structure of the bill, like in many other bills; I think the intent is laudable, but the implementation is terrible. That’s really what I find most difficult with the bill.

You might say, on closer examination, there is no cost to the government of McGuinty at all. There’s no cost to him—not a cent. But what it is for small business, maybe a mom and a pop and a few other people operation, is that they’re going to be missing a person who could be operating their computer or their laundromat, whatever it is they’re doing in their small business. And the individual who’s off gets no pay. Who can take eight weeks off without pay?

It is a good idea. Let’s rehearse here: It is a good idea; the implementation is faulty. I think they should withdraw the bill, send it to committee and get it right.

But there are so many examples of this under McGuinty. The energy file is completely messed up. The economy—there are no jobs: 600,000 people are unemployed.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Good morning, Speaker, and thank you. I’m glad to be here in the House today to comment on G30, the family caregiver leave bill, that’s proposed today. I don’t think we can argue that this is not a feel-good bill. Everybody feels good about giving time off to someone who needs to be with their loved ones. I know for myself, if I was in that position, that I certainly would enjoy the flexibility of my employer having allowed me the time off to be with a family member who had a serious illness and who I had to attend to.

I don’t think that’s the question or the purpose of the bill that we really need to debate. We all agree on that. We all need to be with our loved ones in a time of need.

I think the intent of the bill as it’s described is well received for the idea, but the structure absolutely needs to be reviewed. There needs to be consultation with the community, with workers and with employers so that it’s not a matter of the employee taking time off and perhaps feeling a reprisal from the employer and also perhaps the employer feeling that a valuable employee is lost to them perhaps for eight weeks and their business could suffer.

On top of that, with an employee taking that time off, they may not even have the financial means to support themselves. So you’re really putting that employee, unfortunately, in a difficult situation: being tugged at their heartstrings by financially leaving work to look after their loved ones, and the employer having perhaps a very challenging time when that employee leaves.

There has to be more thought in that leave with regard to helping the employee economically get through that time, and then perhaps the employer as well being involved in that process. So I urge this government to please review that before anything like this is considered and passed.

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: First of all, I would like on this day to wish a happy International Women’s Day to all the women in Ontario, to all the women who are maybe following these proceedings and to all the women in the House. I want to commend women for their contributions to our society, for their strength that they often show and for the care that they often show.

We know, in regard to this legislation, that very frequently there’s a group to whom an unequal share of the responsibility of caregiving has historically fallen, and that is women—and women who have the least are the most vulnerable. So I would like to, first of all, wish all the women a really happy International Women’s Day. It’s also a day for us to reflect on their contributions.

Getting back to the bill that we’re debating this morning, I think we all agree we wouldn’t want a mother to worry about a child who is seriously ill or injured. We wouldn’t want a daughter to worry about their mother or father being seriously injured.

As my colleague has pointed out, when the time is needed, when a loved one is seriously ill, you need to take that time. So a business will have to come to terms with that. But what happens most often nowadays is that you risk your job. So this bill’s intent is really not to put the caregiver in that situation of risking their job.

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

Mr. Rob Leone: I want to thank the member for Scarborough–Agincourt for her comments. I think she presented it very well.

I also want to just touch upon what the member for London–Fanshawe said. I think her words are very, very pertinent to the discussion. This is a kind of policy that really touches at people’s heartstrings. It kind of warms the heart to know that we’re going to be compassionate to those who require extra care. I think, from that perspective, there’s a lot to be commended about the intent, as the member for Durham had said about this policy. But I also agree with the member from Durham, who said that the implementation lacks—there’s something to be desired.

In the comments that the member for Scarborough–Agincourt made in this debate, she is asking us in the Ontario PC caucus to ask our federal cousins to actually implement a policy that they’re actually talking about. Do you believe this?

Interjection: It’s their job, isn’t it?

Mr. Rob Leone: We have to do their job for them. And I say, we’re happy to do your job for you; just give us the keys to your offices. We’ll gladly make the policy, we’ll gladly do the things that we need to do and we’ll gladly pick up the phone and call our federal cousins. That’s exactly what you want us to do. We’ll gladly do that job for you.

In addition to doing that job, we’ll fix the fiscal crisis that you got us in. We’ll fix the debt crisis that you got us in, because that’s what honest-to-goodness government actually does. We don’t sit back and wait for other people to do our job for us, we do it ourselves. How novel an idea: a government actually makes decisions; it has a spine; it has a backbone; it implements what it says and has the capacity to do that. That’s all we’re asking for in this House, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much for the time.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Scarborough–Agincourt, you have two minutes to reply.

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the members opposite from Durham, London–Fanshawe, my colleague here from York South–Weston, and Cambridge for your remarks.

Very clearly, this is not just feel-good proposed legislation. This is about every employee being given an opportunity to look after their loved ones, okay? Every one of us in this House has been an employee. We all have family challenges. To say it has good intent or it’s difficult to implement—well, let me be very clear: We have a very fast-growing aging population. This proposed legislation ensures that every Ontarian who is in that sandwich generation, like myself and many others, has an opportunity to look after their loved ones during their time of need and not be fearful of losing their jobs.

The other important part here is the concern about the implementation difficulties and for small businesses there. What kind of employer-employee relationship will you have if you do not listen and you do not support your employees when they need that support? What kind of employer are you? I need to challenge that, okay?

At the end of the day, all of us—this government, this province—developed through small businesses. We are not saying that every business will go bankrupt or be disturbed because of this proposed legislation. The key piece here is the fact that now, for the first time in Ontario, every employee will be given an opportunity to look after their loved ones during the time of a serious medical condition, and that’s the right thing to do.

At the end of the day, this is why we need to go through the committee: to review the various parts of the legislation and have comments and concerns be heard. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. Further debate? The member from Burlington.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Speaker, I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill 30.

All of us here at some point or another find ourselves in unfamiliar territory: A loved one is sick, has had a terrible turn, is in need and is alone. At that moment, there is nothing in the world that we want more than to be with them, to do all that we can for them, to help them with their recovery or lend comfort while they battle for their lives. We are not concerned with spreadsheets or speeches. We are not concerned with work that has, in a flash, become drained of all importance. In those kinds of difficult times, there is nothing we want more than to be with family to share strength and consolation.

In principle, I suspect that we agree that caregiver leave is a civilized initiative, an initiative that shows great compassion toward Ontario families at a time when it is most appreciated and needed—in principle.

In reality, Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act, is a classic case of appearances being deceptive. While the intent is good, you don’t have to look at this bill too long or too hard to see that it is lacking credible weight. As previous speakers in this debate have pointed out, the most substantial thing about it seems to be the holes in it.

In a broad sense, you can argue that, yes, it would be helpful to be able to take eight weeks of leave from a job without endangering your hold on that job. But in family medical leave and personal emergency leave, there are measures in place that address much of that concern. Some have suggested that compassionate employers would be open to these measures with or without legislation. That strikes me as credible.

Even setting those concerns aside, it seems to me that there are also going to be pretty basic issues with this bill as it is written. How will this impact the province’s entrepreneurs and small businesses that often have highly specialized staff, no duplication of work and who are already up against their share of operational challenges? Who will it impact: contract workers or part-timers, who make up an increasing share of our workforce? Why is it mandatory to take time off at this point—unpaid time off—in blocks of whole weeks?

How do we determine who is eligible for this leave? Who decides the eligibility? How would you objectively define a serious medical condition or injury? Who protects the interest of the worker? Who protects the interest of the employer? Who will enforce standards around this proposed legislation? How will the government bankroll that enforcement?

As workers rights advocacy groups have pointed out, the McGuinty government has hinted that the Employment Standards Act budget will be slashed by $6 million. This is a government that is apparently prepared to shortchange workers’ rights by $6 million. But I don’t want to suggest for a second that the McGuinty Liberals don’t care about people’s rights, Speaker. Far from it.

After all, this is a government that is contributing $5 million to build a human rights museum—in Winnipeg; Winnipeg, Speaker. True, it is a massively over-budgeted museum, so you understand how the Liberals would naturally gravitate to it. But $5 million? You do start to wonder about their focus. You do start to wonder about their priorities.

On Bill 30, as with any legislation, success depends on monitoring and enforcement of the law. The protections we’re reading about here only exist to the extent that they are defended. Legislation without enforcement is just sentimental PR. I don’t want to suggest that we are looking at that, not just yet, but at the same time, it’s pretty obvious that we are a long way from solid ground.

If you were a cynic or truly jaded soul, you might also suggest that this is a way of spinning employment status, because under this arrangement both the person on leave and the replacement worker—presumably a contract worker—have jobs; they just happen to be the same job. They could have a way of padding labour statistics and masking the very real and serious challenges that this province faces when it comes to getting its economy back on track. Of course, we now have some 600,000 Ontarians out of work, so you would understand if the government was inclined to spin wherever possible.

But this is not a time for funny business with numbers; this is a time for getting down to business—full stop. We are talking about workers who are already emotionally exposed. This is not a time to be offering them job security based on hopes and wishes.

You get the feeling that there has been little stakeholder consultation in this process. You also get the feeling that this bill is founded on the notion that the federal government will ride in to save the day. You get the feeling that Bill 30 imagines the feds will offer up to eight weeks of financial support to workers on leave by way of unemployment insurance. As I say, it’s a feeling. It’s just a feeling, because at this point on second reading, there has been no agreement of terms with the federal government.

But under the rosiest

interpretation, we’re looking at the possibility of ill-defined paid leave with bulletproof job security—an insurable benefit with no monitoring or enforcement; a program with no criteria for eligibility and no credible safeguards against people taking advantage of loopholes. That seems like a situation that is ripe for abuse, ripe for fraud. Would people misuse the new system? Perhaps, Speaker.

Even without Bill 30, you could argue that demand for employment supports exceeds supply. Despite Ontario having an unemployment rate that has been above the national average for more than five years, less than a third of unemployed Ontarians receive employment insurance.

When you poke a hole in the daydream and size things up in the cold light of day, the shortcomings of this bill come into sharp relief. The lack of detail is not surprising, of course. It’s not unexpected. This is becoming a trademark of the back-of-a-napkin brand of planning we’ve seen from the McGuinty government. I wish I didn’t think that way. I am in my fifth month here, fewer than 20 days in the House, and I’m trying really hard not to become disillusioned. But I look across the aisle, and in my short time here, I have to tell you that the reckless behaviour and disrespect for anything other than the government’s pet programs is pretty brazen.

Let me go back to October. The throne speech was a sobering signal that Ontarians should buckle down and get ready for yet another crushing year. The McGuinty government has failed to adequately respond to our province’s economic predicament. Honest, hard-working Ontarians are losing their jobs, energetic students are graduating into an employment wasteland and government spending remains undisciplined and unfocused.

In the throne speech, the government rolled out, to great fanfare, an extra $2.5 billion in new program spending, this despite Ontario’s dizzying $16-billion deficit—which has ballooned by more than $1 billion since the election—and sickening projected debt of $300 billion. Then, as now, the government’s math just doesn’t add up.

I’ve said it before: The government strategy is like a fad diet. The Premier is drinking twice as much diet soda and eating twice as much diet ice cream and hoping he’ll find a six-pack under all that budget bloat. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, although I have absolutely no desire to see the Premier in a Speedo, I would very much like to see him whip the province’s finances back into shape. The government has racked up a historic level of deficits and debts, as well as presiding over some of the deepest and most painful job losses in generations.

In short, Liberal economic policies have failed. Ontario’s unemployment rate has surged above the national average for more than five straight years. Ontario has lost more jobs during the recession than all other provinces combined. We need to optimize the public sector and eliminate waste, reducing the size and cost of government. You can’t simply spend your way to prosperity. Speaker, it’s time for Dalton McGuinty to stop digging us all an even deeper hole. Everything should be done with a view to fiscal responsibility.

But I suppose we shouldn’t be that surprised that there is also the smoke and mirrors, the sleight of hand we see again and again from this government. The southwestern Ontario development fund, for example, will apparently be financed by shuffling funds around from other initiatives and programs within the Ministry of Economic Development and Innovation. During the debate on Bill 11, the so-called Attracting Investment and Creating Jobs Act, we learned that some $66 million in research funding at universities and hospitals was going to be siphoned off and put into the creation of this fund.

Apparently, the government feels the connection between research and economic innovation is a little shaky.

The Ontario PC Party remains committed to the belief that we cannot support any new spending without identifying an equivalent saving somewhere else. Spending more than you take in isn’t going to balance the budget. In fact, that kind of behaviour is how Premier McGuinty got us into the debt crisis in the first place.

Speaker, it reminds me of that kind of math that went into calculating the province’s deficit at the end of August, just six weeks before the election. Things were looking up, we were told. The deficit was coming down faster than projected, thanks to the McGuinty government’s superhuman powers of fiscal restraint—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): On both sides of the House, I’d ask you to come to order, please.

If I could just remind the speaker also, we don’t refer to people in the House by their names but by their title or their riding.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: The Minister of Finance pegged the deficit for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2011, at $14 billion. That was down $2.7 billion from the shortfall projected in the 2011 budget. Less than two months later, we knew that the number had risen to $16 billion. That’s a heck of a margin of error; that’s a heck of a wobble.

Speaker, I would like to know that our government’s policy is being built on evidence. I would like to know that it is helping to promote the kind of activity that will make a real difference in the economy today, tomorrow and in years to come. Ontarians need the assurance that the Premier’s government will be fundamentally reforming its way.

Do we need to get on with the business of government? Yes; yes, we do. Do we need to get Ontario working again? Yes, absolutely; no question about it. Will the McGuinty Liberals get on with the job without playing all of their same old ridiculous games—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would remind the member again: Refrain from using people’s names.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Unfortunately, Speaker, the answer to that very important question is still up in the air. Obviously, employees will want to have the freedom to put work to one side when we have to. And obviously, we’ll all have reason to feel like doing exactly that at one time or another.

You hear a lot of talk about the sandwich generation, the generation caught between aging parents and growing children—a generation that is financially extended on both fronts. Members of that generation certainly feel the tension between work and home life, and that’s not going to change anytime soon.

My home riding of Burlington is an example of what we’re looking at. In the decade from 1996 to 2006, Burlington’s population aged 50 to 65 grew by 36%, and its population aged 65-plus grew by 44%—and this while the city’s total population increased by 20%. I’m sure that new census information will paint a picture that is every bit as dramatic as that. In case you missed it, this is the baby boom making its way through the pipeline.

In her introductory remarks, the Minister of Labour spoke about our aging population, which is growing steadily. She cited some statistics: We’re going to have 43% more seniors a decade from now; we’re going to have twice as many seniors 20 years from now. We’re living longer lives, more active lives, but that doesn’t mean that we’re escaping everything that goes along with being human. We still get sick, we still get injured, we still fall prey to disease. We hope that there will be someone there for us at those moments and that they will have compassion and love in their hearts.

Older Ontarians obviously have a greater need for chronic care and long-term-care facilities. At some point, their families will inevitably need to intervene on their behalf at a time when the whole world seems like it’s ready to capsize.

Six years ago, more than a third of Burlington’s population was 50-plus, and that age group represented well over half of the city’s total population in the decade leading up to that. Fully 57% of the population growth in Burlington during that period was in the 55-plus demographic. So yes, the silver tsunami is very real. I can tell you that it has hit Burlington earlier than most communities.

As boomers age, the strain on the health care system will obviously be immense. The challenge for policy-makers and public officials will be unprecedented. That’s not a reason to throw up our hands in defeat; it’s an argument for investing very carefully and very intelligently in the system that we have. And the fact is that the existing system has obvious shortcomings in terms of long-term care and home care. The fact is that the system has shortcomings in terms of geriatric support.

In 2008, it was estimated that there were only about 200 geriatricians in all of Canada. That’s about one geriatrician for every 30,000 Canadians aged 65-plus. In some Ontario communities, it can take a year and a half just to get in to see one. So at worst, it strikes me that we’re taking people who are emotionally raw and on edge and giving them a crash course in the shortcomings of the system: about the limitations of OHIP, about all sorts of petty aggravations that do nothing to promote care and compassion.

So I think that this bill could use a lot more meat on its bones. If the government is serious about extending these rights to workers, serious about making a meaningful change to the existing Employment Standards Act, there needs to be more to it. If the government is going to hand employees a new obligation and expect them to fulfill the spirit of the legislation without any real structure, definition or boundaries, I think that’s asking an awful lot.

I come back to my original caution about judging a book by its cover. For all of its sound bites and appeal, this bill plays into all of the worst stereotypes about the kind of legislation we’ve seen from the Premier’s government for eight years: long on posturing, lean on practicality. We in the Ontario PC caucus have feelings and families; we have suffered and we have lost. We have recognized that there may be a time and place where something like the Family Caregiver Leave Act would have a place in the order of things—something like Bill 30—but not Bill 30 as it stands.

My honourable colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex has pointed out that ministry personnel have barely any statistical evidence that Ontario workers are being denied time off from their jobs to care for loved ones in time of crisis. Standing here in this House last week, he said, “Not only have there been no studies, there aren’t even mechanisms in place to collect the kind of data that would give the members of this House—and the Ontario taxpayers who must pay for it—a clear idea of any real or imagined problem this bill claims to solve.” That’s one of the bigger holes I mentioned earlier.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, Bill 30 offers less protection than a hospital gown and more holes in it than a roll of surgical gauze. I applaud the sentiment, but I cannot in good conscience support this bill as it is currently written.

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

M me France Gélinas: I would like to congratulate one of our new members in this House for her depth of knowledge of her riding. Some of the statistics that she brought forward show that she took the time and effort to really get to know the people who could be impacted by such a bill. The statistics that she shared with us this morning regarding her particular riding and the percentage of people who are elderly, the growth in her population—I was kind of taken aback when I heard that 57% of the demographic growth in Burlington came from the 55 and over. Those statistics are very telling. They’re telling of a need for action.

I think her

interpretation of the bill, which certainly has a good title, the family caregiver act—I mean, who wouldn’t want to do something for a family caregiver? We all know that when they need to be brought into action, it’s usually in circumstances that are hard on families. She also was quite eloquent at talking about some of the shortcomings of the bill.

I find her comparison about a hospital gown quite interesting. We all know that they don’t cover much, and I think it describes this bill quite adequately: It doesn’t cover much either. Well done.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I just wanted to join the conversation this morning. I was listening to the member from Burlington, and I wasn’t sure what bill she was talking about there. Originally, I felt quite hopeful, in that I thought she was going to provide some useful and constructive advice with regard to the family caregiver leave, and then it deteriorated rapidly.

At the end of the day, I think we ran on this particular issue. I want to remind them that the family caregiver leave was part of our platform in the last election. We campaigned on the idea of giving families support.

Certainly, when she spoke a little bit about the businesses and what a hardship this would be for them—we had some very interesting results that were passed along to us, when we originally introduced the bill, by the Human Resources Professionals Association. They did a survey and they had 616 responses—a very, very interesting group of studies that they did. They talked with a lot of businesses. Of course, this is a group of professsionals who go out and recruit people for business. They came back with some interesting quotes, and they said that it was a very good retention initiative.

They reminded us how costly it is to recruit, select and train new employees, and that it’s better to allow family caregiver leave, to go through the process, rather than going out to hire a new employee.

At the end of the day, this is an opportunity to debate legislation. I didn’t hear anything constructive from the member from Burlington. Really, she’s very cynical about the bill. This is a place to provide constructive, useful suggestions on how to make legislation better. The people of Ontario expect that of us. They expect us to not take cheap shots about what legislation should be, what it could be. This is about providing useful, thoughtful suggestions. The residents of your riding expect that and they need it. When they’re in crisis, they expect us to be there to support them, to be that safety net.

That’s what this legislation is designed to be. I would encourage her to have another look at the legislation, to provide some useful conversation with regard to it.

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

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to the bill, the Family Caregiver Leave Act.

To me, there’s nothing more important than family. We can all agree that family has an imperative and a profound impact on our lives on a day-to-day basis and the kind of individuals we are.

I’ve noticed, however, that this bill doesn’t actually address the concerns that day-to-day families are facing. Quite frankly, when I was campaigning and going out in my riding, door-knocking, I was hearing that families are struggling to make ends meet. Sure, they would love to stay and take care of their loved ones who are at home and need assistance, but they don’t have the opportunities financially to do that when their hydro bills are too high or they don’t have a job. Oh, maybe that’s the government’s position—over 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost in Ontario; lots of individuals can look after their family members now. That’s not our approach.

One of the things I’ve noticed as well standing here—and as an educator, one of the things you look for is patterns, the development of patterns. This is a classic manoeuvre by this current government: to divert. They use cute little names, making it sound—Family Caregiver Leave Act—very compassionate but, in truth, it’s full of holes, like the member from Burlington, my colleague, pointed out.

Interjection: Window dressing.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s window dressing, and enough of this. Let’s get to the heart of the matter. Let’s actually present a bill that is going to do some good for individuals who need it.

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

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: Good morning, Speaker. I’m happy to stand here and comment on the presentation from the member from Burlington.

What I observed today in this House is that you can’t have the back-and-forth little digs. It’s a minority government. We were given a mandate to come here, respect each other, respect each other’s options, choices and decisions, but collaboratively come together and make a bill the best it can be.

So though I respect the bill that’s being presented, I also have the right or the mandate from my constituents to stand here and say I don’t agree with some of the things that you have. I agree with the premise. We all do. But we need to maybe listen to each other, try to accommodate or incorporate and compromise and make this bill the best it can be for everyone, not just one person’s thought.

When we talk about how the employer’s perspective will be perceived, how the employee’s perspective is going to be received, that’s what the open discussion is about. From an employee’s perspective: “I’m not going to be paid for the leave,” that is a hardship for many employees. From the employer’s perspective—“Can I have that valuable employee away for eight weeks?” Like the member from Scarborough–Agincourt said, how could employers not be compassionate? The reality is, employers may be put in a hard place. The reality is, employers sometimes can’t afford to do that or some just don’t.

In a perfect world, it would be great if we could all just agree and allow someone out for eight weeks. The bills would stop coming and the employer could carry on its business, but it’s not a perfect world.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: First of all, I’d like to apologize, Speaker, for saying the Premier’s name.

Then, I’d also like to speak to the member from Scarborough–Agincourt. It was very well received. I’d also like to thank the member from London–Fanshawe—that was very articulate, how you spoke there—the member from Nickel Belt, the Minister of Labour and the member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

I have enjoyed the comments here today in second reading, and I’m confident that they will help to enrich understanding of the bill before us and perhaps strengthen the compassion of legislation being produced here.

Today we are discussing Bill 30,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 2000, in respect of family caregiver leave. The bill proposes the introduction of compassionate, unpaid, job-protected work leave for up to eight weeks so that they can take a leave of absence without pay to provide care or support to a family member who has a serious medical condition. Those employees would be entitled to take up to eight weeks each calendar year with respect to each family member covered by regulation.

On the face of it, it is a compassionate bill, a bill that allows family to care for family, to allow Ontarians to look after Ontarians. This is an interesting proposal, and it certainly touches on some of the key issues coming before us both here in the Legislature and across the province.

As I say, it is an interesting proposal, and it certainly sounds a feel-good note. It tugs at the heartstrings. It touches us all. On that count it is a success. But in my opinion, it has a lot of blind spots, a lot of loopholes and a lot of unanswered questions, some of which I outlined here today. Until those substantial shortcomings are addressed, Bill 30 will not have the ability to deliver on its promises.

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

M me France Gélinas: I think it is my turn to say a few words about the Family Caregiver Leave Act. I would like to start by reading the paragraph in the bill that really sets out the entitlement. Actually, before I even start, I would like to thank the Minister of Labour for being in the House to listen to the comments that are being made about a bill that she brought forward. I appreciate her dedication to making sure that the bill she brings forward—she is aware of ways to make it better. I appreciate her being here. We’re not allowed to say when they’re not there, but we’re allowed to say when they are there, Mr. Speaker.

So back to the bill: “Entitlement to leave”; this is paragraph 2 if some of you want to go on the Internet and check out the bill. It reads as follows: “An employee is entitled to a leave of absence without pay to provide care or support to an individual described in subsection (4) if a qualified health practitioner issues a certificate stating that the individual has a serious medical condition.”

First, I will speak a little bit about the “qualified health practitioner.” In the bill, a qualified health practitioner is defined as “a person who is qualified to practise medicine”—quite easy to understand; that’s a physician, and we all know who they are. Then the act keeps going and says, “or, in the prescribed circumstances, a member of a prescribed class of health practitioners.” This, Mr. Speaker, is mumbo-jumbo that means a nurse practitioner.

I dream of the day where, when a bill is presented in front of us where a nurse practitioner is allowed to do something such as give you the leave of absence slip that you need, we will actually call them by their name. We call physicians “a person who practices medicine.” We all know what that means. Why is it that when we talk about nurse practitioners—it seems like there’s a reluctance to recognize that they are a bona fide, qualified, primary health care provider.

More and more Ontarians, more and more people in this province rely on nurse practitioners as their first point of contact for primary care. They are the ones they would be going to if they need such a paper to have the leave of absence. But you see, the laws are kind of reluctant to identify them, so we describe them as—and if anybody can see the link here—“in the prescribed circumstances, a member of a prescribed class of health practitioners.” Nurse practitioners are also called “Registered nurse extended class.”

So this is how we describe them in the bill. I hope a time will come where we won’t be shy of calling nurse practitioners and putting them into our bills. They have certainly taken their place within the primary care sector in Ontario. I hope at some point we will see them in our bills.

Then it goes on to say, “a qualified health practitioner issues a certificate stating that the individual has a serious medical condition.” A bill is words, and in a bill, words mean a lot. “Serious medical condition” is a term, terminology, that the insurance companies in Ontario have more or less appropriated to themselves. The insurance companies use that terminology, “serious medical condition,” to define a pretty narrow range of serious medical conditions.

I have been listening to the debates of colleagues from all sides of the House, and a lot of us talk about elderly parents needing a little bit of help. They talk about seniors as they age maybe needing a little bit of caregiving. A lot of examples have been given linking home care needs to the need for a family caregiver, which is absolutely true. If you’re in need of home care, you’re probably in need of a family caregiver also.

But then we have this bill that limits who can qualify. In order to qualify, you will need your physician or your nurse practitioner to sign you a slip. In order for them to sign this slip, they will have to assess the person as having a serious medical condition. Well, the aging parent may have high blood pressure, their vision has gone down, their hearing has gone down, they cannot eat as well as they used to, they have a little bit of a problem with their balance and a little bit of arthritis, or maybe their memory is starting to fade.

But although you put all of this together, and they are in need of help because they cannot cope at home anymore, I don’t know one physician or one nurse practitioner who would look at the patient I just described to you and say they meet the serious medical condition that has been imposed into this act.

Terminology means everything in a bill, and in this bill I have no idea why we have chosen those particular words, “serious medical condition,” because this is a term that the insurance company uses all the time. In my knowledge, they have branded this term to mean—and usually, if you have to fill out an insurance slip, they have a very selected few conditions that mean this. For some of the insurance companies, a lower limb amputation, the losing of a leg, would not qualify as a serious medical condition in the way that they use this terminology. This terminology is used by every physician and every nurse practitioner in Ontario, yet we have chosen to put it in the bill.

This means that all of the feel-good examples that we have talked about, where we have aging parents and grandparents or neighbours, who go through the natural process of aging—you have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that aging is not a medical condition; aging is not a disease. Aging is a natural process that happens to each and every one of us. It is not a medical condition, and it is certainly not a serious medical condition. But with aging, there often comes a time where we need a little bit of family caregiving.

There often comes a time where we need caregiving altogether; it doesn’t matter if it comes through the home care system or through your family or your friend or your extended network. Aging is not included in “serious medical condition,” because aging is not a disease.

So it doesn’t matter how many chronic ailments we pile on those people. If you go to see your nurse practitioner or your physician, and you say, “I need time to help my mother move into a retirement home,” or “I need time to help my mother move in with me,” or do a renovation in her house or “take her to a series of important health appointments,” you are not going to qualify for that leave the way we have it written now.

I think when I heard the minister speak, and when I heard some of her colleagues speak, in their minds, they had the intention of making that available to the aging population of Ontario. But this is not what the bill in front of us is saying, is it, Mr. Speaker? The bill in front of us used “serious medical condition.” So I think we need a little bit of revision.

I see that the time is going by, so I will move on to another part, which is one that has been talked about quite a bit, and that is the fact that in the bill—and I will read the bill again—under

section 5, it talks about the periods that you can take this leave: “An employee may take a leave under this

section only in periods of entire weeks.” You’re allowed up to eight a year.

This is also problematic. Although a lot of workers don’t have caregiver leave that is afforded to them, a lot of workers do have bereavement leave. I don’t want to wish any harm on anybody, but it could very well be that if you qualify for a really serious medical condition—a loved one gets into a motor vehicle accident, we pick them up in pieces from the side of the highway, bring them to a tertiary care hospital and then the worst happens.

So now you’re stuck in that one week of unpaid leave, but your employment contract tells you that you’re allowed paid bereavement leave and it has to be taken within so many days, which means that you may be stuck in that unpaid caregiver leave and miss out on the paid bereavement leave if the serious medical condition turns for the worse.

I spent 25 years in health care, and unfortunately, a lot of serious medical conditions don’t turn out the way we all wish. We all wish for a loved one to recover, of course, but we have to be looking at this with a set of eyes that looks at what a serious medical condition really means and how it sometimes ends. It sometimes ends badly, with the person leaving us, and then you’re into funeral arrangements.

Many people in this House have said that it could be useful to be able to take one or two days at a time, to be able to bring a loved one to Toronto for a specialist appointment and bring them back to Sudbury; there could be a use for that. But, no, you will have to take an entire week. I don’t get it. I don’t understand why the bill has been written so that it has to be a week at a time.

There are, as I said, a number of issues with the way the bill is written that I hope everybody in this House will consider changing, and changing for the better; changing the way that we describe who can give you this paper that allows you the leave.

I wish we would also be more specific as to not being allowed to charge to give you such a certificate. It is all fine to say that you will need a qualified health practitioner—we all understand now that those are physicians and nurse practitioners—who will issue a certificate. Well, unfortunately, issuing a certificate is not something that is covered by OHIP. So unless we prescribe it in legislation—and some legislation does that; you’re not allowed to charge to fill out a certificate for WSIB.

There are a number of certificates that are required where the family physician, or any physician, is not allowed to charge. But if you don’t specify it in the bill, then not only will you not get paid to take that leave, but you will have to pay to get the certificate. And God forbid that you decide that you and your sister will take Mom to Toronto for her appointment, because she will have to pay and so will you.

It would be, I think, a nice gesture toward those people that are the caregivers if we were to add into the bill a little bit of a descriptive as to how those certificates cannot be charged for. We do this in a lot of other circumstances. I think in this one, I have heard nothing but good words toward caregivers. We know what they do for the people of Ontario, for families, for communities and for our province, and we appreciate their great work. Wouldn’t it be a nice way to appreciate them by saying that they will be able to get those certificates without having to pay for them?

Another point that I have talked about many times before, when I had the opportunity to do little two-minute responses on this bill, is the fact that you don’t get paid. The issue of who qualifies is very problematic to me, because if you have to meet the criteria of a serious medical condition, Mr. Speaker, those people will be in bad, bad shape.

The one that always qualifies is the young kid who gets into a motor vehicle accident and gets flown to Sick Kids or to CHEO. And then, if you live where I live, in northern Ontario, the family tries to make its way down there as fast as they can because your child needs you. That would qualify for a care leave. But then, I don’t know one employer who would tell his employee, “No, you cannot be with your son or daughter on their hospital bed as they are clinging to life and you don’t know how things are going to pan out.”

It would have been nice to come out with a little bit more substance as to who will this bill apply to, because once you put this criterion of a serious medical condition—so really limited the field as to who that is—and you look on the ground as to how difficult it is for those people to be absent from work, I don’t think we’re talking a whole lot of people.

Don’t get me wrong: There are a lot of workers in Ontario who are in very precarious work, but when your child has been picked up by an ambulance and flown to Sick Kids, you are a useless worker, because every cell in your body tells you that you want to be with that child, with that husband, with that spouse, and employers recognize this. They can try to keep you at work all they want; you’re not going to be productive whatsoever, because your mind will be forever with that person who needs you.

So the fact that it’s a very narrow range of conditions which would qualify you for the caregiver leave, the fact that if you do qualify you don’t get paid, makes that bill certainly a feel-good, but it could do so much more. It could do so much more if we already had in place a way for them to have access to income replacement, but we haven’t done that part. It could be so much more if the definition was not limited to serious medical, but have more things that include more types of needs, basically targeting seniors who are often, as they age, in need of caregivers—but none of this is there.

There are people in very precarious work who will benefit from this some of the time, but it is so limited. We all agree, everybody who has spoken before me, to the valuable work that caregivers bring to our communities. Why don’t we go the extra step and make sure that the spirit of the bill is captured in the words that we use in the bill? Right now, Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it is. I think it’s a wasted opportunity and I think in some points, it’s kind of a disrespect to people who invest a lot of time, effort and energy looking after their loved one, who now know that this bill is coming but don’t realize that it won’t apply to them.

So there’s some good intention; I hope we will be able to modify the bill to turn the good intentions into good actions.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’d like to draw attention to page William Hume’s family in the gallery today: his mother, Heather; his father, Colin; his brother, Trevor; his sister, Victoria; and his aunt, Marla Hume, and to say that page William Hume was the page valedictorian of this session. Welcome.

M me France Gélinas: We have some personal support workers with us today. They are home care workers—our heroes. It’s my pleasure to introduce Pam Huckle, Connie Ndlovu, Kelly O’Sullivan and Annabelle Zarate. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

M. Grant Crack: Merci, monsieur le Président. Il me fait un grand plaisir de souhaiter la bienvenue aux élèves de 40 écoles secondaires francophones de l’Ontario, qui sont ici derrière moi. Bienvenue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Introductions. The member from Elgin–Middlesex–London—

M. Grant Crack: Ces élèves, qui représentent les écoles de leur région, participent—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Sorry, I was excited about keeping things moving. Finish.

M. Grant Crack: Thank you, sir. Ces élèves, qui représentent les écoles de leur région, participent au sixième Parlement jeunesse francophone, qui se déroule ici même à l’Assemblée législative de l’Ontario. Merci à Thérèse Nadeau pour son excellent travail. Aussi, il y a 10 étudiants de ma circonscription qui participent au Parlement. Bienvenue.

Le Président (L’hon. Dave Levac): Merci beaucoup.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Let the House know that this week has been Pharmacy Awareness Week. I have a guest today from London, Ontario: Mr. Jim Semchism, owner of Ealing Pharmacy. He’s the one who led the charge to remove the sale of tobacco products from pharmacies in 1995. Eight members of his extended family are pharmacists.

Miss Monique Taylor: Today I’d like to welcome my dear friend Alexander Brown and his students from the International Language Schools of Canada. Today he has students with him from Brazil, Switzerland, Colombia, Korea, Japan and Mexico. Welcome to them.

Also, I’d like to welcome the CUPE members and the PSW, and at the same time I’ll take a moment to wish everybody a happy International Women’s Day.

Mr. Mike Colle: I have a group of people here from Snowball Corners who are here with the Moraine Can’t Wait campaign. They have delivered an 8,000-card petition in support of protecting this incredible jewel we have, from Peterborough to the Niagara escarpment. They are Debbe Crandall, Victoria Foote, Debbie Gordon, John Hassell and Josh Garfinkel. Thank you for coming and supporting the moraine.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I am very pleased today to introduce John Gillespie, president, and Pat Jilesen, vice-president, of the Bruce County Federation of Agriculture; Bethanee Jensen, provincial director of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario; and Jennifer Small, wife of CFFO president Lorne Small, as well as Bill Palmer, a professional engineer who has done extensive research on the impacts of industrial wind turbines.

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président. J’ai de la grande visite qui est venue de très loin aujourd’hui. Ça me fait extrêmement plaisir de vous les présenter. De l’École secondaire catholique Champlain : Steffany Byrnes et Edréa Fechner. Du Collège Notre-Dame de Sudbury, j’ai Patrick Diotte, Émilie Bouchard, puis Benjamin Doudard. Merci beaucoup d’être là. Merci d’avoir fait le voyage.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to welcome the Matthews Hall student Parliament, who are here to watch proceedings along with Alana Hepworth and Jen McKay.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my great pleasure to welcome to the Legislature this morning Mr. Steve Berg, the executive director of the Canadian Christian Embassy. He’s currently overseeing activities in the Canadian Christian Embassy in Ottawa. His organization, Power to Change, is committed to helping Canadians reach their world and address their needs through the power of faith.

Mrs. Teresa Piruzza: I rise today first to say Happy International Women’s Day to all the women in this chamber and all the women in our lives.

I also rise to introduce to Sylvia Kim, who is with the legislative internship program, who has been with my office over the last number of weeks. It’s with mixed feelings that I say goodbye to her because I know she’ll move on to future endeavours, but I certainly hope that she enjoyed her time with my office. Sylvia, thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the member from Vaughan we have at Queen’s Park today to see page Samantha Mariano, Sabrina Mandarello, the mother; Domenic Mariano, the father; Sara Mariano, the sister; and Josie Mandarello, the grandmother. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Also, in the Speaker’s gallery today, we have M. Gilles Morin, the former member who represented the riding of Carleton East from 1989 to 1999 in the 33rd, 34th, 35th and 36th Parliament. Welcome.

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier—especially for the members in the gallery and for our friends. For the last two weeks our party has been offering ideas to tackle Ontario’s biggest challenges: the deficit and the jobs crisis.

While we’ve been proposing ideas that save billions and create jobs, you continue to spend. We propose energy policies that add jobs while your FIT program kills jobs and drives up costs. Our leader, Tim Hudak, has presented the Affordable Energy and Restoration of Local Decision Making Act.

Premier, if you don’t have any solutions, will you get behind our party’s bill?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Let’s just be clear what we all stand for. When we brought forward tax reform a couple of years ago to strengthen the economy, attract investment and build jobs in Ontario, the party opposite said no. When we brought forward initiatives such as the southwest economic development fund and the eastern Ontario development fund to strengthen the economy, attract investment and build jobs, the other party said no. When we brought forward the green investment act and the feed-in tariff to attract investment, strengthen the economy and attract jobs, the other party said no.

We’re for jobs. We’re for growth. We’re for new ideas. They’re the party of no.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Thank you, Speaker. I’ll try for the Premier again. Our bill cancels the job-killing FIT program and restores local decision-making powers to municipalities. Premier, last week at ROMA you spoke of letting municipalities have more say. Yet only a few weeks ago, your party voted against the member from Prince Edward–Hastings’s bill that would do exactly that.

I realize you’re conflicted, Premier, but you have a second chance. Will you vote to restore local decision-making power?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: So we know where we stand: In 2003, we said we were getting out of coal because it makes people sick. We’re cleaning up the air. We’ve been consistent. They like coal.

We said we were going to bring in renewable energy to accelerate getting out of coal and clean up the air. They’ve been consistent in here and they’ve said no in here.

We’ve said we are going to bring in a review of our green energy approach to build on its strengths so we can continue to get out of coal, grow the economy and build jobs. We are determined to clean up the air, determined to attract investment, determined to make sure that we are the solid foundation for the green economy of the future. That’s where we stand. We know where they stand. The future is with us.

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Let’s talk about a few consequences of your job-killing FIT program. You actually use wind and solar to replace clean, affordable, reliable hydroelectric power. Last year alone, spilling water cost our ratepayers $300 million. And because you give wind and solar priority on the grid, you’re abruptly shutting down nuclear units, venting steam on a regular basis. We all know these units were not designed for that. So you’re spilling water, venting steam and draining jobs.

Premier, isn’t it time you mopped up this mess and supported our bill?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, it’s an interesting suggestion that the party opposite makes for us when we’re drilling a third tunnel at Niagara Falls and we’ve got the Lower Mattagami—both hydroelectric facilities that will be coming on very soon.

It’s hard to know which way the wind blows for the party opposite, because when they’re back in their ridings, speaking truth to neighbour, my colleague opposite and his colleagues say yes to solar and yes to wind, and when they’re here, they say no to solar and no to wind.

He put up solar panels when he was the member on the roof of city hall. He stood to support wind projects when he’s in his riding. When he’s here, he says—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, my question is for the Premier. We’ll try again.

Let’s talk about the 20,000 phantom jobs that you say exist. When I met with the Samsung executives, I asked them how you came up with that number, and they explained to me that there’s steel coming from the Soo for the turbines, so you count those existing steel jobs. You also count the existing truckers. There are concrete companies with existing employees who pour the footings, so you count them, existing employees, as well. I guess all that’s left are the temporary labourers and your lobbyists.

Minister, aren’t your claims based on nothing more than fictitious jobs and voodoo math?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I think the question provides the answer. When you put up a renewable energy project, you do need steel from the Soo, and those workers are producing that steel. You do need plants like Siemens in Tillsonburg and CS Wind down Windsor way to actually produce the components. You do need electricians and millwrights and other trades to put it up. Those are all good jobs in the province of Ontario which do not exist but for the renewable energy initiative.

We’re for jobs. They’re for no. The question is clear.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Speaker, the Auditor General also questioned their jobs claims. But he also noted that FIT subsidies are driving up the cost of power to make us one of the most expensive places in North America.

Let me read a quote: “If businesses can’t count on a secure and inexpensive supply of electricity, they won’t invest in Ontario.” Premier, we agree with your very words. Yesterday, the CFIB reported the main cost pressure on Ontario businesses surveyed is energy.

Premier, will you admit that the FIT program is killing jobs and join us in putting an end to it today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to thank some of the “phantoms” in the province of Ontario for the investments they’re making and the jobs they’re producing. I’d like to thank CS Wind in Windsor for the 300 direct jobs and 400 indirect jobs that they’re producing right now. I’d like to thank SunEdison in Newmarket for the 50 jobs and the 35 indirect jobs that they’re producing right now. I’d like to thank KB Racking in Guelph and Mississauga. I’d like to thank OSM in Welland. I’d like to thank—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: —power in Newmarket. I’d like to thank SunRise Power Corp. for the work they’re doing up in Haliburton-Kawartha Lakes. I’d like to thank Enphase Energy, Highland Solar, Hybridyne, Essar Steel Algoma, Steel Tree Structures and countless more that are part of the 20,000 jobs, $27 billion worth of investment.

When is the party opposite going to stand up for jobs, stand up for investments and stand up—

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

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, this week we’ve presented clear and compelling evidence that your job-killing program is an economic disaster. We can mention some names as well: Xstrata Copper in Timmins, which lost 670 jobs as they went to Quebec for cheaper power. Another example: The largest manufacturer in my riding was here in the gallery this week, and you heard for the first time of global adjustment, that million-dollar charge that now threatens those 250 jobs. You also heard that countries the world over are abandoning these crippling subsidies.

But Premier, you’re in luck. We have a CARE package for you: Clean, Affordable, Reliable Energy. Premier, your CARE package is there. Will you support our bill and end the job-killing FIT program?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: You know, Speaker, in the Legislature they’re consistent and they say no, but when they’re back in their ridings it’s a different tune, and sometimes it’s hard to know which way the wind blows.

The MPP from Oxford said that the Samsung agreement would stay under a PC government. The MPP from Nipissing—

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: You’re a liar, Minister.

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

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Withdraw.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: St. Thomas Times Journal, May 11, 2011. The MPP from Nipissing puts the solar panels on the city hall roof and puts the wind project outside the community. The MPP from Haldimand–Norfolk says, “The SunE Sky parks here in Norfolk represent a great opportunity to diversify our economy ... improving” the life of our—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question this morning is for the Premier. Over the last week, I’ve asked the government to account for the millions of public dollars that they have given away to companies that just aren’t creating jobs. And over the last week, the Premier hasn’t offered any answers whatsoever. For example, why did a $20-billion hedge fund with five staff get a $350,000 handout paid for by the people of Ontario?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s becoming increasingly evident that the NDP don’t support efforts to create jobs in the province of Ontario, don’t support efforts to build our globe-leading financial services sector, don’t support efforts to build our North America-leading auto sector.

When you look at the investments we made some time ago when that auto sector was hanging on a thread, where were the NDP then? Mr. Speaker, 485,000 workers in this province depend on that auto sector; 485,000 jobs that would not be there today if we had listened to the NDP and not made those investments. Twenty billion dollars of investment in our economy is dependent on that auto sector. Today, if we had listened to them, our economy would be $20 billion—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What New Democrats don’t support is the failing efforts of this Liberal government that just gives money to companies that ship jobs somewhere else.

New Food Classics got a $1-million handout and shut their doors within months. Silicon Knights got a $2.5-million handout and laid off 75% of their workforce. Navistar got a $30-million handout and shipped thousands of jobs south to Mexico.

The government says that they have agreements in place that are going to ensure that jobs are protected in these situations. I want to know if the Premier has gotten a single dime of any of this money back?

Hon. Brad Duguid: There was so much misinformation in that, I’m not even going to respond specifically to it.

But what I’ll say is this: The opposition thinks that it’s their job to run down Ontario’s economy. I don’t know where they get their economic advice from.

I take my economic advice from the people who want to build this economy up, like the people at Avaya and Ciena, who recognize the talent and innovation of our workforce and are investing in Ottawa’s high-tech sector; like the people at Toyota, who decided that Woodstock was the place to build their first North American electric vehicle; like the people at Goodrich, who decided that Oakville was the place to build their world-leading landing gear for the world’s largest aircraft; like the people at Magna, whose plants in Aurora, Brampton, Concord and St.

Thomas are providing key facilities for a world-leading economic entity.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, this week, this minister insisted that money handed out to Navistar was clawed back, but we haven’t found any evidence at all that this in fact was done, and the government is hiding the information in the contracts that they won’t make public.

This public money comes from people who worked hard and who paid their fair share. Why is the government refusing to tell them how much they’ve given away and what the conditions were under which they were given it?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member asked the exact same question yesterday, and I gave her a very direct answer to that. She’s basing her question on a freedom-of-information request that she sat on for weeks, if not months; that’s outdated. The numbers are there; they’re public. I said it yesterday. They’ve paid back $6 million.

I’ll say it again for the member, because she put out a press release yesterday that was not correct: They’ve paid back $6 million. The investment that this government made and the investment that the federal government made helped preserve jobs in Chatham for almost 10 years, because this plant was going to close down in 2002. It’s unfortunate they made the decision to move. At the same time, we’ve done what we said we were going to do. We’ve clawed back $6 million. We were able to preserve hundreds of jobs in Chatham for another 10 years—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is back to the Premier. For the people who make this province work every day, the situation is pretty hard to stomach. Their wages are falling, their jobs are at risk and the money that they send here is being handed out by the millions to companies that are laying them off. Does this make a lick of sense, Speaker?

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: The only thing that doesn’t make a lick of sense in here are the continual questions coming from the NDP based on misinformation. Many of the questions they’ve asked this week on these issues are concerning companies that are working hard in this province, trying to make a go of it. On many of these occasions the money hasn’t even flowed to them yet.

So let me say this: We’re going to continue to work tirelessly to build up this economy. We’re going to continue to work for the people of this province, to ensure we have the best-educated workforce. We’re going to continue to invest in the infrastructure of this province, to ensure we have competitive infrastructure.

I would think that the NDP would be with us in this effort. It’s obvious that they’re not. We’re on the side of workers—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The people who sent us here have a lot on the line, and we need to make some pretty smart decisions. We need to be doing a much, much better job than what this government has been doing.

The Premier’s policy on no-strings-attached corporate tax cuts and on multi-million dollar handouts simply is not creating jobs. Now, he’s already admitting that his corporate tax giveaways have not delivered. Will he adopt a plan that actually rewards the job creators in Ontario and links tax relief to creating jobs, to training and to investments in this province?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The leader of the NDP may think it’s her job to continue to talk down our economy, but we’re going to keep building it up.

But if she doesn’t want to take our word for it, let’s listen to a magazine like Forbes, a pretty well-respected business magazine. This is what they had to say. Forbes said Canada ranks number one as the best country for business. They said that’s because of Ontario’s reformed tax structure with the HST, which directly refutes what you just said.

Let’s talk about Site Selection magazine. It ranked Ontario as the most competitive province in Canada for 2010-11—the most competitive province. Here’s what they had to say: “When a province is creating more than half the new jobs for its nation, chances are it’s a leader in competitiveness.”

We’re proud of the work we’re doing. We’re going to keep doing it, with or without the support of the NDP—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Forbes—well, the minister might cater to the people who hold Forbes subscriptions, but here are the facts for everyday people in Ontario. Wages are rising across Canada, but in Ontario, wages are falling. Unemployment, too, in Ontario is higher than the national average. People in this province have a higher debt and are more worried about their jobs than anywhere else in the country. They look to their government for leadership, and when they see public dollars handed out to companies that are laying people off, they lose hope.

Isn’t it time for a better strategy in Ontario, one that ensures that tax breaks go to real job creators and not the companies that are leaving Ontario—

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

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m not sure how much confidence the member opposite has in the people of Ontario, but I think the people of Ontario are quite capable of reading magazines in this province. I think they’re well-educated enough to understand what’s going on in our business community, and I think they’d be very interested to know what the Financial Times of London had to say. They ranked Ontario as first in North America in foreign direct investment per capita, and second in absolute terms.

The member may refuse to take our word for it, Speaker, but these are pretty, pretty respected publications that I’m quoting today.

Look, Mr. Speaker, we’ve got a plan that’s working. Companies confirm it, because they’re investing here. We’ve got a plan that’s working.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The numbers confirm it, because we’ve had over 300,000 jobs created in this province since the recession—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. A reminder to the member: When I say, “Answer,” you have a wrap-up to do, and do so quickly.

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Health: The $140-million deal that Ornge executives cooked up is under criminal investigation. The money that paid for that deal was raised in a public offering that featured the credentials of one of its executives, Mr. Rick Potter. The minister knows that Mr. Potter lied about those credentials; she knows he was intimately involved in cooking up that deal.

Front-line staff, the paramedics, pilots at Ornge know Mr. Potter’s record and lost confidence in him long ago. The minister said she would fire any of her staff who did what Mr. Potter would do. Yet, rather than fire Mr. Potter, last night the minister and her new leadership—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Frank Klees: —gave Mr. Potter a soft landing into another job at Ornge.

I ask the minister to explain this: How can she justify holding on to her job with such a blatant—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I also remind this member to please wrap up as quickly as possible. When I say stop, we stop.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you, Speaker, and thank you to the member opposite for the question. This is, of course, an operational issue that human resource people in an organization make. My job is to make sure that there is strong leadership in place. I have accomplished that. There is new and very strong, credible leadership in place at Ornge. They will make decisions related to personnel in that organization.

I can assure you, Speaker, that I do not make decisions about personnel within the organizations—the many organizations, the hundreds of organizations—that the Ministry of Health is responsible for funding. We have made important changes at Ornge and those people are doing their job.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Speaker, given those circumstances, the minister should take it upon herself to make those decisions if her leadership doesn’t have the wisdom to do so.

Here is the new job that Mr. Potter has been given: Entrench the plan that he and his friend Dr. Mazza cooked up, a plan that was blindly and irresponsibly endorsed by the Management Board of this government and nurtured along by the current Minister of Health.

Here’s the plan: Start a new aviation business; take contracts away from experienced aviation companies that have been delivering excellent service to the province of Ontario for two decades; force those companies out of business; lower standards of operation; reduce staffing levels and to heck with patient care and crew safety.

So I want to ask the minister this: If she doesn’t have the capacity to get the job done and show leadership, why doesn’t she step aside and let someone—

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

Minister of Health?

Applause.

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

Minister of Health?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, the member opposite has had no shortage of advice to offer when it comes to the operations of Ornge. He actually thinks the minister should decide what planes fly, what helicopters fly, what the qualifications of paramedics are, who should work and what their job should be. I just reject that definition of what the responsibility of the minister is.

My job is to put in place strong leadership and let them do their job. My job is to make sure that we have the oversight that we need to ensure that taxpayers are getting best value for their money and patients are getting the highest quality care. If you look at the record that I have led, we have done all of those things. The member opposite has different priorities. My priority is to get care to the patients—

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

Applause.

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

New question?

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Merci, monsieur le Président. Ma question est pour le premier ministre.

Every day this week I’ve asked the Premier questions about the fact that his senior staff in his office were told about what was going on at Ornge but they didn’t do anything. The Premier hasn’t answered a single question as of yet.

Will the Premier break his silence and tell this Legislature about his office’s knowledge of Ornge’s tangled web of for-profit companies and executive perks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for that. The briefing that the member opposite has referred to has been in the public domain for quite a while now. There are no secrets contained in that.

The fact is that we have taken decisive action in the ministry. The Auditor General tried repeatedly to get answers to questions that they thought the people of Ontario were entitled to receive. When the former leadership at Ornge refused to share that information we had to take very strong actions.

We have replaced the board. We have a new interim CEO. We sent in a forensic audit team that in fact has led to an OPP investigation. We are now focused on moving forward. The people of this province deserve access to very high quality air ambulance care.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: Mr. Speaker, I tried to ask what I think are important questions, and I asked them in a respectful way. But I can’t even get the Premier to look at me when I talk to him, and I can certainly not get him to answer any questions.

The facts are straightforward. This written document was given to his top adviser. It was given to Jamison Steeve.

Instead of hiding behind the health minister, will the Premier step up and explain to families why his office did not act when they found out what was going on at Ornge? We deserve a word from our Premier.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m very pleased that the Premier has confidence in me to do my job, and that job is to make sure that we move forward, making the changes at Ornge that need to be made.

I can tell you that front-line staff are seeing the changes that are happening. They are very pleased with the change in leadership. They are pleased with the decisions that this government has made.

Our focus is on patient safety. Our focus is on addressing the issues that are being raised by the Auditor General and others, Speaker.

We are winding down the for-profit entities that were created under the former leadership. We have taken the appropriate steps, and we will continue to act in the interest of the people of this province.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Government Services. These are tough economic times. We’re dealing with a mounting public deficit. We’ve got the public debt to retire. Indeed, this is the challenge of our times here in Ontario.

Minister, yesterday, the Premier raised the issue of an MPP pay freeze. What’s happening with respect to the MPP pay raise or pay freeze?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I want to thank the member from Willowdale for asking this question. He absolutely is correct. We are facing a $16-billion deficit, and we need to face this deficit head on. This will require real leadership for us to demonstrate—not only to face the challenge but at the same time protect our key priorities as well.

I just want to say that the Premier said yesterday that it’s important that we continue to lead by example. We are asking people to do some things that are not easy, especially our public sector partners. That’s why it is critical that we lead by example, so we will be asking all MPPs, once again, to freeze salaries for an additional two years. This means that, for five years, Ontario’s MPPs will not have any salary increases.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Here’s what my constituents in Willowdale are concerned about. They have read about the 5% reduction in the OPS. They’ve read about another 2% reduction over the next two years. They’ve read about cutting the number of service agencies in Ontario by some 5%, meaning some 14 fewer agencies.

Minister, what they want to know is, allowing for those reductions—staff reductions and agency reductions—what’s our plan to continue to maintain the quality of our core services in Ontario, combined with those reductions?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member from Willowdale again for asking this question. Our government is absolutely committed to balancing the budget by 2017-18. We have committed to reducing the size of the Ontario public service by 5%, and we are on track on that as well by the end of March this year, and a further 2% decrease in the next two years. As the member said, we are cutting the number of key agencies by 5%. But we are making investments in the programs that we feel are important to Ontarians, like education and health care.

In these challenging economic times, we must all work together to ensure that Ontarians continue to receive the quality services they have come to expect. We will continue to lead by example in asking all MPPs in the House to freeze their salaries for an additional two years.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Premier.

The galleries are full today; people are observing question period. I believe that one of the reasons there is so much cynicism about the political process is because they have observed a Premier who has refused to engage in the debate that relates to one of the biggest scandals that has ever hit this province. For the Premier not to stand in his place and respect members of the opposition who put specific questions to him about this important issue is an insult to the members of the opposition and it is an insult to the people of this province.

I would just ask him one more time: Would he at least stand in his place, would he at least look at the person who’s asking him a question, would he have say—

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

Applause .

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

Another reminder that when I ask you to be seated, you do so—in particular the questioners or the people giving the answers: When I ask you to be seated, you be seated, please.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I’m delighted to take the question.

I want to begin by saying that I draw a distinction between the interests being expressed by my colleagues in opposition and our responsibility owed to the greater public interest. I think that’s an important distinction for us to draw.

There is a political interest over there; they are pursuing that. That is their option to do so and, in some ways, I would also argue it is their responsibility. But on this side of the House, our responsibility is to the greater public interest. What does the public demand of us in these circumstances, Speaker? The public demands of us to act responsibly.

The Minister of Health sent in a team of forensic accountants. Given the results of that investigation, she turned it over to the OPP. She’s co-operating fully with the provincial auditor. That’s the way to act responsibly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Applause .

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Back to the Premier: Here’s what the public do not understand. Why does the government have to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into striking a committee that would only help to get to the truth about this scandal and would allow front-line staff to come forward and tell their story about how to restore confidence in our air ambulance service—a committee that would allow us to establish who knew what, when, and who was responsible for the actions taken?

The minister and the Premier may want to avoid the scrutiny of this committee, but we on this side and the public want that scrutiny. That’s why we tabled our motion yesterday that will force a debate and express the urgency of striking that committee.

Will the Premier support striking that committee so that we can get to—

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

Applause .

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

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague raises an important issue. I think we’re all looking for a foundation of objective, non-partisan, reliable information.

First of all, we’ve asked the police to conduct an investigation, and we look forward to the results of that objective investigation. The provincial auditor is looking into this matter as well, and we look forward to the results of that objective, non-partisan, arm’s-length investigation.

Beyond that, Speaker, my House leader tells us that this is a subject that is going to come before a parliamentary committee: public accounts. That’s one committee there. The minister is also going to be introducing legislation which we hope will become the subject of a committee hearing in this House. That’s the second committee.

So we have an OPP investigation; we have an auditor looking into this; we have a public accounts committee; and we have a parliamentary committee looking into the bill itself. It seems to me we’re going a long way.

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

Applause .

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

Applause .

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will share with the House that somebody wrote me an email and said, “Watch for the farmer’s cycle; pay attention to the moon.” I don’t know what that meant.

All I have to say is I would appreciate it—references have been made to our gallery. They do go away with thoughts in their minds—two of them, probably: whether or not I can do my job and whether or not you are doing yours. I hope we would all maintain the civility that I’ve asked for.

New question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

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

I would like to preface my question by reminding our Premier, as well as everybody in this House, that today is Women’s Day and maybe when a woman asks a question she can get an answer from the Premier.

My question is simple, Premier: Can you tell this Legislative Assembly what you know about Ornge, and when did you find out?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I think it is important that we give some recognition to the important role that women have played in all our lives and in this House.

And I think we’re all very lucky to have a very strong Minister of Health in Deb Matthews, serving all Ontarians.

Again, I draw a distinction between the political interests being advanced by the opposition and the responsibility we owe to the greater public interest. In addition to those independent, objective assessments that I’ve talked about—and I want to make it perfectly clear: I have not said that we should reject the committee being put forward by the opposition; I’m saying that we have a number of investigations under way. We should allow for the completion of those.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: I got the Premier to speak but not to answer, so let’s try it again.

The right to know, Premier, is also in the public interest, and what I’m asking you right now is that—your top adviser, Jamison Steeve, had the document 14 months ago. He knew of the tangled web. I am absolutely positive that a million red flags went up when he saw this.

What I’m asking you is: What did you know and when did you find out?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, again, I draw a distinction between the political interests being advanced by my honourable colleague and what we owe the public.

Now, as a matter of courtesy, I don’t provide advice with respect to the kinds of questions that my colleagues opposite put to me—although, of course, they have an interest in how I answer those questions—but I think we might want to reciprocate in that regard. They put the questions in the best way they see fit, and I do the same with respect to the answers.

With respect to this particular answer, I think what we owe Ontarians is to ensure that we are on top of this, that we are bringing in the necessary oversight, that we’re allowing the police to do their work, that we’re allowing the auditor’s office to do its work, that we put in place new rules by means of new legislation which will further tighten up the oversight that we bring to a very important public responsibility.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Mike Colle: A question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care: Today I’m going to be celebrating my aunt’s 107th birthday.

Interjection: Going to have some pasta?

Mr. Mike Colle: It’s pasta fagioli; that’s the key.

It’s just that she was able to stay in her home—she lived in Etobicoke and Mississauga—up until a of couple months ago. That is an amazing thing for a senior who has worked her whole life to stay with her family.

She now is in a long-term-care facility in Mississauga, and when I go to see her today, I’m sure she’s going to ask me, “What are you in government doing to help seniors,” like her, “stay in their homes?”

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think all of us are inspired by someone like Luigina Grimaldi, 107 years young, the aunt of the member from Eglinton–Lawrence. She inspires us, because we need to do more to support people to stay in their own homes as long as possible, and that is what our action plan is all about: providing more supports at home and in the community.

One of the things we are moving forward with is bringing back house calls for the people of Ontario, so that people who have difficulty getting to appointments will actually have those health care professionals come to their homes. It won’t just be doctors; it will be other health care providers like occupational therapists, nurses and others who can help support people, because home is where we all want to be. Home is where we want to be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Mike Colle: Thank you, Minister of Health. I just wanted to say that the house call program has really been received very positively by a lot of seniors, certainly in my riding and I’m sure in ridings right across Ontario, because they feel, as seniors, that sometimes, especially in Ontario’s winter months, they can’t get out to see a doctor. Many of them, as they get older, can’t drive. So making that house call available is really something that they think will be of great benefit. Can you just give our seniors an idea of how the house call by doctors program will work?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is a great question. A few months ago, I went on a house call visit with Dr. Mark Nowaczynski here in Toronto. We visited an 83-year-old woman who would have been in long-term care, had it not been for the care that Dr. Mark and his team of people were able to provide her in her own home. That’s where she wants to be, with her family in her community.

Speaker, it’s better for patients; it’s also better for the system. We know that long-term care costs about $150 a day; a hospital is up to $1,000 a day. Keeping someone in their own home is a far more cost-effective way to care for people as they age. So it’s better patient care, and it’s better value for taxpayers.

WIND TURBINES

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: My question today is for the Minister of Energy. I am joined today by dozens and dozens of Ontarians who have made the trek to Queen’s Park, and later this afternoon, I look forward to welcoming busloads of additional people who are here today. They have travelled from all corners of Ontario to watch you, Minister, and all of us, as we vote for a moratorium on industrial wind turbines until real health and environmental studies are done.

Folks from across Ontario were heartened by all Liberals, just two days ago—all Liberals, just two days ago—who said they supported studies, consultations and local decision-making. Minister, will you prove the Liberal talking points weren’t just crass politics by supporting my call for a moratorium until third party health—

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

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I just want to make sure that we’re all clear: We stand for clean air; they stand for coal. We stand for clean energy; they oppose it. We stand for clean energy jobs; they don’t. We stand for the health studies and the health advice from the medical officers of health of both Ontario and Canada, and countless other studies out there that make it clear that it is safe and that we’ve taken the appropriate steps. I just want to make sure that we’re all very clear in here.

When I travel through rural Ontario, I see a heck of a lot of farmers and communities participating in the clean energy, green energy, clean air agenda that my friend opposite opposes.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I am embarrassed for all the good folks who have travelled to Toronto today. That was disgusting.

Just this week, Minister, Premier McGuinty said that it is “our shared responsibility at all times to respect the expressed will of our” municipalities. Ontario MPPs have received a record-breaking 1,700 emails in support of my moratorium. Municipalities throughout Ontario have also passed resolutions supporting a moratorium and studies.

Minister, I ask again: Will you do the honourable thing and recognize the will of thousands and thousands of people who have travelled to Queen’s Park today, signed petitions and sent emails to all of us here in this House supporting my moratorium? Will you do the honourable thing?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: We’ve made it very clear that we’re going to build on the strengths of the green energy review through our Green Energy Act, through our review. We’ve been listening very carefully to communities, to municipalities, to organizations both rural and urban, and we’re going to come out with a strengthened program very soon to make sure we continue to clean up the air, continue to grow jobs in our economy and continue to make sure that Ontarians, rural and urban, can participate in the green energy economy.

But it’s tough sometimes when the members in here, on the other side of the House, oppose green energy, but back in their ridings they support green energy; when the members opposite, on so many issues, have a morning press conference that says no to green jobs, and this afternoon they’re having a press conference that wants to unlock green jobs; when they oppose subsidies, and they support subsidies for racetracks; when they like the HST and then they say no. Where do you stand?

TEACHERS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. Why won’t the Premier sit down face to face with teachers to discuss issues he’s so eager to talk about on YouTube?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just want to take this opportunity to say how proud I am of Ontario teachers and of the partnership that we’ve entered into with Ontario teachers.

The fact of the matter is, it’s one thing for us in government to come up with new ideas, to provide more funding, and to try to improve the quality of the curriculum and the education that we provide our teachers. But at the end of the day, it’s the men and women who work inside those classrooms every single day who are making such a powerful difference in the lives of our children and our young people. They are single-handedly building a brighter future for all of us.

I have every confidence that we will maintain the strength of our partnership. We will find a way forward together. We will continue to ensure that Ontario schools are the best in the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Tough times require real leadership. The Premier knows, or should know, that locking yourself in your office with the blinds down, making videos on YouTube, isn’t leadership. It’s exactly the sort of tactic he used to disparage.

He just spoke glowingly of teachers. He’s asking them to take a hit. Why can’t he look them in the eye?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There may have been a Premier who has visited as many schools as I have, but I’m not aware of such an individual. There may have been another Premier who has created so many opportunities to celebrate Ontario teachers, but I’m not aware of such an individual. There may have been a government that has so dramatically increased funding for publicly funded schools in Ontario, but I’m not aware of one either, Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am trying to get the shouting back and forth down. Some members on both sides just want to yell, and I would like that to stop, please.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Thanks, Speaker. We’ve come up against a challenge at this point in our history. The global economy has slowed. The outlook is uncertain. We are confronted with a significant deficit here in Ontario. So I am inviting our teachers, our doctors, MPPs and all our public sector partners to participate in being some part of the solution as we tackle this deficit and make sure we have the continued capacity to support, among other things, great schools.

VIOLENCE AGAINST

ABORIGINAL WOMEN

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: My question is for the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Today is International Women’s Day, and I’d like to ask a question about the rate of violence against aboriginal women. It’s a problem that must be addressed.

In recent years, the Native Women’s Association of Canada, Amnesty International and other human rights organizations are sounding the alarm against the number of women in Canada who are missing and have been murdered. These organizations have urged the United Nations to investigate what the federal government is doing; its inaction. The United Nations, in December, asked for an inquiry procedure through the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination of Women, and we do have commitments.

The national chief has indicated that there are Premiers, territorial leaders and provincial ministers all prepared, but where is our federal government? It’s clear they have a responsibility to develop a nationwide strategy.

So my question, through you, Mr. Speaker, to the minister is: Please tell me what we’re doing to make a difference with the federal government—

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member for Etobicoke Centre for raising this important issue. I think everyone in this House can agree that it is completely unacceptable that, across Canada, the rate of violence against aboriginal women is triple that of non-aboriginal women and the rate of spousal homicide for aboriginal women is eight times greater than for non-aboriginal women. It’s a completely unsupportable and unacceptable statistic.

As chair of the aboriginal affairs working group, which is the national working group of ministers responsible across the country, we’ve been calling on the federal government to take action on the issue of ending violence against aboriginal women. This was one of the three identified priorities on which we’re going to be focusing.

The minister responsible for women’s issues is going to speak, and she is going to talk about some of the specific initiatives that we’ve been taking. But the issue of the 500 missing and murdered aboriginal women is something that ministries need to work collaboratively on, and we need to work with community groups.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you, Minister. It’s nice to know that we are actually urging the federal government to move forward on a national strategy. But in the meantime, the First Nations themselves have identified that the province has a responsibility as well. So, what are the things that we are doing in the interim to be able to help initially, and ultimately to be able to work with that federal government when that national strategy is developed?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the minister responsible for women’s issues.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very proud to lead, with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, the work to make sure that there is a coordinated response from ministries across Ontario to address the recommendations and the strategic framework to end violence against aboriginal women.

We’ve established a joint working group on violence against aboriginal women. It brings together 10 different ministries and five aboriginal organizations to work collectively to better prevent violence against aboriginal women and to provide better support to the victims. We’ve done some great work together. We’ve started a program called Kanawayhitowin, which helps raise awareness about the signs of abuse so that friends, neighbours and families know what to do. We’ve begun a pilot project for an aboriginal women’s helpline. We are providing support to women in communities.

We’re doing our part, but we need a strong federal partner to make the difference in the lives of women—

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

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is for the Premier. Quebec’s Premier took the time to attend the prospectors and developers’ convention this week in Toronto. He outlined Plan Nord, a comprehensive 25-year plan that allocates $85 billion to develop the resources, people and opportunities for the people of northern Quebec. Some 30,000 people from all around the world attended this conference. Every hotel room in the city is booked this week. Premier, you didn’t even bother to show up. Why is it that the Premier of Quebec recognizes the importance of mining, but you don’t?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Well, thank you, Premier, for allowing me the opportunity to congratulate the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada for hosting another incredible success story. Do you know what? They highlighted Ontario. In almost every delegation I went to, everybody spoke about the wonder that is Ontario when it comes to mineral development and mineral exploration. There is absolutely no question about it: Ontario is the choice for so many people around the world to invest money, to explore, to develop, to bring out the natural resources from underground so that everyone benefits from the incredible, incredible thing that is Ontario.

Applause.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Speaker, I have no idea what the minister just blabbered on about, but I would like to redirect my question back to the Premier.

Premier, your approach to mining is sending mixed signals. This week, in the middle of the prospectors’ convention, you removed 23,000 square kilometres of northwestern Ontario from exploration. When the De Beers diamond mine was about to open, you jacked up their tax rate. Mining companies are leaving Ontario because of your high energy cost. You are doing precious little, other than issue press releases, to help get the Ring of Fire discovery to an active mine. It’s no wonder that mining companies, that ranked Ontario as sixth in the world in 2003, now rank us as 25th.

Premier, how can you call Ontario open for business based on your—

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

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Speaker, it amazes me that the critic for the Progressive Conservatives would say that supporting the Ontario mining industry is blabbering. Well, let me blabber some more. We have 246 exploration companies exploring in Ontario; more than in Quebec. We have a value in exploration of $11 billion; more than in Quebec. We have exploration spending of $1.2 billion; more than Quebec. We have 27 metal mines; more than Quebec. That’s why Ontario is the choice destination for exploration and development in the mineral industry, and I’m proud of that.

I’m ashamed of that member over—

Applause.

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

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Kitchener–Waterloo on a point of order.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’d like to introduce Mr. Gerald Van Decker from Kitchener, the president and CEO of Renewability Energy Inc.

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Speaker, on a point of privilege, I missed out yesterday, and I’d like to take the opportunity to introduce a fourth-year student of politics and history from U of T. Welcome to the public gallery, Mr. Adrian Zita-Bennett.

Applause.

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

I will be making a statement on this very thing in the near future.

Since there are no deferred votes, this House stands adjourned—while this is happening, the members are supposed to be seated.

This House stands adjourned until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1140 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: I would like to introduce, in the gallery, my legislative intern. His name is Patrick DeRochie and he is part of the Ontario Legislature internship program. I will say here that he was the gentleman who crafted my soon-to-be-presented private member’s bill.

Mr. Michael Coteau: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to the Legislative Assembly several members of the Don Valley East Armenian community. Today, we’re joined by Armenian National Committee of Toronto chairman Hagop Tchakmakian; the Armenian National Committee of Toronto administrator, Araz Hasserjian; the Armenian National Committee of Toronto executive, Raffi Sarkissian; the Homenetmen Athletic Council executive, Paul Ternamian; and the Bolsahay Cultural Association of Toronto’s representatives, Murat Nisan and Abraham Celikoz.

Also, we’re joined by Hratch Aynedjian, who, by the way, is also an assistant for one of our ministers. Welcome very much to the Ontario Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Robert Bailey: I’d like to acknowledge a number of visitors that are touring the Legislature today. I had the pleasure of being with them a few minutes ago at the Royal York. They’re winners of the Ontario Junior Citizen of the Year award.

Alysha Dykstra, from Guelph; Madelaine Frank, from Whitby; Sarah Lewis, from Windsor; Rebecca Marsh, from Burlington; Kalem McSween, from Toronto; Stephanie Murchison, from Sarnia–Lambton; Mackenzie Oliver, from Barrie; Breanna Pede, from Sarnia–Lambton; Andrew