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

March 21, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-21 (PDF)

L015 - Thu 21 Mar 2013 / Jeu 21 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 21 March 2013 Jeudi 21 mars 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

POWER PLANTS

TAXATION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

CASINOS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

MINING INDUSTRY

GREENBELT

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

ONTARIO COLLEGE OF TRADES

RING OF FIRE

HEALTHY KIDS PANEL REPORT

WIND TURBINES

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

KIDNEY HEALTH MONTH

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

PASSOVER

NATIONAL NUTRITION MONTH

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PRESERVING EXISTING

COMMUNITIES ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À PRÉSERVER

LES COLLECTIVITÉS EXISTANTES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

MEMBER’S BIRTHDAY

PETITIONS

HOSPITAL PARKING FEES

ANIMAL PROTECTION

LANDFILL

ANIMAL PROTECTION

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

WIND TURBINES

ANIMAL PROTECTION

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

JUNK FOODS

STITTSVILLE PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL

ANIMAL PROTECTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

SICK DAYS ARE FOR

SICK PEOPLE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RÉSERVANT

LES JOURNÉES DE CONGÉ DE MALADIE

AUX PERSONNES MALADES

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ

DE VIVRE SELON NOS MOYENS

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

SICK DAYS ARE FOR

SICK PEOPLE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RÉSERVANT

LES JOURNÉES DE CONGÉ DE MALADIE

AUX PERSONNES MALADES

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ

DE VIVRE SELON NOS MOYENS

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE COMMERCE ÉLECTRONIQUE

SICK DAYS ARE FOR

SICK PEOPLE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 RÉSERVANT

LES JOURNÉES DE CONGÉ DE MALADIE

AUX PERSONNES MALADES

LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LA NÉCESSITÉ

DE VIVRE SELON NOS MOYENS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Orders of the day.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Good morning, Speaker. On this beautiful second day of spring, when the sun is shining outside, and the day after happiness day, the government is pleased to call government order G11. And let’s hope the happiness continues.

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 7, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services / Projet de loi 11, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ambulances en ce qui concerne les services d’ambulance aériens.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: It is a pleasure, on this day after happiness day, to rise and speak with the House—and especially the Attorney General today—on Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services, or, as I like to call it,

an act to divert attention away from actually fixing anything Ornge and addressing real issues.

Bill 11, when we get down to it really, when we read it, is nothing more than a piece of non-substantive window dressing that this government is so good at putting forward. It will do little, if not nothing, to fix the costly, messy scandal at Ornge. And I can guarantee that we of the opposition will not let this bill or the McGuinty government get off the hook for all the scandals that have plagued this government over the past 10 years, and certainly not Ornge.

The cost of Ornge: Now, when I say it’s a costly scandal, and we say it’s a costly scandal, I think it’s clear. We don’t just mean money-wise, through the hundreds of millions of dollars given to Ornge by this government only to be squandered away through ineffective service and questionable financial practices; that speaks for itself, really. I mean, we have these wonderful helicopters that don’t even serve the purpose for which they were bought. That, in and of itself, is questionable.

But I also mean that the scandal involving Ornge is costly to the well-being and safety of Ontarians. Let’s look at the disturbing numbers: Ornge received government funding to secure a land ambulance service to transport a projected 20,000 patients a year, starting in 2008. Instead, the land service transported only about 15% of the projected number—certainly not an overachievement, just in case anyone was wondering—at an average per patient cost that was nearly as high as the cost to transport a patient by air.

It was costly financially, but even worse, it was costly to the health and well-being of Ontario’s citizens and indeed endangered many people’s health. When you endanger one person’s health, you’re endangering families.

Let’s look at some of the other numbers. Ornge borrowed almost $300 million—$300 million—primarily to finance the purchase of helicopters and airplanes and its new head office. Even though Ornge’s own analysis indicated only nine helicopters and six airplanes were needed, Ornge purchased 12 new helicopters and 10 new planes. Sounds like another example of irresponsible and wasteful spending during a time when this province can ill afford to have such abusive spending.

This wasteful spending on a mismanaged program that was clearly left without real oversight from the ministry responsible for it is made even worse by the amount of debt and deficit it has contributed to. At the end of the day, that’s really what we’re talking about: money that’s coming out of taxpayers’ pockets at a time when we can’t afford it.

Recently, we saw the MoneySense rating of cities, where a province like Alberta, I think, had five in the top 10 and not one Ontario city in the top 10. That’s not right. I think Ottawa was actually in fifth place, but down from first three years in a row. Why is this? Why are we seeing our cities and our province plummet to the bottom? This shouldn’t be the case. We used to lead our Confederation; we don’t anymore. This scandal is really a great example of what’s happening and what’s wrong in Ontario today.

Right now, like I said, we’re looking at a massive, at least $12-billion, deficit—maybe $30 billion if we don’t take bold measures to get it stopped. Ontario’s debt is on track to double to $411 billion by the 2017 fiscal year—$411 billion. That number is something that people can’t even comprehend. I can’t comprehend it—I don’t know what $411 billion looks like. I don’t think anyone here has ever seen that much money. It’s ridiculous. It’s so hard to comprehend that it’s even hard to get people’s attention about it sometimes.

It comes at a time when our new Premier has used the word “debt” a grand total of four times in the House in the past 10 years. Since I’ve been elected, I think I’ve used it 40 times or more.

Interjection.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Probably more.

With rising debt and deficit, over half a million Ontarians are unemployed. Toronto itself has a 7% or 8% unemployment rate. Each mistake and each scandal this government makes, going back to the OLG scandals, the Ornge scandals, eHealth scandals and gas plant scandals—these aren’t little scandals; these are big ones. These are ones that really go to the core of what this government is about, and not one apology, not one action to make it right except for window dressing. That’s abominable.

With rising debt and deficit and over half a million Ontarians unemployed, each scandal this government makes is that much more costly. It contributes to the fiscal problems that have already been created, and that’s why we need greater change than bills that lack real substance, as this one does.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It takes away from health care and education.

Mr. Rod Jackson: It takes away from health care and education, as the member from Northumberland–Quinte West said.

Even worse, this wasted money adversely affects the safety of Ontario citizens, and that’s really the crux of this. We can’t forget, when we talk about health care bills or even education bills, what they’re really there to do: benefit our citizens, our children, our seniors. Why? Because the helicopters purchased are completely inadequate in allowing paramedics to do their jobs. The organization of Ornge was so convoluted and a wicked web that no one knew what the other arm was doing—what the other 20 arms were doing. You can’t even administer CPR in these helicopters.

Wouldn’t you think that’s a primary function, a service you would provide in an ambulance, whether it’s an air ambulance or a land ambulance? Maybe it’s something that should have been looked at.

People should feel reassured when they are in need of help, when they see a bright orange helicopter of the Ornge fleet, instead of worried about their safety. It should be like an angel coming out of the sky, not something they’re concerned about. We’ve seen tons of dangerous mismanagement throughout the Ornge organization, almost from day one.

What I find equally disturbing is the fact that when it assigned the operation of Ontario’s air ambulance services to Ornge, we were all told by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care that there would be proper oversight of Ornge. I think we can all agree almost unanimously in this House that that did not happen. I’ve got news for you: The buck stops there—right over there. You actually have oversight when you’re in government. That’s exactly what the owls and the eagles are in this chamber to remind us of: that you have oversight over your government. You can’t put a layer of bureaucracy to protect you.

At some point, someone over there has to stand up and be counted and take responsibility for the things that go wrong in this government. You know what? People appreciate that. What they don’t appreciate is you trying to run away from your scandals; they’ll actually appreciate it if you own up to them. Maybe that’s something you should consider.

We were promised standards that would be set and checked to ensure accountability on both the fiscal and patient care levels. Like I said, this obviously didn’t happen. Despite the fact that the minister has had the power to appoint a supervisor from the very beginning of the Ornge saga, and despite the fact the minister had the power to intervene at Ornge under the original Ornge performance agreement as well as under the Independent Health Facilities Act, taxpayer money was blatantly wasted and lives were put at risk because somebody over there didn’t want to take responsibility for the mess that was at Ornge.

Yet you had the power to do it. Why not? An examination of the facts shows there was a clear lack of oversight at Ornge; it led to this mess in the first place.

Just recently it was revealed that Ornge took out a $10-million life insurance policy on former CEO Chris Mazza. Taxpayers were directly responsible for half a million dollars in footing this bill. The health minister responded by saying she had no idea that this money had been wasted—no idea. It’s got to leave you wondering just how much more taxpayer money is being wasted that this ministry is unaware of. This is a huge ministry, I’ll grant you that. But if you can’t handle it, get out of the kitchen. If you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

Ornge has been plagued with bloated salaries, such as the $4.6 million in salaries, loans, bonuses and cash advances that the former CEO took from the company. How do you not notice that? I mean, how does that go under the radar by a government that’s supposed to be accountable for these things? It’s not a little bit of money; we’re talking about a lot of money. They made him, I think, if not the highest-paid civil servant, definitely the highest-paid civil servant in the province, for running an air ambulance service. It’s a very important service, but let’s talk about value for money. We certainly weren’t getting it there.

The news of this waste didn’t come to light until it was too late, because of the lack of oversight and the simple irresponsibility of this government to take hold of a problem it created. You can’t light a fire and then call yourselves heroes when you come in and put it out. It took so long for this mismanagement to come to light precisely because this government failed to ensure the proper amount of oversight was in place. Not only do they shamelessly spend tax dollars; they often don’t stop to make absolutely certain the money is dedicated toward improving the lives of the great people in this province.

I learned a lot of lessons from my dad when I was in business for myself, and one of the main ones he taught me is, “Rod, the one thing to have a successful business”—and I apply this to my own office, and I hope we apply it when we’re government—“is you need to inspect what you expect.” This isn’t getting done over there, and that’s a basic management tenet. If you don’t know that, you can thank me later for letting you know that that’s a great piece of advice for managing your business.

There are tons of examples of scandals like this that are the result of lack of oversight and lack of responsibility and really, in some cases, potential misfeasance of government power. It’s unacceptable, and it is more proof that the McGuinty-Wynne Liberal government lacks the organizational and managerial know-how to ensure the well-being of some of Ontario’s most important sectors.

In addition to the Ornge scandal, Ontario also faces the eHealth scandal. Remember that one? And I think if anyone starts talking to some of the bureaucrats in the Ontario civil service right now, you’ll see and hear about a real level of frustration that this project still isn’t off the ground the way it should be. It’s ridiculous the amount of money that’s going into this and not having any results come out of it. By the way, why are we investing in something that we have internal, in-house expertise to do? It doesn’t make any sense. I don’t know how many friends you have over there that are in this company that’s been assigned to get eHealth off the ground, but it’s disgusting.

This mismanagement and scandal in the health care system is equally matched by the mismanagement and scandal plaguing Ontario’s energy sector under this government. The decision to close down power plants in Oakville and Mississauga in order to save a few Liberal seats is costing the Ontario taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars more that they didn’t need to spend. It’s just another example of scandal.

This continued mismanagement is leading to the skyrocketing hydro bills that households and local job creators are forced to deal with right now, only adding to the already difficult economic times that everybody is facing. As my respected colleagues have mentioned, we currently have around 500,000 people out of work in this province. With continuing scandals under the management of this Liberal government and with energy prices continuing to rise under this government’s watch, I don’t see any end in sight. Something needs to change, and I’m thinking it’s you guys.

Now, instead of taking responsibility for their mistakes, as I mentioned, and admitting their failings, Liberals seem more concerned with saving face than actually fixing what they broke—say and do whatever you need to keep on winning elections. In fact, the McGuinty-Wynne government is so concerned with their own political well-being that they allowed charges of contempt to be brought against the Minister of Energy before even making the slightest effort to guarantee their own accountability to the public.

This government and its Premier continued to play games with Ontarians by deliberately filing an out-of-order motion to expand the justice committee’s mandate. By filing a motion they knew would be ruled out of order, the government demonstrated it’s more concerned with superficially saving face than it is with being genuinely transparent and accountable. It’s really easy to own up to what you did wrong, and you know what? This scandal would be over like that. It may not be pretty, but it would be over and it wouldn’t linger.

Just recently, many members of the PC caucus stood up for hard-working taxpayers to ask for members of this cabinet to take responsibility for their mess. Instead of taking their responsibility and duty to Ontario seriously, they refused to apologize for their scandals, once again proving that they care less about Ontarians and more about themselves. There’s no shame in apologizing. This is outrageous. What happened to the accountability, the transparency and the honesty that Ontarians expect and rightly deserve from their government and from all of us sitting here?

For all the people that we represent, there should be no shame in apologizing for mistakes that we’ve made, and I think, probably, most of you would admit there have been mistakes made.

The theme of a lack of accountability continues with this bill and with the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I truly believe that all members, even those across the aisle, can agree that wasted money and inappropriate spending like this has no positive outcomes for Ontarians; not one. I commend the minister for, at the very least, acknowledging that the money spent in outrageous salaries is exactly that: it’s outrageous. But again, like I said, it’s one thing to set the fire, but to call yourself a hero for coming in and putting it out—that’s a whole other story.

Yet in the same breath, the minister claims to understand how deep these problems run. She absolves herself of responsibility repeatedly. Repeatedly, she defends her role and insists there was nothing she could have done to stop it.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: She should do the honourable thing.

Mr. Rod Jackson: She should do the honourable thing—but in failing to recognize these problems earlier, this is exactly her problem. The minister should be familiar with everything in her ministry, especially when we get up into the hundreds of millions of dollars. And not admitting clear fault for the depth of scope of this scandal is another example of how this government refuses to be held accountable for any of their actions. That, I find appalling and disappointing, frankly. Instead, we get just another attempt to superficially tape over a problem that they created.

Just like filing an out-of-order motion or shuffling cabinet, or just like trying to apply a fresh coat of paint to a broken government, this bill offers no real solutions. The problems this province is facing—and it’s a shame that this government refuses to even acknowledge their own mistakes.

Beyond the fact that Bill 11 does not actually get to the bottom of the serious problems that we can all agree are happening at Ornge, it also fails on a whole raft of other levels. The single biggest failure is the so-called whistle-blower protection section, which actually does little to protect the whistle-blower. By failing to provide across-the-board protection for whistle-blowers and by imposing limits to individual protection and on who they can approach with information, the whistle-blower protection

section really does nothing at all.

Without clarifying who a whistle-blower can resort to, this government has tried the equivalent of sealing a leaky pipe with scotch tape. In

section 7.7, relating to whistle-blowers, Bill 11 only implies protection will be given to whistle-blowers who come forward to the ministry itself—that’s like the wolves guarding the gate—or inspectors, investigators or special investigators. I wonder what this means for anyone who might wish to talk to the media, since the media are not dealt with in this act at all. Instead of granting whistle-blowers important protections across the board, it limits their ability to come forward in the first place. That’s not my idea of fixing a problem. It’s a mismanaged attempt that clearly won’t work if it’s applied today.

You know what? Maybe that’s a mistake or an oversight, and maybe that’s something that the minister can take back.

Brave individuals with information regarding mismanagement and incompetence in government-sponsored programs need to feel safe to come forward and share everything they know. That’s how our government is going to work best. That’s how the system that serves the people who elected us and put us here will be served best. In my own riding, in Barrie, I know of an employee at Ornge who wants to come forward. He won’t come forward because he knows his job is in jeopardy. We’ve already seen at least one person lose their job over their exposure of what’s happening at Ornge.

How long will the status quo be allowed to continue before important changes are made—real changes, substantive changes? This bill does not achieve an appropriate level of protection. Safety is impossible with this sham Liberal bill. Instead of letting potential whistle-blowers know they’re valued, it tells them that maybe they’d better not bother, because their government can’t put together a functioning whistle-blower protection program.

This bill also fails to provide an appropriate level of oversight. I can’t deny that it tries to do so by making provisions for the possibility of provincial representation on the board and by giving the minister power to issue directives, but nowhere in the act do I see an assurance that money will be monitored closely. And nowhere do I see assurance that the boards of directors and future CEOs will have their salaries publicly reported and recorded.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s the same old, same old.

Mr. Rod Jackson: It’s the same old, same old.

It’s high time that the Liberals learn that you can’t just throw money at a problem to make it go away. It’s the type of thinking that has brought this province into this giant massive debt. It’s also time that Liberals learn that Ontarians will not stand for non-substantive legislation designed to try to divert attention away from the rotten cores of many of the scandals—which have become characteristic of this government. We’ve wasted enough time and enough money on these irresponsible games being played by this government, and all at the expense of the well-being of Ontario citizens.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John Vanthof: It’s once again an honour to speak in this House and respond to some of the comments from my colleague from Barrie on G11, the air ambulance act. He had one line in his remarks that is going to stick with me for a long time. It explains a lot of stuff, and I’d really like to compliment him on it. It’s, “You can’t light a fire and call yourself a hero when you go put it out.” I couldn’t agree with that one more.

At the end of his remarks, he talked about whistle-blowers, and that’s a very important subject, not only in Ornge—the problems at Ornge have pretty well been identified, you know. There’s a laser-light focus on Ornge. But there are all kinds of other problems out there, because it’s a big government, a big ministry.

I’m going to put a laser-light focus on another one in my riding, where I’ve got nine whistle-blowers being sued by a hospital which is funded by the LHIN, controlled by the ministry, and they’re all saying, “Well, there’s nothing we can do.” What do you mean there’s nothing you can do? If the CEO of the hospital wants to step down and sue those people himself for defamation, go ahead. But for the CEO and the hospital board to use public funds to sue whistle-blowers—what kind of message does that send to the other people who know what’s going wrong in this province?

The thing that really bothers us on this corner is that this is a huge scandal, but in all our businesses—I also run a private business—if there’s a big problem, you look for ways to make sure you learn from that problem so it doesn’t happen the next time. That’s how you make your business better. That’s how you make the province better. They haven’t learned that, because they talk a good talk, but when you see actual cases where public funds are used to sue whistle-blowers, they haven’t learned the lesson.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: It’s a pleasure to stand today to talk about this legislation. I would like to thank the member from Barrie for his comments. What his comments don’t do is come up with solutions, creative solutions to move forward and to move the province forward.

When you talk to people, especially when you go into communities like Don Valley East that I represent, you talk to people in Ontario, they always come back and say, “Well, what are we doing to move forward as a province?” This government has looked at any problem that exists within government, and we’re looking for creative ways to move forward. I think the member from Barrie has not come up with a single solution to move forward, and I think people are sick and tired of partisan politics in this province.

The opposition’s job in this House is not to just criticize and to watch; it’s to come up with solutions and to work with government. I think people are sick and tired, in this province, of an opposition that is so blinded by the pursuit of power and so blinded by partisan politics that it doesn’t have the ability to look and to come up with creative solutions to move forward.

I think people in Ontario want to move forward, and I think the opposition needs to tune in to what people in this province are talking about and actually come up with solutions. Come up with some solutions and come over to our committees—your committees—and come up with ideas so you can strengthen legislation. Don’t just come in with criticism, criticism, criticism; come in with solutions.

This government has acknowledged that things in the past have not gone perfectly. We’ve acknowledged that. We’ve said that, time after time. If we see a problem—and I think it’s the role of government: If there’s a problem, come up with some solutions. I’d ask the opposition and the third party to look at ways within this legislation to find some solutions and work with this government so it benefits not only this House, but the people of Ontario.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Word and deeds, Speaker; the distance between words and deeds. We, on this side of the House, saw that when we voted in solidarity to call for an all-party select committee of the Legislature to uncover the truth around the Ornge scandal. The members of this party opposite locked arms against that motion, and despite promises to honour the will of the Legislature and the all-party special select committee vote, they have continually refused to back the cause of transparency and accountability.

This government does not want answers; it wants silence. It does not want collaboration; it wants compliance to its will. We should not simply make do with the appearance of integrity, Speaker. Ignorance should not be considered a best practice.

In closing, I would like to salute the brave whistle-blowers and dedicated journalists who woke up this government to its shortcomings and reminded it of its duty. I would like to applaud and commend the dedicated efforts of my colleague from Newmarket–Aurora and the member from Nickel Belt, who have taken point on this file over the last several months and who have increased understanding of the complex and convoluted drama. I’d like to acknowledge, as well, the many other members, past and present, who work here in this House and in committee, who have helped open a window into the shadowy world of Ornge.

We do not yet have all the details, Speaker. We may never know the full extent of the truth around this case. Apparently, the party opposite would be perfectly okay with that. We, on this side, are not.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was very interesting to listen to the member from Barrie, who was able to show his depth of understanding as to what went wrong at Ornge. Then, he was able to contrast this with the bill that we have in front of us, the bill that we are supposed to work on, that is supposed to fix what went wrong at Ornge. But nothing in this bill will change one iota of anything.

Yesterday, we happened to have the new CEO of Ornge come as a deputant for the public accounts committee, where I sit. He basically echoed what the member from Barrie is talking about: that what we have in the bill right now is not going to change what’s going on at Ornge. The changes that needed to happen at Ornge have been done without passing the bill. Plus, if you look at what’s in the bill, it is so incompetent at doing what it says that it wants to do.

We all agreed that had the government listened to the whistle-blowers that started to go to them directly in 2008—we’re in 2013, Mr. Speaker; five years ago, whistle-blowers started to go to the ministry. You know what happened to them? They lost their jobs. And then they were supposed to have the money to sue their employers to get their jobs back? Who are we kidding here? But yet, what we have in the bill is not going to change anything. If you blow the whistle, you will still lose your job; you will still be without a penny to go to court, hire a lawyer to try to get your job back. They haven’t learned, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: I appreciate all the comments from my colleagues.

I think it’s important to take notice of this bill, because I’d like to think that the government has the best intentions with Ornge. We have to believe that everybody wants the best for this province. That’s why I think it’s so shameful that this bill fails on so many levels to provide the real mechanisms we need to fix Ornge. It really is a fundamental thing.

The health care system is huge. It is a massive bureaucracy, it is a massive government ministry. It represents almost half of the total budget of the province. So in that respect, Ornge is actually a pretty small piece of it, but it’s also a very important piece of it, and it’s representative of what’s wrong in our health care system and what’s wrong with our government. It’s an opportunity for this Liberal government to take hold of a problem, acknowledge the problem, talk about the problem amongst yourselves, if you have to, and fix it—really fix it.

You know, you’ve told us that you agree that Chris Mazza was wrong, and he managed this company right into the ground for his own benefit and the benefit of several others. We know that; you know that. You have an opportunity to take this bill and put real substantive change into Ornge, and make sure that it provides the best possible air ambulance service that this province absolutely deserves. Without it, people are going to die, eventually. That’s what it boils down to—

Interjection: They have.

Mr. Rod Jackson: People have died.

It’s a shame that this bill has an opportunity to fix it, and it’s not. That’s where I’m really disappointed. This is a second go-around to fix a problem that really should be fixed quite easily, and it’s not. I have to wonder why. Is it because you’re afraid to acknowledge that it was a problem, or is it because you don’t have the capability to fix it? Both worry me.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Further debate? The member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Good morning to you and good morning to everybody, on the day after happiness day.

I’m one of those individuals that chooses—I make choices, and I choose to be happy every day. I choose to do things respectfully and honourably because that’s one of the biggest reasons why I’m here at Queen’s Park on behalf of the people in Algoma–Manitoulin. I can only hope that I live up to their expectations and what they’re anticipating hearing from me while I’m here. We all have those choices. We all have the opportunities to provide solutions. I think that my colleague from Timiskaming–Cochrane has provided a solution to enhancing this bill, G11, the Ambulance Amendment Act, so now it falls on the responsibility of our friends across the way to listen to that solution.

I’m going to be providing another solution this morning. Over the course of my notes this morning, I hope that you can absorb the theme that is being put across to you, and that you take that in and you take it with serious consideration.

As many of my colleagues have stated, there are many elements that could be added to this bill to make it stronger and give Ontarians some piece of mind, knowing that this will never happen again. It brings me great comfort and confidence that my colleague from Nickel Belt, the health and long-term care critic, has been working tirelessly on this issue to try to get the answers for Ontarians, and bringing in some type of accountability, and it is through her work, along with the colleagues that we have who are going to be involved with this at the committee stages, that I’m going to be able to get the answers that I’m looking for, for people back home in Algoma–Manitoulin.

While this bill allows cabinet to appoint representatives to the board of designated air ambulance service providers and appoint a supervisor or special investigator, I am disappointed that there is no mention of Ornge being subject to freedom of information anywhere in this bill. That is a suggestion.

Again, this bill could have gone so much further if the government really wanted to commit to providing appropriate accountability measures. Here’s a suggestion: Ontario’s Ombudsman will not have oversight of the agency. The lack of accountability and transparency is something I take issue with, as providing Ombudsman oversight is the ultimate commitment to accountability. Although this bill allows the minister to issue directives to air ambulance, I fail to see how that will change how things have been done in the past. When reading this bill, it becomes clear that all the Liberal government is committing to is keeping the old status quo going on and on.

We have seen the Auditor General’s report on Ornge, and we have heard committee testimony. Not only does this bill come up short, it is being implemented completely after the fact and is clearly a reactive approach. It appears to be more of an attempt to change the channel, but the bill still falls very short of being able to accomplish this.

It’s been clear that the new Premier has been taking notes from the old Premier and the Minister of Health by trying to push the blame on everyone but themselves for the issues that have happened at Ornge. The Liberals have been trying to use the fact that Ornge was a federally incorporated entity; however, I don’t see how this prevented them from providing the necessary oversight to avoid this mess. After all, Ontario’s hospitals are federally incorporated, and this has no impact on oversight.

This is a prime opportunity to create a bill that could prevent such disregard for taxpayers’ dollars and ensure that it doesn’t happen again; this opportunity has been completely wasted. I am unclear as to how this bill will actually do much at all to prevent us from seeing this time and time again.

Blaming the opposition for this mess is not productive; creating useful legislation is. What is most disappointing is that this bill could have done so much more—so much more. So if this government can’t even admit that they were wrong, that they had a role to play in creating this disaster, how can we trust that they are trying to find ways to actually assure Ontarians that this will not happen again? We need transparency; we need to make this transparency standard practice instead of waiting for the next scandal to further disappoint Ontario taxpayers.

Vous savez, le gouvernement a une chance maintenant de reprendre un nouveau cours, une nouvelle direction. Comment est-ce qu’ils peuvent adresser la crédibilité que la province est en train de ressentir avec le scandale qui est arrivé à travers notre système de santé? Et puis, si on continue à pointer les doigts et on continue à blâmer les autres, on n’est vraiment pas en train de préciser la direction, et puis le blâme qu’on devrait regarder sur soi-même. Pour faire un changement, il faut qu’on reconnaisse l’erreur qu’on a faite à travers des actions qu’on a prises comme un gouvernement et les actions que vous n’avez pas prises.

Il y avait des chances à travers de tout ce dossier où il y aurait pu avoir des chances de prendre une action corrective, positive, pour éliminer beaucoup des pertes qu’on a subies à travers de ce scandale. Mais la première étape, c’est de prendre la charge et la responsabilité comme le gouvernement de se planter les deux pieds et puis dire : « J’ai fait erreur; on corrige. On prend une nouvelle direction dans la province. » Mais ce n’est pas ça que la province a fait. On a tout fait pour blâmer les autres droit. On a blâmé les chiens et les chats—tout le monde qui était impliqué dans l’affaire, et puis on n’a jamais regardé à soi-même pour dire : « On a fait erreur. »

On est ici pour faire quoi? Une suggestion que je vous donne—et puis ça va être beaucoup de sujets dont je vais parler aujourd’hui : il faut qu’on donne le droit à l’ombudsman d’avoir ses doigts, ses yeux, ses mains, son temps à regarder et à aller dans cette situation—aller par en avant. C’est la seule façon qu’on peut regarder comment on peut résoudre tout ce pétrin où on est présentement rentré.

So how can we trust a government that is clearly continuing to move forward with no transparency? When organizations know they are under FOI, they will undoubtedly behave in a different manner, one would think, so why is it not explicitly provided under this legislation? Yes, we are talking about mismanagement of money—taxpayers’ money. That is a huge, huge concern alone. However, what is more worrisome is that air ambulance deals with life-and-death situations. This is a critical organization, and the services they provide are of the utmost importance.

When things go wrong, families deserve to know the facts and have closure, knowing that this will never happen again, especially in such high-risk scenarios. Depriving these grieving families from getting this information and closure is unacceptable. Depriving Ontario families from knowing this will not happen again is, again, unacceptable.

Ontarians would agree that organizations such as Ornge need to be under the mandate of the Ombudsman. This oversight of health care organizations is so desperately needed. When the lives of Ontarians are hanging in the balance, why wouldn’t we want our provincial figurehead of accountability to have oversight into these important organizations? Had the Ombudsman had oversight, perhaps—perhaps—we would not have been in this mess today.

It is clear that this government is not taking steps to be proactive in preventing this type of situation from happening again. But they can’t even take the time to be reactive and acknowledge the fact that the Ombudsman should have had oversight into Ornge the whole time. Ombudsman André Marin has expressed this concern time and time again. We know that without Ombudsman oversight, there will be no credible accountability.

I want to read a statement that the Ombudsman had sent to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, and to the critics of both opposition parties as well. It reads:

“There is no doubt that any steps to increase the accountability of the air ambulance service is welcomed. Indeed, in the wake of the many stories of maladministration horrors that have plagued Ornge, sound public policy to bring proper oversight to this organization is still sorely needed.

“While moving in the right direction, measures such as the establishment of an Ornge patient advocate and Bill 11’s creation of a new bureaucracy of ‘special investigators’ are insufficient to provide much-needed scrutiny, and continue to shield Ornge from Ombudsman oversight. My office remains unable to address any individual or systemic issues involving Ornge.

“The Office of the Ombudsman of Ontario is a unique resource to support the Legislative Assembly in holding government accountable. It is there to allow the provincial Parliament to scrutinize government bodies. I cannot think of a more persuasive case for this than Ornge.

“‘Special investigators,’ under Bill 11, would enjoy authority similar to that of my office when it investigates the more than 500 ministries, agencies, boards, commissions, tribunals and corporations that fall under our jurisdiction. But there is an important difference: The ‘special investigators’ would report to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. They would not be independent of government. Far from being watchdogs, they would operate on a ministerial dog leash.

“The newly created office of patient advocate has been positioned by the government as an additional oversight body that alleviates the need to extend Ombudsman oversight to Ornge. The Ombudsman is a fully independent officer of Parliament, established by statute with a mandate to investigate individual and systemic issues. By contrast, the patient advocate reports to an Ornge vice-president, not even to the board of directors. He or she resides within the bowels of the organization and cannot be expected to investigate any issue with institutional credibility.

When this position was publicly advertised, the first line of the ‘Duties and Responsibilities’ in the job description noted that the incumbent would be required to ‘[I]nvestigate, resolve, document, report organization-specific patient and visitor compliments and complaints’.... Needless to say, a position that involves reporting compliments back to management ought not to be confused with the role of the Ombudsman.

“The recent and proposed changes to Ornge are often put forward as responses to the Auditor General’s March 2012 special report, Ornge Air Ambulance and Related Services. Yet nowhere in his report did he recommend”—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Can I ask the members who are having a discussion over here to keep it down?

Mr. Michael Mantha: —“(

a) a new bureaucracy of ‘special investigators’; (

b) the creation of a patient advocate residing deep within Ornge whose partial responsibilities include being a clearing house for ‘compliments’; or (

c) the maintenance of the status quo with respect to the exclusion of any role for the Ombudsman.

“Every year, our office responds to tens of thousands of complaints, consistently demonstrating its value to elected representatives and the public. As ‘Ontario’s Watchdog,’ we are the gold standard in keeping government maladministration at bay”—gold standard. “It simply does not make sense to perpetuate our exclusion in a bill that purports to bring credible accountability to Ornge. I would respectfully request your support in bringing the necessary amendments to Bill 11 to ensure that it meets the purpose for which it was presented to the Legislative Assembly.”

Again, the suggestion is, let’s look at Ombudsman oversight. I hope the other side is listening. We need Ombudsman oversight. It is the only way this bill will provide some type of accountability and transparency.

The patient advocate role reports to Ornge’s vice-president, not even the public or the board of directors. This is a total lack of transparency and a serious concern for the public. How can we possibly call this credible accountability? Why do Ontarians not deserve the highest form of accountability into this organization after the mess we just went through? How could the patient advocate maintain a neutral party in conflict or complaints when they report directly to the company’s vice-president?

It seems to me as though this is a sad attempt to convince the public that oversight has been added, but in reality the government could have actually added real accountability by allowing the Ombudsman oversight.

So why have the Liberals not taken this step? Clearly they are not really serious about preventing similar catastrophes from happening again. They are not giving Ontarians what they deserve. Instead, they are trying to trick them into believing that real changes have been made—again, window dressing.

In Algoma–Manitoulin and much of northern Ontario, we know how many of our services are being cut. We often travel great distances to seek medical attention, and there isn’t funding for important health projects that our community so desperately needs. I speak to constituents who travel many hours away—often three times a week—for dialysis or other medical treatments, often on dangerous roads and in poor driving conditions, especially in the winter months. This can be very costly and time-consuming, especially for individuals whose illness prevents them from working.

For these folks forced to survive on disability, their income is inadequate to cover or front such costs as travel. They depend on the Northern Health Travel Grant to cover these costs, but significant delays for reimbursement are causing serious problems for many northerners.

I have raised the plight of a constituent from Chapleau in the Legislature before, who must travel to Timmins for dialysis three times a week and has experienced long delays with the Northern Health Travel Grant. She must drive 12 hours a week and stay in Timmins overnight when the road conditions are bad. It is an exhausting and stressful position to be in. But to make matters worse, she is waiting as long as three months to be reimbursed and is being forced into debt, waiting for her cheques.

I hear from constituents who have to continuously cancel medical appointments because the conditions of the roads are too dangerous to travel on. This means many people are not able to rely on being able to see medical professionals regularly. This is a serious health concern, and no doubt a serious commitment to providing more accessible medical treatment could provide great relief for the region.

Many northerners cannot even rely on driving to their medical appointments on properly-taken-care-of roads in the winter months because of this government’s decision to further privatize snow removal on road maintenance and services. I hear these stories continuously and view these pictures daily, and the government has been made aware of this serious issue.

It’s difficult to explain to them how this government squanders health care dollars with zero accountability or transparency, and the health care situation in the north is severely deprived. This is money that could have been used to make services more accessible to northerners, but instead the money is once again wasted.

It is sickening for them to know that not only have these health care dollars been squandered but that there have been no real steps taken to ensure that this will not happen again. Leaving the opportunity open for this to happen again will only further devastate health care dollars that should be used to fix serious problems we have in our health care system. Northerners should be able to have peace of mind, knowing that health care dollars will not be wasted in a future similar situation and that priority will be put on improving access to health care. However, this is unlikely to happen because of the lack of commitment to real, credible accountability.

Northern and rural communities need to know that when there is an emergency, there is help close by. This has not always been the case for these folks. These people can’t even rely on being able to get to the closest medical centre, because of the state of the winter roads.

Without transparency in health organizations, northerners are going to continue to suffer. The money is there to create a health care system that makes patients a priority, but clearly the current leadership is failing to do this. This government needs to be accountable and put patients’ needs and our health care service first. This is an opportunity to do right and create real change, providing greater accountability with the best answers possible.

If this government is really serious about preventing this type of catastrophic situation from ever happening again, they would not have made all the provisions aimed at the designated air ambulance provider who is currently under Ornge.

Why could more not be done to ensure scandals like this do not occur in these government-funded agencies? Couldn’t this have been an opportunity to learn from past mistakes and prevent this from ever happening again? How can we sit here and leave open the opportunity for history to keep repeating itself? This bill is ultimately a useless public relations exercise that does not add Ombudsman oversight or provide real transparency or accountability.

When will people again be the priority for this government? The people of Ontario deserve more. This was a perfect opportunity to show Ontarians that the government will learn from its mistake and do better. But the opportunity has just been wasted again, and no real change or commitment will be done or made in this case.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Algoma–Manitoulin for his comments. He’s an honourable member of this House who, I believe, has the best interests of his community at hand while he’s serving in this House. But there are a few things that I think I’d like to challenge him on, and one is the piece around the changes in the legislation.

I think the Minister of Health has come up with a series of changes within the legislation that I believe speak to the type of government that this government in this House is. It’s a solution-focused government that’s looking at ways to constantly improve government, and that results in the betterment of all Ontarians.

I think it’s a very different type of approach than the official opposition’s approach. I was taken aback at the last budget, where—I don’t even think it was an hour after the budget was introduced, and the Leader of the Opposition was dismissing it. I know now that he has publicly said that he’s not going to support the budget, and the funny thing about that is, the budget hasn’t even come out yet. The budget hasn’t even come out, and the opposition has said they’re not going to support it.

Could you imagine a government—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: Could you imagine an opposition that is serving the residents of this province, who actually dismisses a budget even before they see it? I think it speaks volumes to what type of opposition we have.

The job of the opposition in this province is to do two things: It is to be a watchdog and to criticize this government, but also to work with the government to come up with creative solutions to move this province forward. I think they’ve failed in doing that.

Some of the changes that are there within this legislation are very positive—if I have an opportunity the next time I speak, I’ll bring those up—but I think Ontarians know exactly where we want to go, and it’s what this side of the House is doing in order to bring the changes that they want to go in. We’ll see that change coming soon with this legislation.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I listened patiently to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I thought he brought a true story of his community and how important that air ambulance service is for northern Ontario. I would say it is an important service for all Ontarians, when and where it is needed.

The real point here is the scandal that has plagued Ornge. This bill here, out of respect to the minister, should really have been introduced after the hearings that are being held right now. At the hearings themselves, the inquiry into the scandal at Ornge, I think there will be some solid input that would improve the bill. All of us here want to improve the efficiency and also eliminate the waste in Ontario, the scandalous waste.

An example of that—it wasn’t so much covered by the member from Algoma–Manitoulin, but I think I’ll try to cover it here. Here’s an

article that I saw recently in the paper. It’s out of, I believe, the Toronto Star, which is a fairly Liberal-friendly paper; in fact, it is a Liberal paper. The title here is, “Insurance for Ornge Head Cost $450,000.” This is a waste of $10-million life insurance. Here’s what it says here; this is by Rob Ferguson: “Ornge took out a $10-million life insurance policy on its highly paid former chief executive, Dr. Chris Mazza, in the latest example of” excessive spending and trouble at the “air ambulance agency....”

This is what our critic, Frank Klees, was saying. This is another example of—I believe he was making about $1.5 million, plus he was on the take, really, from other hospitals who were using him as a consultant. That’s what we want: to get to the bottom of this and open it up so we can all have a look at it. The committee is dealing with it.

The problem with this Bill 11—it’s the second attempt at it, and they prorogued the House so that we couldn’t deal with it at that time. I agree with certain sections. The protection for whistle-blowers is an admirable feature. The minister already has that authority—

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

Mr. Jonah Schein: It’s great to be here today, as always, and it’s always great to hear my colleague from Algoma–Manitoulin speak in this House, because he always speaks with heart, compassion and integrity.

When it comes to this bill, again—I’ve put my responses forward before; we’ll put them forward again. We need to see Ombudsman oversight. We need to see whistle-blower protection. We need to see this expanded outside of this particular file, where we know there will be good scrutiny in the future, to make sure that all ministries and agencies are covered in this province.

I think back—I became politicized in the days of Mike Harris, and I remember a minister named John Snobelen who is on record as saying they were going to create a crisis in education—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You know who really did it? Laurel Broten did.

Mr. Jonah Schein: There’s still a crisis in public education, but there was certainly an understanding that there was an intentionality behind that government when it came to breaking government, in fact, because that’s the ideology of conservatives in this country: to break government, to destroy public services. I don’t know; the jury’s out whether the government feels the same way, if they’re intentionally working to destroy public confidence in our public institutions or if they’re just messing this up by mistake. Either way, I would agree with my colleagues over here, with the Conservatives, that they’re doing a good job of destroying public confidence, and that is a tremendous issue.

I heard the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration take the new talking points in talking about the opposition, about partisanship and so forth. We have real differences about where we stand; I’m here with the NDP because I believe strongly in public services. We need to restore faith in these public services. We need to make sure that people know that when they spend their tax dollars, it goes into public services, that we can build transit in our cities, that we can invest in our health care. And this government is doing a really good job in undermining that public confidence right now.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I listened very carefully to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin. I was trying to think back to when my first experience was with air ambulance services. One of the first jobs I ever had was at Sick Children’s Hospital. It was one of my first jobs, and one of the first things I noticed when I worked there was that a couple of times a day the building would vibrate, because there is actually a helipad above the hospital. That was my first experience of that emergency service delivering people who were critically injured and landing, and families who expected to get the best service.

Nothing has changed about the air ambulance service. I think there are still families around this province who rely on that service, and certainly the member from Barrie talked about what people’s vision of that service is. I don’t think that’s changed. People still expect the most competent, the most professional individuals using those services to transport somebody who’s critically injured at a very traumatic time in people’s lives. They expect the service to work, and certainly I think this legislation is about restoring faith and building that service to a new level of accountability and transparency.

I think that the member from Algoma–Manitoulin talked about the unique challenges in the north. Whether it’s roads or access or the communications system, it’s always a challenge in the north. I respect the information that he brings to the table, and I think that those are conversations that we need to have on an ongoing basis.

I think amending the Ambulance Act is about strengthening that public service that people have grown to rely on and need at a very critical time in their life. It’s about supporting those 600 front-line employees who work every day to protect our families, arriving when we’re at our most needy and vulnerable and providing a service that helps save our families and gives us confidence going into the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Algoma–Manitoulin, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr. Michael Mantha: Once again, I’m a happy kind of guy. I want to acknowledge the comments that came from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the member from Durham and the member from Davenport. I’d like to touch on one of the points that he raised, as returning faith into our public services. I also appreciate the comments that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing had to offer.

We expect our services to be there, and we expect them to work. What I’m trying to raise, by having Ombudsman oversight through this process and included within this act, is exactly when those services don’t work, where something happens along the way, where there are questions that have happened, where we need that third set of eyes to oversee that issue. That is what we’re asking for in my notes that I was doing this morning.

Again, we all know where fingers are being pointed. I don’t want to sit here or stand here and lay blame anywhere. I don’t think that’s very productive to anybody in this House. We all know what happened. Let’s recognize what has happened, but let’s really fix it.

Let’s really sit down and look at how we can fix this—not just some of it, all of it—so that we can make sure that we have real whistle-blower protections that are going to be there as individuals like my friend from Timiskaming–Cochrane has indicated, that doesn’t happen in his area; that we have real oversight so that the province and people who are back home who are looking at this and wondering, how does this happen?—so that they have the opportunity to answer questions; and that our gold standard, which is our Ombudsman, has the opportunity to have oversight into these matters.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m pleased to join this debate, and again, I want to say, as I said a few minutes ago, I’m very grateful to the paramedics and the pilots and all those front-line staff at Ornge who, from the very beginning and for many years, continue to put our patients first—our family members. I understand it’s about 600 employees who work every day on the front lines, and I think this legislation that we’re talking about today is about changing, moving it to a new

chapter and putting us on the right path forward. Certainly we’ve heard from the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care that there have been some significant changes in the leadership, and it matters that you have the right people at the helm.

They’ve hired Dr. Andrew McCallum—he’s the president and CEO—and they’ve hired Rob Giguere as the chief operating officer. Dr. McCallum was trained as a military flight surgeon, so he knows what he’s talking about, and he’s the former chief coroner of Ontario.

As well, Ornge has also appointed a new board of directors, and that was led by Ian W. Delaney. He’s the chairman of Sherritt International. As well, they’ve appointed a quality-of-care committee under the direction of Barry McLellan, president and CEO of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. They know a lot about emergency care, so Dr. McLellan will be helpful in looking at that quality of care.

This year, they submitted their first quality improvement plan to build on the achievements of previous years, and certainly a quality improvement plan is a very extensive exercise. It’s like a strategic plan for your health care going forward. Under that new leadership, those quality-of-care projects and the leadership are going to be putting patients first. That’s about respecting taxpayers and valuing transparency.

As well, we’ve also got Ornge’s first patient advocate; that is Denise Polgar. It’s a newly created position, and it’s unique in the field of air ambulance and medical transport. That patient advocate is someone who supports patients and their families, as well as working to resolve their concerns about patient care and service.

As I said earlier, when you’re in the middle of a traumatic event, when someone you love has been critically injured, sometimes the communications with how you transport somebody, when they arrive, what kind of services they get, are mysterious to families, and so somebody like a patient advocate will help assess those complaints, help the patients and the family navigate through a very foreign system when you aren’t used to anything in health care of that nature.

Miss Polgar will also advocate for operational improvements based on the lessons that she learns from that patient complaints process, and that will be guided by the principles of the new patient declaration of values.

Miss Polgar is bringing to Ornge extensive experience in both emergency services and the hospital setting. I understand she began her career as a paramedic, so she knows what it’s like being on the front line. She spent nearly a decade with Brant county ambulance. Since then, she’s worked as an ambulance dispatcher and a trainer, a program developer and coordinator for emergency telecommunications, and, most recently, as an injury prevention specialist and educator for the London Health Sciences Centre.

Miss Polgar has a strong understanding of the health care sector, and she’s collaborated with a variety of hospitals and community agencies to implement positive and measurable change.

At the same time that we have, at Ornge, instituted a new patient advocate, Ornge has also installed new medical interiors in its helicopters. They’ve expanded service in Thunder Bay. They’ve established a dedicated patient flight service in northern Ontario, which obviously is something that would be of interest to the member from Algoma–Manitoulin.

As well, as I said, they’ve submitted their first quality improvement plan, and they have created a whistle-blower policy. I think certainly we’ve heard from a few of the members this morning about their concerns about the policy. At the end of the day, this policy is meant to help employees fulfil Ornge’s mandate of compassionate care with the highest-quality standards of ethics and professionalism. The policy will be implemented through the appointment of Grant Thornton, a leading Canadian accounting, audit and business advisory firm, as the independent ethics officer for Ornge.

As someone who is responsible for the independent ethics officer, Mr. Thornton will be receiving and tracking employee disclosures in a safe and confidential manner. He will then examine and assess each disclosure to determine if further steps are warranted. The firm has full discretion to conduct investigations and make recommendations, and will ensure that the complainant is protected from reprisal.

These are significant improvements, but we understand that there is more to do.

We believe that this legislation takes the next step in restoring public confidence to Ornge. If passed, this bill will entrench protections for employees who disclose information to an inspector, an investigator or the ministry.

The bill will allow the government to take control of Ornge in extraordinary circumstances through the appointment of a supervisor or to appoint special investigators, just as we do with our hospitals.

As well, the bill would allow the government to change the performance agreement with Ornge at any time.

In addition to this legislation, our government is also proposing to make Ornge retroactively subject to freedom-of-information requests. This is a very important distinction, because it’s in keeping with our commitment to transparency across the broader public sector, and these measures represent common ground between the government and the opposition.

The steps we’re proposing today will provide the strong oversight we believe is necessary to ensure a brighter and stronger future for the future of Ontario’s air ambulance service. We are very committed to improving the culture at Ornge, and the new performance agreement strengthens government oversight and improves patient care. Significant improvements to the accountability and the transparency have been made by posting executive expenses and salary ranges online.

New policies and procedures on conflict of interest and whistle-blower protections have been introduced. As I previously stated, we appointed an independent ethics officer to receive, investigate and track employee disclosures as part of the new whistle-blower protection policy.

It’s all part of our government’s well-established track record on extending the coverage of the province’s access and privacy legislation, including bringing under the legislation Ontario hospitals in 2012, Cancer Care Ontario in 2010, publicly funded universities in 2006, and the energy sector, including Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation and public utilities, back in 2004 and 2005.

Our government believes it’s important to continue to take steps to ensure that citizens have knowledge and transparency because we believe their right to know is foremost in considering requests for information and in making government information more publicly available.

At the end of the day, this legislation is about improving patient care. As I said, Ornge hired a patient advocate to work with patients and their families to address concerns and to advocate for operational improvements. As I said, we’ve installed new, improved interim medical interiors in the fleet of AW139 helicopters after extensive consultation with the front-line staff, the people who actually use the facilities. We obtained Transport Canada’s approval for the interim interior for that aircraft.

As well, we’ve taken steps to introduce a third line of paramedics at the Thunder Bay base to help ensure 24/7 service for northern Ontario. They’ve created a dedicated flight service for the Sault-Ste.-Marie-to-Sudbury corridor, increasing patient access to out-of-town treatment, and they’ve launched a pilot project in Ottawa on the use of critical care land vehicles in place of a helicopter for certain calls when it’s deemed that they’re appropriate for patient care.

Some other achievements that Ornge has made, which probably haven’t received the attention that they deserve, is that we’ve declared a new declaration of patient values; as well, they have developed an online patient relations portal and guaranteed feedback to patient complaints.

As well, they have redesigned programs to expedite the paramedic training and education process, including a new program to fast-track training upgrades for primary care paramedics to become advanced care paramedics, because at the end of the day, the people who are on the front line—the best education that they have results in better care for someone who’s in the midst of a crisis.

As well, Ornge consolidated three operational divisions under one chief operating officer. They consolidated all operational and scheduling functions into one team for improved coverage and service effectiveness.

Ornge has developed and implemented certification material for their operations control centre. They’ve obtained a three-year operator certificate from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for air and critical care land ambulance operations.

I think it’s clear, Speaker, that these changes indicate that Ornge and the board are on the right track. The bill that we’re debating today will help ensure that it stays on the right track, because we believe that accountability and transparency are very important.

The services at Ornge are part of our province’s first-rate health care, and certainly I value that. In a community that has had very high growth—Brampton–Springdale, the riding that I represent—health care is very important, whether it’s land ambulance or whether it’s air ambulance. Everybody believes that better health care is what we, as a government, need to deliver. We’ve seen the results of those investments certainly translate into better wait times, certainly at William Osler Health Centre.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Seeing the time on the clock, this House stands recessed until 10:30 a.m.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce Rabbi Yermi Cohen and his son Mendy, who are here, as they come every year, to present me with the shmurah matzah in anticipation of Passover, which starts next week.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you, and welcome.

Ms. Cindy Forster: All of my guests aren’t here yet—they’re still being processed—but I want to welcome 60 visitors from my community. They’re here to listen to the health care issues here today. I want to introduce some of them. I have Frank Campion, who’s not here yet—he is a councillor from the city of Welland; Mary Ann Grimaldi, a councillor from the city of Welland; and Dan Fortier and Michael Petrachenko, both councillors from the city of Welland.

I have Heather Cross and Christine Simpson, both ONA members—local coordinator, Local 26—from the Niagara area.

I also have Pat Scholfield, who is an advocate for health care in the Niagara region, and I have Sue Hotte as well from the Niagara Health Coalition.

I welcome them all to Queen’s Park today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Deputy Premier. Yesterday I asked about missing gas plant documents, and the Premier answered, “All that has been asked for has been provided.”

In sworn testimony Tuesday, cabinet secretary Peter Wallace said the committee has not yet been provided with all the documents related to the Mississauga and Oakville power plant cancellations.

Speaker, the Premier is telling us one thing and people swearing an oath are telling us the opposite. We now have proof that cabinet members said we have all the documents when they knew there were more, and we have proof that they said the total cost of Oakville was $40 million when they knew it was hundreds of millions more.

Deputy Premier, can you explain the difference between those statements and those sworn under oath?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you for the question. I have to say that I am delighted that the justice committee work is well under way, delighted that Mayor Hazel McCallion was there this morning, and I’m very pleased that the scope of the committee has been expanded to include tendering, planning, commissioning, cancellation and relocation.

Speaker, this is a committee of this Legislature doing its job. I think it’s doing a thorough and very good job, and I look forward to the committee doing their work and completing their work. I think we all have a lot to learn from that work that is under way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We do have a lot to learn. In fact, we have been learning a lot. What we’ve learned so far is that this gas plant scandal has many tentacles and it’s feeding off of many ministries. For instance, the cabinet board itself is deep in this. The energy minister is busy working on retractions of earlier statements. The House leader sounds like a broken record, and you will soon learn that the Attorney General is now involved. So let’s add the finance minister to this mix.

The OPA swore under oath about the hundreds of millions of additional dollars. You’ve got a budget coming up soon. What amount will your government be listing in the budget for the gas plant scandal?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I’m very happy to go back to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We’re going to bring it right down. Thank you.

House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m very happy to go back to the first question that was put forward by the honourable member about Mr. Wallace’s testimony and provide him with a quotation from Mr. Wallace yesterday: “It is my belief that the Ministry of Energy acted in good faith in searching for and producing documents in their possession that they understood were responsive to the committee’s request.”

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member says that I’ve turned into a broken record, so let me put something new out here for everyone here. Let me quote Mayor Hazel McCallion at her very thorough, thorough appearance before committee this morning. She said, “The government listened to the people. The people of Mississauga are fed up of hearing all of this controversy at Queen’s Park over something that they wanted cancelled. The government agreed to cancel”—

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Cabinet secretary Peter Wallace told us that government is driving the bus, and he also made another revelation to the justice committee on Tuesday. He told us that the Ministry of the Attorney General has launched an investigation into the accusation of political interference with the OPA.

Your government failed to disclose any information of the Attorney General’s investigation into whether or not a former Liberal staffer turned bureaucrat directed the OPA to withhold documents from members of this House. Why was this investigation being discussed in secret, conducted in secret, and why didn’t your government at any time tell the public about this further twist to this gas plant scandal?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy to finish the Hazel McCallion quote, to begin: “The government listened to the people. The people of Mississauga are fed up of hearing all of this controversy at Queen’s Park over something that they wanted cancelled. The government agreed to cancel it. Come on. Let’s get on with the business of the province, folks.”

As to the other item that was raised, Mr. Wallace appeared in front of the committee. Yesterday, he answered questions in that regard, and that is the place for this type of discussion to go on. The committee has an opportunity to call witnesses and to look into any matter related to it. But at the same time, Mr. Speaker, I think maybe some of the fishing expedition should be put to the side and they should focus on some of the important issues before the committee.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Todd Smith: My question is for the finance minister this morning. Mr. Finance Minister, we know that cabinet was privy to a memorandum of understanding on September 24 of last year outlining the fact that the costs for relocating the Oakville power plant would well exceed the $40-million cost that your government has repeatedly given the House.

While we’re quoting the mayor of Mississauga, your mayor, she also told the committee this morning that it was going to cost somewhere between $800 million and $1 billion to cancel the power plants. How does she know that when you don’t know that, because you were in cabinet when that MOU was circulated?

As the man with his hand on the purse strings of the province, as the former chair of the Liberal platform committee, exactly how could you allow members of the government to claim that the cost of Oakville would be $40 million when you knew that that number was wrong?

Hon. Charles Sousa: What I do know is that the siting of these power plants needs to be readdressed, and one of the things that has come out as a result of these deliberations is that we have to do proper setbacks and ensure that we’re assessing these things more appropriately. We’ve listened to the people of Mississauga and we’ve listened to the people of Oakville, and I’ve done my job in representing the constituents right around the area. None of these plants were actually in my riding. But what’s important is that we protect the interests of the public right throughout the province, and that’s what we’re doing as a result of these initiatives.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Todd Smith: Finance Minister, the accountability has to start at the top on this issue, and you’re the man now in charge of the money for the province.

The MOU clearly showed that you and cabinet knew, back on September 24, that the costs would exceed $40 million, and you kept trying to sell that number to the members of this House and to the people of Ontario. Are you telling this House, as the Treasurer for the province, that the finance ministry has no idea how much money it’s going to have to spend to cover the cost of the Liberal Party’s decision to cancel the gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Finance Minister?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, to the House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: The one factor that the honourable member is failing to mention is that his party was opposed to the gas plant themselves. In fact, this morning Mayor Hazel McCallion said, “I think all parties would have cancelled it; there’s no question about it.... In fact, I would say that the citizens were in touch with both the Conservatives and with the NDP, no question about it. They not only appealed to the Premier and the present government; they definitely appealed to the Conservatives and the NDP. There’s no question about it.”

So I guess, Mr. Speaker, we have a committee that’s looking into this matter. But will the Conservative Party come forward with their costing, with their policy analysis, with the work that they did before they went out and made YouTube videos about how they were going to cancel this project? Why are they leaving that part out when they ask these questions?

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

Mr. Todd Smith: The government fails to understand the crux of this issue.

I’ll go back to the committee testimony this morning from the mayor of Mississauga, Mayor Hazel McCallion, the mayor of the community where the finance minister now lives. The mayor said this morning that the citizens of Mississauga, the staff, the council and the people of Mississauga were prepared to accept a plant in the right location. Was the plant cancelled to save seats? she asks. “Who can deny it?” she says. Obviously it was. “It should have been cancelled” well “before a permit was issued,” not in the middle of an election campaign to save five Liberal seats. It should have been made before the campaign even started.

She also says—get this—that Mississauga residents “are not interested in wasting taxpayer money.” What’s your answer to that?

Hon. John Milloy: I think what Mayor Hazel McCallion said this morning—to repeat it—is, “The government listened to the people. The people of Mississauga are fed up of hearing all of this controversy at Queen’s Park over something that they wanted cancelled. The government agreed to cancel it. Come on. Let’s get on with the business of the province, folks.”

The honourable member talks about politics; well, maybe he can explain the politics of his leader going the day before the election and making a YouTube video where he stood surrounded by adoring candidates and proclaimed that this plant, if he became Premier, would be “done, done, done.”

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Finance. People in Ontario want to see a balanced approach to balancing the books in your upcoming budget. New Democrats have put forward a plan to close some corporate tax loopholes so that we can balance the books and make the tax system a little more fair. Can the minister tell us whether he’s ready to move on these proposals?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you for the question and as well for your input. It’s critically important that we do work together in putting forward a budget that meets the needs of the public and the people of Ontario.

The proposals made by the NDP are being taken seriously. Tax avoidance programs by the corporates that exist is something that we are looking into, and in association with your support, we have already written to Minister Flaherty—his budget’s coming out today, as you know. We’ve already had some of these things addressed. We also have to take a look at the underground economy as well as some of the other particulars that you put forward. We do appreciate your input.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: I thank the minister, but last week we learned that the finance minister had written his federal counterpart about tightening corporate tax compliance. That’s one very small step forward towards balancing the books, but it’s a baby step. We’ve identified measures that will save $1.3 billion annually, and thus far the government has only followed up on the one that saves the least amount of money. Is the minister saying that he plans to ignore this billion-dollar tax loophole, or are you going to act on all of it?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are taking a look at everything being brought forward, as well as putting forward even other initiatives that we think are important to take a balanced approach in our budget. We have to take this balanced approach because we want to ensure that we reduce our deficit and make a zero deficit by 2017-18.

We do have a sensitive recovery. We have to take proper steps. We cannot take extreme measures, because of that sensitive recovery, but we are moving forward. We’re looking at tax avoidance. We’re looking at some of the restricted tax credits that you’ve brought forward, as well as auto insurance and the employer health tax exemptions. All of these things are being taken into consideration.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Minister, with respect, I think nothing we have suggested should be described as “extreme measures.” What we are saying is that people are expecting some basic fairness as we push to balance the books. They’re being told that nurses have to be fired; they’re being told that school repairs must be delayed and that the cost of living has to keep climbing. When they see that the government plans to roll out a new tax credit to hand a tax break to Ontario’s largest corporations so they can get cheaper meals and drinks, they just don’t think that’s fair.

Will the minister commit to taking some real steps to balancing the books in a balanced way and close all of those corporate tax loopholes that we have identified?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I think what I’m saying, and what we have to understand, is that we have to take those measures in order to take a balanced approach. What I’m saying is that we have to take these things into consideration. That’s why we’re taking consultations. That’s why we’re going around the province and meeting with constituents. That’s why SCOFEA is doing its role as well, and that’s why we’re reaching out to the opposition.

We need to work together in order to present a budget that speaks to the fiscal impacts that appear before us right now, but also about the economic impact in the long term and in the future. We have to position ourselves and build the foundation to benefit Ontarians in the long run. The points you bring forward are essential in those discussions. We are addressing them, and I do thank you for them.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Yesterday the new CEO of Ornge was at public accounts; that’s Dr. McCallum. When we asked him about the Minister of Health’s new air ambulance bill, he said that it would really not change anything from what is currently going on at Ornge. Speaker, the minister has brought forward a useless bill that will not prevent future fiascos in other areas. It is not going to do anything that is not already being done at Ornge right now. Can the minister explain how her bill will be effective, even when the CEO says the opposite?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I must say that’s a rather disappointing question because I know the member opposite cares about improving quality of care at Ornge and across our health care system. What Dr. McCallum said was that he has already moved forward on changes at Ornge, but this bill is still an important bill because it does give the ministry more oversight powers. It does require more transparency. It gives us, if we ever need the power, the power to put in a supervisor.

I hope we never need to use that power, but if we do need that power in the future, we will have that power, if the bill is successfully passed through the Legislature. I’m glad Dr. McCallum testified. I’m delighted with the progress he’s making, moving forward on all of the recommendations, but we still need that bill passed.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Yes, oversight by the government is important, but the government did have oversight mechanisms. They chose not to use them. For four long years they were warned, and they did not use the oversight that they had. But now, as time goes by, it’s becoming more and more obvious that the air ambulance bill is not going to change anything. It won’t do anything to prevent another Ornge from occurring, and this is a real worry because right here, right now, there could be many little Ornges out there, but we wouldn’t know. It’s the same thing with the whistle-blower protection. The whistle-blower protection they have at Ornge right now is stronger than what’s in the bill.

Did the minister hear what Dr. McCallum had to say? Will she admit that her bill is not worth the paper it’s written on?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I absolutely reject that

interpretation of what Dr. McCallum has said. Dr. McCallum is leading us now at Ornge. There is a new era of accountability and commitment to patients at Ornge. He did say that if he does his job right, we won’t need to exercise the powers in the bill, and I completely agree with him.

So we are into a new

chapter at Ornge that puts patients first. It protects taxpayer investments. There’s a new quality improvement protocol in place. We are making terrific progress at Ornge, and I think everyone in this House recognizes that and celebrates that.

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

M me France Gélinas: I agree with the minister. A lot of the changes have already happened. They already have a new performance agreement. They’ve already signed on. They already have whistle-blower protection. You know the part that’s missing? It’s that we need to rebuild the confidence of the people of Ontario into Ornge. How do you do this? How do you rebuild confidence? You give them Ombudsman oversight, so that if I feel that Ornge did me wrong, I will pick up the phone and phone the Ombudsman, and I know that he will investigate, that he will be on my side and that he will help me. We need to rebuild the trust.

Will the minister agree to do the right thing: amend the bill and give Ombudsman oversight of Ornge?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I know we’re making real progress at Ornge when the member from Newmarket–Aurora has this to say after yesterday’s testimony by Dr. McCallum. The member from Newmarket–Aurora said, “I was encouraged by Dr. McCallum’s testimony. I believe he was very forthcoming with information, and I believe we’ll get the truth from Dr. McCallum.... I think that ... Dr. McCallum brings a brand new perspective to openness and transparency.”

If the member from Newmarket–Aurora has that to say about Dr. McCallum, then I think we can all agree we’ve come a long way at Ornge.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. Just before I come to the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, just a reminder that, moving forward, it’s easier for me to hear. I just thought I’d let you know.

The second thing is, I’ve been hearing, lately, people calling people by their first names, and that is not a tradition in this place. I’d ask to remind members that we use either their title or their riding. It becomes personal, and it escalates the problem instead of bringing it down.

I will now recognize the member from Haldimand–Norfolk for a new question.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Toby Barrett: Yesterday at public accounts, the replacement for Chris Mazza, Dr. Andrew McCallum, confirmed Ornge air ambulance has gone in the red by $2.5 million.

Minister, as you know, $150 million a year flows into Ornge. Money wasted on Harley choppers, a speedboat, kickbacks for helicopters not suited for CPR, and now we understand you are awarding employee bonuses of $2 million.

Minister, how will this bonus bailout and how will the deficit that I just mentioned affect crucial operations at Ornge? How will it affect patient care? Are you planning cutbacks on essential services to pay for these bonuses?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: A year ago the new board at Ornge made a decision—a decision I strongly support—not to award performance pay for this year. That decision was appealed to HRSDC. Ornge lost that appeal, so they are, of course, complying with the ruling from HRSDC.

I do want to say that the new board at Ornge is doing a tremendous job. It is improving quality of care. It is enhancing access to care. We’re adding new staff at Ornge, and I think the people of this province are extremely well served by the new leadership at Ornge.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Toby Barrett: Well, they’re going to have to make it up somewhere.

Minister, we have seen this sorry tale of house loans, kickbacks, money wasted on Harleys, on that speedboat—$150 million a year of taxpayers’ money—no transparency, no accountability and no oversight whatsoever. Now we hear of more cost overruns, a deficit and $2 million in bonuses.

My question, Minister: Do you really know who’s in charge of this file? You have not met with the new CEO, Andrew McCallum. You never did meet with the old CEO, Chris Mazza. We want to know: What is your plan, Minister? Are you hiding behind the sofa or just planning on sweeping this under the rug?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Well, Speaker, I just don’t know where to start. Let me just clarify a few misconceptions.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, I told you I could hear you, and I do.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have met with Mr. McCallum. In fact, I’ve seen him earlier this week.

I tried to meet with Dr. Mazza, but he wouldn’t come to the meeting.

You don’t have to tell me—

Interjection: Who’s in charge?

Interjections.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: And he was out of his job shortly thereafter. I buy that.

Speaker, the member is telling us something we all know: that things were not as they ought to have been at Ornge under the old leadership. We have made significant changes. The entire leadership team is new. The board has been entirely—

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The board has been entirely replaced. The new board is making significant efforts to recover some of the money that was inappropriately spent. We’re looking forward to receiving $1.1 million back, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: So things are back on track at Ornge. Patients are getting the care they need, and it will continue to improve as we go forward.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, my question is to the Acting Premier. Today, the mayor of Mississauga, like the mayor of Oakville, made it clear that it took an election to get the Liberal government to listen to Ontarians who didn’t want the Mississauga gas plant. After seven years of telling them it was impossible to act, an election made it happen. Why did it take an election for you to correct your mistake?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be helpful if we looked at fully what Mayor Hazel McCallion said. She pointed out, and I quote, “I think all parties would have cancelled it. There’s no question about it. In fact, I would say that the citizens were in touch with both the Conservatives and with the NDP; no question about it. They not only appealed to the Premier and to the present government; they definitely appealed to the Conservatives and the NDP. There’s no question about it.”

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The bantering back and forth when I’m trying to listen is not helpful. I would ask the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek to resist the temptation.

Hon. John Milloy: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, all parties of this Legislature promised to cancel that plant. I think, again, Mr. Speaker, it’s time that members of the opposition came forward to talk about their commitment, the policy analyses that they did, the costing that they did, because the fact of the matter is, this was a promise that was made by the opposition and it was kept by the government.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My goodness. Going back, just a reminder that there was only one party in this Legislature that proposed to put it there in the first place.

The permit for the Mississauga plant wasn’t issued until May 28, 2009, five years after the Minister of Energy signed the agreement for the Mississauga gas plant. Will the Acting Premier admit that the government bent over backwards for private power companies, but it took some bad election polling to get results for families in Mississauga?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, let’s take a little bit of a walk down memory lane. Mayor Burton, speaking about the Oakville power plant: “Would you like to elaborate”—this is from my friend the member Mr. Delaney. “Would you like to elaborate particularly on the support Mr. Tabuns lent you in the drive to get the Oakville power plant cancelled?” Mayor Burton answered, “We enjoyed expressions of support from all parties, including Mr. Tabuns, and we appreciated the support of all parties.”

Mr. Speaker, what about Mississauga? What did the member from Toronto–Danforth tell Inside Toronto on September 26 when it came to the Mississauga power plant? “We wouldn’t build it.”

What about Etobicoke–Lakeshore NDP candidate Dionne Coley? According to Torstar News Service, September 16, she also pledged to fight the plant.

National Post, September 29: “... local NDP candidate, Anju Sikka, soon issued statements concurring with the new Liberal cancellation.”

Mr. Speaker, again: a promise made by them; a promise kept by us.

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Phil McNeely: This question is to the Minister of Rural Affairs. Building and maintaining infrastructure across the province is important. It drives our economy and improves the quality of life for all Ontarians.

Building and maintaining infrastructure is not just a concern of urban municipalities; it also matters in small towns and rural communities. The infrastructure needs in rural Ontario can very much differ from those in urban municipalities.

Constituents in my riding and in neighbouring rural communities have heard of the government’s Building Together plan. Can the Minister of Rural Affairs tell us what this government is doing to ensure that we continue to support the infrastructure needs of small towns and rural communities in Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Rural Affairs.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Thank you much, Mr. Speaker. I’ll try to be a little calmer today.

I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans—a hard-working member. He had a wonderful career in the Ottawa area as an engineer, designing roads and bridges. He knows this file inside out.

As the member knows, a strong, healthy Ontario includes strong rural communities, which is why our government is committed to bringing their interests into focus. The new Municipal Infrastructure Strategy includes projects in virtually every municipality across Ontario, including most rural municipalities. There has been a great uptake. The province is making $8.25 million available to 358 small, rural and northern municipalities in 2012-13, as well as providing $750,000 in funding over the next three years for asset management planning to 37 consolidated municipal service managers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: Back to the Minister of Rural Affairs: It is good to know that this government is seriously working to address the infrastructure needs of small towns and rural communities.

I know that investment in infrastructure has been unprecedented since 2003. There have been many improvements in communities across the province, and many critical infrastructure projects have been funded and are improving communities across the province.

The minister mentioned the Municipal Infrastructure Strategy. Can we hear more about this plan and what it will do to address the needs of small towns?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I’d like to refer this one to my good friend the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Our annual infrastructure investments now are a record in Ontario history. This year we will spend $12.9 billion on infrastructure—about $2.4 billion on highways in the north and rural Ontario. That contrasts to the party opposite that downloaded provincial highways onto them. As a matter of fact, this comes as very good news, particularly to the people in eastern Ontario, where the party opposite downloaded 42% of the responsibility. Some 42% of highways are now on the municipals, without additional solutions.

Our solution was to add $90 million to help repair bridges and roads, in addition to the gas tax that supports transit in small communities like Orillia.

CASINOS

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, if we learned anything from the meeting that the Premier had with OLG bosses yesterday, it’s that we now know you both owe this House an apology.

Twice this week, you and the Premier have said that there is no special casino deal for Toronto. The Premier said that the same formula applied to every community hosting a casino. Yet despite those repeated assurances, the Toronto Star reports today: “... Paul Godfrey, chair of Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp., said the agency will formulate a new casino profit-sharing formula equal for all.”

Minister, if there was no special deal, why is OLG going back to the drawing board to come up with a new formula?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We are modernizing the OLG. We’re trying to do our utmost to generate more revenue to protect our services like health care, education and social services, and doing it in a socially responsible way. What we have before us is a formula that’s being used in the same format right across the province. We’ve made it clear that no municipality—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m getting conversations from all sides, back and forth, and it has nothing to do with the question—and if it does, it shouldn’t be happening.

Finish, please.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you.

We’ve made it clear that there are no special deals for any one particular municipality. OLG is reviewing the formula to ensure that the principles of fairness and equality are done, and we want to make certain that all municipalities benefit from the restructuring and the modernization of our plan.

Mr. Speaker, to the member opposite: We are maintaining the same formula, and we are doing our utmost to ensure that all municipalities are treated fairly.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: Minister, it’s clear that you and the Premier are in over your heads on this file. I repeat: You both assured, right here in this House, that the formula was the same for every municipality: “No special deals.” That’s what you said. Can you explain to the people of Ontario why the Premier and the finance minister have no clue what OLG was up to? Ontarians want to know who’s in charge—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Attorney General, come to order. Second time.

Mr. Steve Clark: —the OLG, the international casinos? Because clearly you don’t know.

Hon. Charles Sousa: What we do know is that we’re modernizing the system, generating more employment and more jobs for the province of Ontario. We’re trying to ensure that we get proper value for taxpayer dollars, and ensure that we increase those revenues for the benefit of the province. We also know that the decisions are ultimately made by the municipality. They’re the ones that are going to decide. We’re giving them the information. They now will decide if they wish to proceed to the next step, which is then to delve into the formula—delve into the hosting fees and what it is that they can generate—if they wish. That’s where we’re at, Mr. Speaker.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Today, 60 people from my riding are here, and they’re here because they’re concerned about their access to health care. The departments of obstetrics, gynecology, pediatrics and mental health have started to move out of the Welland hospital and the Niagara Falls hospital into the St. Catharines hospital. Local doctors have warned that these changes will threaten the Welland hospital’s ability to offer 24/7 care. Even though all the reports talk about the importance of maintaining a full acute-service site, years after bringing these issues forward the minister remains silent.

Why is the minister ignoring legitimate concerns of patients, residents and health care providers?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite, and welcome to the Legislature, people from Welland. I look forward to meeting with you after question period. I think it’s important that members of communities are engaged in health care decisions; I welcome the advocacy of groups such as are represented today.

However, it is important that we continue to improve health care services in Niagara. I know that people of Welland and people of Niagara are delighted with the new hospital in St. Catharines that is opening up access to care that was previously not available in Niagara. Things like cancer care, cardiac catheterization and longer-stay mental health services are now available in Niagara.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I look forward to the supplementary, to speak more specifically.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Residents in my community are sick of being ignored while their health care is threatened. Twenty thousand people have signed a petition in my riding to keep our services in Welland. Three years after the formal report was submitted, the minister has remained silent; there’s been no response. I’ve already had emails and complaints from parents, as the pediatric program is moving, about access to health care in Welland for their children. They’ve already experienced mayhem when they’ve called an ambulance and the paramedic system didn’t know that children were being admitted to St. Catharines as of a certain day. So parents are very concerned.

The Welland hospital is essential to the well-being of my community and our community, but we’re watching as it’s being dismantled. That’s exactly what happened in Port Colborne and Fort Erie in past years. Is the minister planning to stand by, remain silent and allow this dismantling to continue?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that every decision made in health care is made for the benefit of the people of the community. I can tell you, when it comes to maternal child care, there have been four separate external reviews of this decision. Each review was unanimous. One recent review included the CEO of Sick Kids hospital, and leaders of obstetrics and pediatrics. Speaker, this is a decision that is based on improving quality of care.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, second time, and the last. The next one’s a warning.

Mr. Mike Colle: Yeah.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And whoever just did that—the member from Eglinton–Lawrence will come to order, and he will be warned as well, especially when I’m trying to get attention.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community and Social Services, you’ll have one more chance.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m waiting.

Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, as I said, there were four separate reviews. In each of the four reviews, the external reviewers found that the new model is better for quality, better for safety and better for patient experience. We have no plans to reverse that decision.

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Consumer Services. My constituents were encouraged by your update to the House recently on the progress being made with the review of the Condominium Act. They were especially pleased to read the report released on the findings of stage one of your consultations.

Minister, I’ve reached out to my constituents and encouraged them to provide feedback and comments on this report. Many of the condo owners in Scarborough–Rouge River have sent my office feedback on the report, which I have provided to your ministry. Can the minister please let us know what the next steps are and what will be happening with the comments that my constituents and others have provided to the ministry on the findings of the report from stage one?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: First, I want to thank my wonderful colleague from Scarborough–Rouge River for the question, and I want to thank all members of the House who have held or continue to hold town halls and information sessions for their constituents to provide feedback on the findings report from stage one on our condo review.

While the formal public comments have now closed, the ministry will continue to accept comments throughout the review, and I’m very happy to report today that we are officially launching stage two of the condo act review.

This morning, the stage two experts panel will meet for the first time. This expert panel is reviewing the findings report and the hundreds of comments that were generated in phase one. The expert panel will develop a report of options and recommendations to update the Condominium Act. Their options and recommendations report is expected to be available for public comment by the end of the summer.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I’m excited to hear the progress that the ministry continues to make as it moves forward with this review of the Condominium Act. I am especially pleased with the number of opportunities available for public participation and submission of feedback through the process. With strong engagement of the public from the beginning of the process, I feel confident that the changes proposed to the Condominium Act will be accepted and that all stakeholders will be pleased with the solutions that will come from our review.

However, my constituents have raised some questions regarding the expert panel which will be putting together the options and recommendations for the changes to the act. Can the minister please share with us more information on this expert panel?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m happy to report that I will be dropping in to meet the expert panel later today to thank them for the excellent work they will be undertaking in our collaborative review and very engaging process for the review of the Condominium Act.

This group of people has been brought together because they are technical experts. They have the knowledge and experience with the issues facing the condo sector today. They’re knowledgeable and experienced in one or more of the following areas: condominium governance; dispute resolution; condominium finances; consumer protection; and condominium management. They represent the interests of a wide range of professional fields—legal, condominium management, consumer advocates and residents. They will be using the values and principles that were proposed by our residents’ panel in phase one to report and guide their deliberations.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, this afternoon there will be a very important vote in this House on my private member’s bill entitled the Sick Days are for Sick People Act. If passed into law, my bill would end the practice of paying out public sector employees for unused sick days. Our act would allow employees in the public sector to bank their sick days for use as actual sick days. This legislation would permit ill employees to use their sick leave to take time off, not only due to their own personal illness, but for their children or their immediate family members.

Minister, would you encourage your caucus to support our legislation that protects employees, protects employers and proactively addresses the future liability on the taxpayers of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the member’s question. As mentioned, the bill brought forward on sick days is something that’s of concern for all of us. Certainly the Minister of Labour has introduced some legislation in order to provide some support for those families who are also dealing with situations when they’re sick or when their children are sick, and we want to be able to accommodate them. We’re also asking the federal government to participate in enabling some of those support systems so that everyone who needs support is receiving the support.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: Minister, that sounds reassuring, but we’re facing a $30-billion deficit, and you have the responsibility for looking after every taxpayer dollar that’s being spent in the public sector. You have to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Just when I get things nice and quiet, I can count on the Attorney General to ramp it back up again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And others on this side. Maybe I should start the clock.

Member.

Mr. John O’Toole: Speaker, this is an important issue. Even Don Drummond recognizes that many collective agreements offer generous retirement gratuities, especially to school employees, and then allow them to cash out unused sick days over the course of their career. At their retirement, they’re cashing out. What’s your response to that?

Now, here’s some background. On average, about 20 sick days per year per employee, often ending up, at the end of their retirement, cashing out almost half a year’s salary.

Minister, will you support—now, clearly—our legislation that ends the public sector practice of cashing out accumulated sick leave at retirement? Would you advise your caucus?

Hon. Charles Sousa: As noted, our government is committed to building a sustainable model for wage negotiations, and these are deals that are negotiated. These are systems that are in place. We recognize the concerns you’ve brought forward. That’s why we’re also addressing them.

What’s important here is that we are negotiating, and we do have settlements and we have collective bargaining agreements that we adhere to. We recognize that the members opposite would rather do away with legislative and negotiated agreements, but that’s not what we’re about. We want results, and we want positive results, and that’s what we’re getting right now. We also want to ensure that those who need the support receive the support required, and we take your recommendations and note your positions.

ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs: Last week, the federal government began dismantling buildings at the world-renowned freshwater research station known as the Experimental Lakes Area. Ten days from now, the site is scheduled to close as a result of the federal Conservatives’ war on science. Every time I have raised this issue in the House, the government has assured us that the province is opposed to the short-sighted and politically motivated decision.

My question is simple: What concrete steps is this government willing to take to prevent the closure of this important research facility?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Orazietti: I want to thank the member, first of all, for the question. It’s a very important question. We’re also, on this side of the House, concerned about this matter. In fact, Minister Bradley wrote to Minister Ashfield, the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and also wrote to Minister Kent, the Minister of the Environment, in this regard, in partnership with Gord Mackintosh, the Minister of Conservation and Water Stewardship of Manitoba. So the Manitoba minister and our minister have indicated the importance of this Experimental Lakes area to the province of Ontario.

The value that has been gained from the research in this particular area over the years is important, but clearly, as the member knows, this is a federal government responsibility. We have a memorandum of agreement with them, but this is fully funded by the federal government. It is their operation right now, and we’re waiting to hear what they’re going to be doing. They’ve indicated that they’re preparing to withdraw. We know it’s $2 million to operate—

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: The fact of the matter is, writing one letter last year just doesn’t cut it. People the world over are concerned about the fate of this very important research centre.

Yesterday, in the House of Commons, my federal New Democratic colleagues used an opposition day motion as an attempt to prevent this closure, but it was defeated by the Conservative majority, who are intent on muzzling scientists and ending research on the environment.

This issue cuts across party lines and has also been raised by leaders across Canada and across the world. It is not about partisan politics; it is about groundbreaking research. People are looking to this provincial government for action, not letter-writing—action.

I once again ask: What commitments will this government make to stop the closure of this facility and to keep it open?

Hon. David Orazietti: Again, Speaker, I want to thank the member. Just to be clear, we’re doing the exact same thing that the NDP government in Manitoba is doing and lobbying the Conservative government federally, so it’s very important to us as well.

I want to say to the member, and you know full well, that the cost of cleanup in this area is approximately $50 million. That’s a liability that we don’t want Ontario taxpayers paying for. However, saying that, we are prepared to work with any organization that’s prepared to come forward. This has also been articulated by the federal government. We are reviewing the matter right now, and we’re prepared to work with anyone to come forward and operate the Experimental Lakes. We think they have tremendous value.

We think it’s extremely unfortunate that the federal government has made this decision. We want them to reverse this decision and fund this particular Experimental Lakes operation, but we’re prepared to consider the options on this going forward.

I thank the member, as well, for contacting me and writing me a letter on this, and we will be getting back to the member.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mr. Grant Crack: My question is to the always inspirational Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

In my riding of Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, there are a lot of young people, and these young people have a lot on their plates, Speaker. They know that getting a job in Ontario’s marketplace is very competitive. They also know that employers often prefer candidates with experience. While young Ontarians are working hard to finish school, they know that when they start looking for a job they might not have the skills or the experience that is necessary to compete for the jobs that they want.

We heard during the throne speech that the new Ontario government is going to focus on youth employment and that we’re going to improve opportunities for Ontario’s young people. Would the minister be able to inform the House what actions our government is taking to ensure that our young people have the experience they need to succeed?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Speaker, I’m not even going to thank the member after that introduction—but I’m pleased to answer the question.

As important as education is, we also recognize that experience goes a very long way in ensuring that young people learn crucial job skills that they’ll carry with them for the rest of their careers and the rest of their lives. That’s why we’ve developed the Ontario Summer Jobs Strategy. Last year, this program helped more than 100,000 high school and post-secondary students find work and gain crucial on-the-job experience. I’ll have more to say about that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Grant Crack: Thank you, Minister. It’s clear that the minister shares my desire and the desire of all members of this House to see our youth succeed. Bringing down the youth unemp