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

March 26, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-Mar-26 (PDF)

L028 - Mon 26 Mar 2012 / Lun 26 mar 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Monday 26 March 2012 Lundi 26 mars 2012

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEBT

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

ONTARIO ECONOMY

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENNE /

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

VISITORS

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COLLINGWOOD BLACKHAWKS

JOB CREATION

ELMIRA MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

DANFORTH EAST

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

BIRTHING CENTRES

DRIVER LICENCES

HEALTH CARE

NORTH YORK GENERAL HOSPITAL

EPILEPSY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (RETROFITTING

OF RETIREMENT HOMES WITH

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

(MODERNISATION DES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE PAR L’INSTALLATION

D’EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

PETITIONS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

SCHOOL FACILITIES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

RENEWABLE ENERGY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

SKILLED TRADES

WIND TURBINES

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

GREENBELT

WIND TURBINES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ACCEPTING SCHOOLS ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 POUR

DES ÉCOLES TOLÉRANTES

The House met at 1030.

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

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s a pleasure to be here today. I would like to welcome, from the great city of Ottawa and the even greater riding of Nepean–Carleton, Councillor Doug Thompson, a former colleague of former mayor Bob Chiarelli, former city councillor Phil McNeely and former city councillor Madeleine Meilleur, who sits directly across from me. He’s here today to support the horse racing industry in Nepean–Carleton.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome some special guests. The parents of the member from Scarborough Southwest—my aunt and uncle—Zia Italia and Zio Tonino Berardinetti are here. Also, all the way from Manfredonia, Italy, visiting Ontario, where they used to reside, are Franco and his beautiful wife, visiting from Manfredonia. I’d like to welcome them.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I wonder if you would help me welcome the Ontario Provincial Council of the Catholic Women’s League of Canada. We’re joined here today by president Marlene Pavletic, Betty Colaneri, Shari Guinta, Colleen Randall and, from Kingston, Ontario, or at least from the Kingston area, Anne Madden. I wonder if you would welcome them, please.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome the family of page Emily Chalmers, from Don Valley West, here today: Anna Stabinski, who is Emily’s grandmother; Bernardo Stabinski, Emily’s grandfather; and Riley Chalmers, Emily’s brother. Welcome.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure today to welcome to our chamber Des Hammill. Des is the father of my right hand, my EA, Ashley Hammill, and he’s here all the way from PEI. Welcome.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Today we have Cathy Dueck, who is the manager of landscape programs with the Peterborough Green-Up; Axel Tscherniak, who is the executive director of Peterborough Green-Up; Vern Bastable, who is the urban forest co-ordinator of Peterborough Green-Up. They’re here today at Queen’s Park for the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition—

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

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I’m pleased to introduce representatives from the Green Infrastructure Ontario Coalition here today in the east members’ gallery. We have Steven Peck, Janet McKay, Deb Martin-Downs, Paul Ronan, Liat Podolsky and Christopher Holcroft. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Speaker, I’d also like to invite members to their reception starting right after question period at 11:30 a.m. in committee room 2.

Mr. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Mr. and Mrs. Amir Khosravani, visiting from Iran.

Mr. Mike Colle: I’d like to welcome a former student of mine from St. Michael’s College School, whose uncle was Father Ed Ronan, who taught me. Paul Ronan is here all the way from beautiful Colgan, Ontario, the potato capital of the world.

M me France Gélinas: It is with much pleasure that I’d like to introduce our health researcher, Mrs. Miriam Barna, with her mother, Laura Alper, and her grandmother Rose Alper, who is also our ultimate go-to when we have a serious question on health promotion. Rose Alper is the person who has all the answers.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): There being no further introductions, it is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PROVINCIAL DEBT

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Last week, you were quoted in a Toronto Sun story saying that Ontario’s debt level “isn’t that bad.” You said it’s at an “acceptable level.”

Premier, let me put this into perspective for you. It took 23 Premiers 136 years to accumulate our first $140 billion in debt. You, sir, are going to double that to $280 billion by next year. So when you say our debt level isn’t that bad, do you mean that you’re just getting started?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We look forward very much to presenting the budget in this House tomorrow. We’ll be speaking to debt issues, deficit issues, funding levels for our schools and our health care. We’ll describe in quite some detail where we believe that we can find some savings. We’ll talk about some of the projects that we think it’s important to continue with and others that we should put on hold. I look forward to doing that in this House.

But it’s been said, Speaker, that a budget is more than just an economic statement; it’s a statement of our values. The values that inform our budget will be those shared by the people of Ontario. They want us to protect the gains that we’ve made in their health care, they want us to protect the gains that we’ve made in their education, and they want us to build a strong foundation for jobs and growth. That’s exactly what our budget will do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, our position is one of values, one that says you can only spend within your means, that you can only buy as much government as you can afford and that we need to balance the books in the province of Ontario.

We say that, Speaker, because that’s also a jobs plan. One thing we’ve learned is that higher levels of debts chase jobs out of our province. They chill investment; they chill job creation. The Ontario PC Party wants to see an Ontario that’s strong, that’s vibrant, that’s creating jobs. That means getting spending under control.

So Premier, I’ll ask you again. You said Ontario’s debt level is not that bad. You said it’s an acceptable level. I’ll remind you that you’ve added on more debt than from John Sandfield Macdonald to Premier Ernie Eves combined. Can you tell us today, Premier, are we actually going to be on track to doubling our debt or tripling it under Premier McGuinty?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague a little bit of our record that he might not care to reflect upon. We’ve eliminated a $5.6-billion deficit that we inherited, Speaker. We then balanced our budget three times in a row. I’ll remind my honourable colleague that we keep exceeding our fiscal targets. I’ll remind him of that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’s where I want it.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: A couple of other important facts that are worthy of our shared recollection: Ontario spends the least in the country on a per capita basis. We also employ the fewest public servants per capita in the country.

There is more work to be done. I share that imperative with my honourable colleague, Speaker, but I think it’s important that we do it in the right way.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, Speaker, this just reinforces my point. When I hear the Premier make his argument that Ontario spends the least of the rest of the provinces, it just shows he doesn’t understand the big hole he has dug us into. He doesn’t seem to understand that we have a spending problem, not a revenue problem.

I want to say, Speaker, that I was proud to be part of the PC government that brought in five consecutive balanced budgets and had the biggest debt repayment in the history of the province of Ontario. As a result, Ontario had one of the best debt-to-GDP—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I was going to make an attempt to get the other side quiet, but the heckling is happening when I’m trying to get them to be quiet—and on the other side. It goes both ways. Allow the question to be put.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker. Again, we had the biggest debt repayment in the history of the province, at $5 billion.

Premier, let me ask you a very simple, straightforward question—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Question.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —you approach these issues. Premier, are we in such significant debt because we’ve spent too much money or because we don’t get enough revenue? What do you truly believe?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, my honourable colleague says he takes some pride in their government’s record with respect to balancing the budget. I again remind him that he left Ontarians a $5.6-billion hidden deficit. We had to pass a new law that says you can’t hide deficits anymore; you’ve got to be very transparent.

I say to my honourable colleague as well that the approach that they brought was, for example, to cut social assistance rates by 22%. That’s not an approach we’re prepared to take. We are not prepared to balance the budget on the backs of needy families and the backs of our children. That’s not an approach we’re prepared to take.

Having said that, I’m very confident our budget will be informed by the right choices, will protect health care, protect education and lay a strong foundation for jobs and growth.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: It continues to concern me that you don’t seem to understand that you have a spending problem here in Ontario. Your approach has been to try to get more revenue, and all we’ve seen in your budget leaks today, quite frankly, Premier, are tax grabs or temporary delays, one-year postponements, gradual phase-ins. Sir, that’s not going to cut it when we’re heading towards a $30-billion deficit. We’re heading towards tripling the provincial debt.

So, Premier, no more one-offs, no more papering over the problems, no more trying to fill up the cracks and no more blaming the federal government for the problems you’ve created. Let me ask you directly: Will we actually see across-the-board spending reductions tomorrow instead of just simple postponements and delays of the tough decisions?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I say to my honourable colleague that there will be no reckless, thoughtless, across-the-board cuts, in keeping with the good advice we got from the Drummond commission in that regard.

I say to my honourable colleague he’s interested that we pursue, in an aggressive way, cuts to government spending. I’m very interested in seeing the look on my honourable colleague’s face and those of his colleagues when we stop some capital projects. I’ll be very interested in getting their reaction at that point in time, Speaker.

We’re no longer going to fund horse racing in Ontario. My honourable colleague has a specific problem with that as well. We are going to be selling off some of our office buildings. Again, it would be nice to have the support of my honourable colleague in that regard.

Some capital projects, as I say, will be delayed; others will be stopped. Those are very specific areas where there will be some expenditure savings. I look forward to receiving my honourable colleague’s support in all those areas.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’re reinforcing my point. All you’ve announced to date are tax grabs or temporary postponements. You mentioned capital projects: You’re going to simply postpone those. You mentioned the child tax benefit: You’re just going to simply phase in a spending increase. You’re going to have one-time sell-offs of government buildings and then rent them back when, in reality, you need to shrink the footprint. You need to reduce the size and cost of government. That’s the way of balancing the books in the province of Ontario.

I’m very concerned here. You don’t seem to understand you have a spending problem. You’re going to delay capital a little bit, but your operating costs are going to increase. So I understand correctly, Premier, that you will continue to spend on the operating side. You mentioned “reckless” and “thoughtless.” It is reckless and thoughtless to run up the debt to continue the operating increases that are mortgaging the future of our children and grandchildren.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the advice offered by my honourable colleague, but I think it would be fair to categorize it as rather high-level rhetoric.

Here’s a specific, Speaker: We can save $375 million every year if we put an end to our subsidies for horse racing in Ontario. I am encouraging my honourable colleague to stand with us in that regard so that, together, we can lend continuing support to health care and education. That’s a choice, Speaker—and by the way, that means rural health care and rural education.

Education and health care help all our families; horse racing helps a few. We’ve got to make some choices that benefit all our families in all parts of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, Premier, there is a superficial, if not supercilious approach you’re taking on a serious issue in the province of Ontario, and that’s that we’re heading towards a $30-billion deficit.

Premier, I’ll say again: All I’ve seen from you are revenue grabs, which tell me you think you’ve got a revenue problem, not a spending problem; or temporary delays, postponements or gradual phase-ins, but you’re still taking us over the cliff. When you came into office, our debt-to-GDP ratio was 28%. You’ve now put it to 38%, and you’re heading towards 50%. The reason is, you spend too much. You spend too much on the operating side.

I’ll ask you one last time: Will you reverse course? Will you admit you have an operating spending problem and not a revenue problem here in our great province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague again of two incontrovertible, irrefutable facts. As a government, nobody’s spending less on a per capita basis than we are here in Ontario. As a government, nobody employs fewer public servants on a per capita basis than we are here in Ontario. So I think it’s important for my honourable colleague to understand that.

I would also say that we’re not prepared to do what he has been recommending. We will not cut full-day kindergarten. We will not increase our class sizes. We will not eliminate our 30% tuition grant for the benefit of our middle-income and low-income families. Those are important contributors to a growing strength in the province of Ontario, bringing us into an era where we’ll be competitive with the best in the world.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier says that Ontario’s deficit has got to get under control, and to get it under control, difficult choices have to be made. But people are troubled by the ones he’s already making, and last week, we saw a lot of examples.

Families are worried about tough times that we’re facing. Does the Premier really think that the CEO pay raises that we saw last week and privatization are putting the interests of families first?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague.

I’m convinced that she and her party will want to support some of the measures that we will continue to support through our budget: full-day kindergarten—they stand in favour of that, I believe; smaller classes—I believe they stand in favour of that; maintaining 20,000 jobs in the education sector—I believe they stand in favour of that; short wait times—I think they support that; transitioning to greater levels of support for home care—I think they support that as well, Speaker; supporting our 200 family health teams that are looking after 2.8 million patients—I think they support that; supporting our movement to ensure that every Ontarian has an electronic health record; we’re at 7.5 million Ontarians so far—I believe they support all those measures, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families are looking for concrete action to protect jobs, to improve health care and to make life more affordable, and they’re looking to this government for leadership. What signal does it send when they see that public sector CEOs got raises of up to half a million dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would encourage my honourable colleague to stay tuned for the budget and measures that will specifically address the concern that she is raising.

But I’d say beyond that—I say again—the budget is about choices. Our choice, Speaker, is to ensure that we protect the gains that we have made together in our schools and in our health care. At the same time, I want to ensure that we continue to lay an ever stronger foundation for jobs and growth.

So if there’s anything that my honourable colleagues may wish to offer by way of support for those kinds of directions, then we are all ears, and we look forward to presenting this budget, as I say, tomorrow, which will embody the right choices that Ontarians want us to make.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the everyday people who make this province work understand that we’re in very tough times, but they also know that Ontario won’t get better if they continue to fall behind.

The Premier talks about jobs and growth. Over the last week, in communities across Ontario, people learned that they’re going to be losing their jobs. On Friday, it was a decision to privatize Ontario Northland.

Can the Premier explain why Ontario can’t afford smart investments that create and protect jobs where they’re badly needed, but can afford seven-figure salaries in the public sector and scandalous waste like that that happened in Ornge?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, again, I would encourage my honourable colleagues to stay tuned to the budget. I believe that they will find ample reason to support certainly some of the measures found in that budget, in particular those that continue to provide support to families on social assistance.

I can say this: There will be modest increases in those areas of highest priority—health care, education and social services. I’ve not talked a great deal about that last one publicly, but there will be modest increases in health care, education and social services. Other areas of government expenditure will either be flatlined or they will see decreases in their levels of funding. But again, it’s about recognizing that we can’t do everything in the way that we always have, Speaker. We’ve got to make some choices. We’ve got to attach priorities, and we’re saying health care and education and social services will rank first.

GOVERNMENT POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The people I meet around this province are worried about their jobs, if they even have one. They haven’t seen the 600,000 jobs that the HST and corporate tax giveaways were supposed to bring. Over the last week, the government has announced plans to kill thousands of direct jobs and privatized job-creating infrastructure like Ontario Northland.

We’ve proposed real measures to create jobs, replacing corporate tax giveaways with tax breaks that are actually linked to job creation and ensuring that natural resources stay here in Ontario to create jobs.

My question, Speaker, is: Will the Premier try some new ideas to actually create jobs, or can we expect more layoffs in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I want to remind my honourable colleague that since the recession, nobody has created more jobs in Canada than Ontario—over 300,000 jobs. Last year, we created over 120,000 new jobs.

I say to my honourable—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —my vociferous honourable colleague on the other side that the facts, in fact, demonstrate that the overwhelming majority of those jobs are full-time jobs, and the overwhelming majority of those jobs pay above the average industrial wage in Ontario. We’re creating new jobs that are better jobs.

To demonstrate just how important our educational levels are in that regard, last year we lost 9,000 high school-level jobs, but we created some 119,000 new jobs for people with post-secondary education. Those are good, high-paying jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the fact is, we lost 4,000 full-time jobs last month. I guess the Premier forgot about that one.

Household budgets are under pressure like never before. More and more people are feeling like they’re falling behind, and over the last week, the government has made it clear that they plan to demand even more from families.

We have made proposals to make life much more affordable in Ontario, like taking the HST off home heating and reviewing our electricity system to eliminate duplication and restore public ownership and accountability in the electric system.

My question is: Will the Premier try some new ideas to make life more affordable, or will we expect, yet again, to have a more expensive Ontario for everyday families in tomorrow’s budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’ll remind my honourable colleague of two important things about full-day kindergarten: One, it saves a family over $6,000 annually per child in child care costs. Secondly, Speaker, we’ve just received some new independent information about just how full-day kindergarten is working in Ontario. A comparison between a full-day kindergarten child and a half-day kindergarten child has become very pronounced in terms of the increased abilities in numeracy, literacy and fine motor skills that we’re seeing in our children who are in the full-day kindergarten program.

So I would ask my honourable colleague to continue to support full-day kindergarten, not only because it gives our families an economic advantage but because it gives all of us a stronger economic advantage as we build a stronger workforce for the future.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, families know that we can improve our health care system and save money with smart investments. They were happy to see the government follow the New Democrats’ lead by introducing birthing centres in Ontario. But I can tell you, they’re very sick of seeing hospital CEOs get yet another round of pay hikes while seniors are being cut off of home care in this province. We proposed measures to improve health care, starting with capping outrageous CEO salaries, Speaker, and taking that money and putting it on the front line. Eliminating waits for home care is another idea. Wait-lists for home care are far too long.

My question to the Premier is this: Will the Premier try some new ideas to improve health care, or can we expect more of the same in tomorrow’s budget when it comes to health care as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I think there’s a pretty long list of innovations that we’ve introduced into health care in Ontario, the latest being our birthing centres. I’m pleased to have the support of the opposition. I believe both parties support that particular measure.

There also are family health teams. We had none before; now we have 200. These are teams of doctors and nurse practitioners and nurses and physiotherapists and other health care professionals. Together, around the province, they’re caring for 2.8 million Ontario patients. Before, we had none, Speaker. We’ve also got North America’s first nurse-practitioner-led clinics. We’re very proud of those as well.

So we’re open to new ideas. I just say to my honourable colleagues in the opposition that there will be a number of new ideas, of course, to be found in the budget.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the Premier. Ontario is in its deepest decline in memory. Not even Bob Rae’s spending managed to sink Ontario to the depths that this government has brought us to over the past eight years.

Liberals always avoid taking responsibility for their runaway spending, just like they did in the last campaign, by hiring themselves an economist to give them some ideas on how to get Ontario out of the mess they’ve created. That economist gave them a blueprint for what must be done if our province is to emerge from the hole that Liberal spending and mismanagement have created.

To date, the Liberals still haven’t figured out that they may actually have to do the job that they were elected to do: govern. That means making the decisions that are right for Ontario instead of profitable for the Liberal Party.

When will this government finally admit that it has no plan, that it has no vision? When will they adopt the recommendations that our party has made to balance—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I appreciate the question. I want to come back to this issue of choices and values. My honourable colleague took the opportunity yesterday to voice his displeasure regarding our decision not to freeze the Ontario child benefit.

The Ontario child benefit is something we’re very proud of on this side of the House. It’s a Liberal government innovation. We introduced it in 2007. It was $250 at the time. It now meets the needs of some one million Ontario children growing up in poverty, providing their parents with about $100 every month. We’ve decided that we can’t implement the growth in that particular benefit as quickly as we would like, so we’re going to take a bit more time to do that.

But again, I would encourage my honourable colleague to rethink the situation. This is something that I think is in keeping with the values that we all share as Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I might say, Speaker, that my displeasure voiced yesterday was with the fact that this Premier, as usual, did not follow the advice of his own economist. For eight years, the McGuinty government has spent Ontario into an almost insurmountable mess: eight years of increasing debt and deficits, eight years of scandals, eight years of avoiding accountability, and the trend continues. The McGuinty government continues to avoid doing the responsible thing and reining in public salaries, and we all know why: They don’t want to rock the boat with the unions that support them at campaign time.

Now that the money has run out, now that they’ve bankrupted Ontario and there’s no money left to support their spending addiction, will the McGuinty government finally admit that it is out of steam and out of ideas? Will they implement the recommendations that we put forward repeatedly to balance the budget and get Ontario back to recovery?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: That’s a lot of anger and a lot of pessimism in one guy, Speaker.

I just can’t accept that, obviously. Just a few more facts: We’ve got North America’s biggest auto sector. We have the fastest-growing clean energy sector in North America. We have become the mining capital of the world, with incredible opportunities. We had our best year ever last year in mining, Speaker. Our banks—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Good news hurts, Speaker; it hurts.

Our banks are rated the best in the world and our financial services sector is the largest in North America next to New York. Ontario is in the top three in North America in biotech, information and communication technology, and the film industry, and the list goes on and on, Speaker.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

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

More than a year ago, the Minister of Health ignored a detailed memo outlining Ornge plans, including the creation of for-profit spin-offs and pay for executives. She also ignored countless whistle-blowers. Then she ignored a draft report by the Auditor General. It seems to me the Minister of Health didn’t do her job. Why, Premier, is she keeping it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: As the honourable member is aware, as members are aware, this Wednesday the public accounts committee will have a chance to look into the Ornge situation. Mr. Speaker, they’ll be able to learn about the action that has been taken by the Minister of Health. When she found out there was wrongdoing, she took action in terms of dismissing the board and the CEO; in terms of putting forward a new performance agreement; in terms of forensic auditors; and in terms of bringing in the police.

But you know, Mr. Speaker, it’s very interesting that the honourable member stands here today and talks about ignoring documentation. We’ve discovered that the New Democratic Party has failed to provide this Legislature with certain information that on December 15, 2010, the leader of the New Democratic Party as well as the member from Nickel Belt were sent a similar detailed memo from Ornge, outlining the same information.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: What happened at Ornge under this government’s watch is staggering. The health minister’s latest excuse—that she was too busy during the election to worry about wasted health care dollars—actually points to an even greater level of not doing her job. If regularly ignoring a situation where millions of our health care dollars line the pockets of executives and well-connected insiders does not get a minister fired, what does?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’m happy that the page is right now sending over a copy of this letter, which, as I said, was sent on December 15, 2010. It talks about a $275-million bond; it talks about the helicopter purchase; it talks about the acquisition of the new headquarters; and it talks about for-profit ventures.

Let me quote page five of the letter, Mr. Speaker: “Ornge is ... free to earn other sources of revenue.... Ornge already earns revenue other than government sources and is engaged in businesses other than the delivery of the Ontario system.... These additional sources of revenue ... are growing.”

I ask, Mr. Speaker, when the NDP sat on that information for 15 months, why did they not raise questions in this House? Why did they not contact the Minister of Health? It’s passing strange, the double standard that the member and her party are bringing to this debate in the Legislature.

GOVERNMENT OFFICE SPACE

Mr. David Zimmer: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure. Last week, you announced the plan to modernize the way government manages its office space—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Put the question, please.

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, last week you announced the plan to modernize the way government manages its office space, including the sale and lease-back of buildings around the province and a big reduction in the amount of leased space here in Toronto. In the private sector, here in Toronto, maximizing the efficient use of leased or owned real estate has long been under way. Those large organizations that have made space management part of their business strategies have seen real impact on their bottom lines.

Minister, is this just a short-term initiative to raise money over the next year or so, or is this a long-term commitment that’s going to have results in perpetuity?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member of Willowdale for this very timely question. The answer is both: Our strategy targets generating $500 million for Ontarians up front and creating savings of over $300 million in the long term. This is an approach that is consistent with recommendations of Mr. Drummond and of the provincial Auditor General to dramatically reduce the government’s leased space.

In Toronto, for example, the most expensive real estate market in the country, we lease over 100 buildings. Our footprint in the city is 7.8 million square feet, and 4.8 million of that is leased space.

So to the Leader of the Opposition: We’re reducing the amount of space we lease in the city of Toronto by one million square feet. That’s about the same size as 43 floors of the Toronto-Dominion tower. We are making progress, and we are reducing our footprint.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. David Zimmer: Minister, I know what prime Toronto real estate goes for these days on a per-square-foot basis. If the government leases a million square feet less—or, as you say, 43 floors in the TD tower—that’s tens of millions of dollars, year after year, that’s not going out the door in rent. It’s simply not sustainable, Minister, for a government to be maintaining an average of 250 square feet of space per employee, when in the private sector they manage quite well with about 180 or 200 square feet.

But Minister, what about those regions outside Toronto, where long-owned government buildings are being sold? Do these sales outside Toronto indicate in any way a change of the government’s commitments to jobs and services in those communities outside Toronto?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I want to say that the entire strategy offers long-term benefits to Ontario families who want to see resources focused on their priorities: health care and education. Ontarians expect us to make these kinds of smart, thoughtful and efficient choices. This choice generates money in the near term, savings in the long term, and has no negative impact on government services or jobs in those communities. We have the opportunity now to deliver genuine value for money, injecting some private-sector discipline and investment into our real estate portfolio, with savings and efficiencies going into health care and education.

We’re looking at about half a billion dollars to be generated on the front end of this strategy, and an additional $300 million in net savings over the longer term. This is the right approach at the right time.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. I have here two reports issued by the Auditor General. The first one is dated October 2009, and it relates to the eHealth scandal; the second one is the Auditor General’s report of this past week relating to the Ornge scandal.

The similarities are striking. In fact, the Auditor General could have used the same template for each of these reports because, in both reports, the Auditor General issues a scathing—scathing—indictment of the Ministry of Health for failing to exercise its oversight over the Ministry of Health.

I want to know from the Premier: Why, in the case of the eHealth scandal, was the former Minister of Health required to step down, and why does he insist on protecting the current Minister of Health?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, this Wednesday the public accounts committee will begin its hearings into the Ornge situation. There’ll be an opportunity for members to question the Auditor General—beginning with him—and other witnesses on relevant—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I also think there’ll be an opportunity at the committee meeting to discuss what all members of this Legislature knew about the Ornge situation—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

I will begin to identify individual members.

Hon. John Milloy: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, at the committee, they can look into the activities of the member for Whitby–Oshawa, who, we discovered, on May 19 was briefed by Ornge on all of their operations and was given an 18-page deck, outlining all aspects of their operations, including—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. John Milloy: —controversy. Mr. Speaker, what did the honourable member do with that information? Well, Mr. Speaker—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question was for the Premier, and it speaks to the Premier’s leadership role and responsibility in this province.

My question was very straightforward: Why is one Minister of Health required to step aside for affairs and the lack of oversight at the Ministry of Health, and why does he protect the current minister? Instead of answering that question, the Premier hides behind his House leader, who doesn’t answer the question because it’s not his role to answer the question.

I would ask the Premier: Will he at least have the courage to explain to the people of this province why he is failing in his leadership role—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. Government House leader.

Interjections.

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

Government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, as I said, I look forward to the committee hearings, when perhaps the member from Whitby–Oshawa, or other representatives, can explain that, when she received the information—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville will come to order.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps they’ll explain why the member for Whitby–Oshawa did nothing when she had the briefing—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings will get a warning next time.

Hon. John Milloy: —nothing, that is, except to lobby the Ministry of Health to have an Ornge base established in her riding—a lobby which, in fact, was successful to the point where she was able to attend a press conference in July and have a flashy picture done of her with an Ornge helicopter that I would be happy to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member knows that that would be classified as a prop and it’s not accepted in this House.

New question.

SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENNE /

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

M. Michael Mantha: Ma question est au premier ministre. Avec tous les détails concernant les hélicoptères d’Ornge et les implications des compagnies à profit, c’est clair que le vérificateur n’a pas toutes les réponses. Cette Assemblée a passé une motion de créer un comité spécial pour répondre à ce désastre d’Ornge. Est-ce que le gouvernement respectera les décisions de cette Assemblée et mandatera le comité spécial?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: J’aimerais remercier le membre pour sa question.

Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out on a number of occasions already today, this Wednesday the public accounts committee, a committee of this Legislature, will be holding hearings into the Ornge situation. It’s a chance for members of all sides of the House to share their involvement in the collection of information over the past year or 18 months.

As I said, the member represents the New Democratic Party. Perhaps the leader and the health critic could come forward and explain why they were given this type of detailed briefing note that they have made no end of in question period over the past number of weeks. They were given such a document in December 2010 and failed to raise questions in this House, failed to bring it to the attention of the Minister of Health or failed to talk to—

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

Mr. Michael Mantha: Again, Mr. Speaker, my question was to the Premier, not the House leader.

As money lined the pockets of well-connected insiders, the health minister clearly didn’t do her job to oversee the public health care dollars. But it was the Premier’s top aide that chose to ignore a January 2011 memo from Ornge detailing their shady ventures. Is the Premier refusing to strike an all-party committee on Ornge because he’s worried that the answers might lead straight through his office on the second floor?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, as I said, the public accounts committee will begin hearings on Wednesday that will last over several sessions. At the same time, the minister has put forward legislation in this House, which, if it passes at second reading, will go to a standing committee of the Legislature. There will be ample time to discuss all aspects of it.

But again, the member stands and makes a big deal out of this memo in January 2011, but he fails to talk about a similar memo which was sent not only to his leader but to the health minister in December 2010, one which outlined all aspects of Ornge operations, including those that have caused so much controversy. I note, Mr. Speaker, that despite having that memo, the NDP failed to raise any questions in this Legislature or make an issue out of the information that they had received.

ARTS AND CULTURAL FUNDING

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: My question is to the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport. My riding of Ottawa Centre is a vibrant and exciting part of the national capital’s artistic, cultural and festival scene. Minister, my community is proud to host many of the great attractions in Ottawa, from major events like the Bluesfest, the jazz fest, the tulip festival and Winterlude, to great venues like the National Arts Centre and the great, new, fantastic Ottawa Convention Centre. These are top-notch attractions in Ontario and beyond and are enjoyed by my constituents, but also welcome people from across the province and from around the world.

Speaker, I’m also very proud of another fantastic event in our city this weekend: the Juno Awards, that are coming back to Ottawa. With many events throughout the week and the awards this Sunday evening, can the minister tell us how the government of Ontario is supporting this signature event—

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

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. I want to thank the honourable member from Ottawa Centre for asking.

I’m proud to say that this week the city of Ottawa, with $381,000 in support from our government, is hosting the 2012 Juno Awards. Honouring achievement in the Canadian recorded music industry, the Juno Awards will generate $5 million in direct expenditures by out-of-town visitors, 4,500 booked hotel room nights, and make a $5.3-million contribution to Ontario’s gross domestic product.

Speaker, the Junos are the most watched award show on CTV in Canada, attracting over 80,000 attendees throughout the week and more than one million television viewers. Our government will continue to support the arts and culture sector in Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: We’re very excited for a great weekend ahead in Ottawa with the Juno Awards. This is a great opportunity to showcase our beautiful city and its vibrant cultural scene to our fellow Canadians across the country through a high-profile event like the 2012 Juno Awards.

I’m sure that my constituents, the residents of Ottawa and all Ontarians are pleased to know that our government is supporting this one-of-a-kind annual awards attraction which generates significant economic activity in return.

Could the minister also tell us how our government is helping the music and film sectors to grow and expand into vital new markets and helping to create jobs and economic growth in Ontario? And perhaps he may have an insight as to who may win the best album this year at the Junos.

Hon. Michael Chan: In addition to the Juno Awards taking place in Ottawa, I’m happy to share with you, Speaker, that just a few days ago, Canadian Music Week and the Canadian Music and Broadcast Industry Awards were held in Toronto. Our government has provided over $1 million in support of these events since 2005, and over $8 million to the Ontario music industry since 2003.

In addition, Speaker, after last year’s IIFA weekend and awards, our government invested $90,000 for the Ontario Media Development Corp. in a trade mission to India that, just recently, resulted in a deal between Ontario’s Inner City Films and India’s Ramoji Film City to co-produce three Bollywood films in Ontario.

Speaker, our film industry experienced a robust year in 2011. We are expecting a great success in—

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

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Premier, and I hope he will understand that it’s time for him to demonstrate a little leadership and actually answer a question.

The Auditor General’s scathing report on Ornge has confirmed that your health minister was woefully negligent and ignored numerous warnings that a scandal was brewing. It’s not unlike what happened at eHealth, when David Caplan was forced to resign.

Premier, in light of the Auditor General’s scathing indictment of the health minister, will you now also ask for your health minister’s resignation, as you did for David Caplan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: No, I will not. I’ve made that clear several times over now.

I understand, and I think we should accept, that there is an important distinction to be drawn here between the public interest—and our government has a responsibility to uphold the public interest—and the partisan interest being expressed by my colleagues opposite.

The question is, what does the public interest demand in these circumstances? I think it begins with an acknowledgement, Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I respect my honourable colleagues’ right to make the representations that they do, but we differ in this. I think the public interest demands that we take steps—concrete, substantive measures—to bring the necessary oversight to bear and to introduce new legislation, and we’ve done that, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, through you to the Premier: Premier, this past weekend, the public didn’t see things differently. They agreed that just as David Caplan did the honourable thing by resigning, this minister should as well. She acknowledged last week that she didn’t read the report in September because she was too busy campaigning; yet she made several announcements as minister during the campaign. Apparently, she could write cheques during the election but she couldn’t oversee a corrupt agency that was putting lives at risk.

I ask you again, will you do the honourable thing? Just like David Caplan did the honourable thing and resign, will you call upon your health minister to also do so?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, Speaker, it’s about the public interest and I guess it’s only fair that we might have our differences with respect to how we might represent the public interest in here. But I happen to believe that Minister Matthews has done a very good job in her capacity as the Minister of Health. As soon as she was briefed, she took concrete and substantive measures. She sent in a team of forensic accountants. On the basis of that information obtained because of that exercise, she asked that the OPP investigate. She co-operated fully with the Auditor General.

She has introduced new legislation in this House. She has entered into a new performance agreement. She has gotten rid of the CEO and introduced a new board of directors. I think all of those speak to our responsibility to uphold the public interest.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. The Ontario Northland Transportation Commission “provides services which are vital to the north’s economy and we will not allow it to be privatized”—Dalton McGuinty, March 31, 2003; nice quote. Yet, on Friday, you announced the elimination of the ONTC. Ontario Northland employs nearly 1,000 people. It moves passengers and freight across the north. It’s a lifeline for residents in northern Ontario.

A lot of them won’t be able to travel out of their communities without that service, and that service will not be replaced by private companies. We see that in other parts of the north who have to rely on private companies; they’re losing their service. So why, sir, are you allowing your government to turn your back on the residents of northeastern Ontario?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I thank the member for the question, because it is a very, very important issue in northern Ontario. We’re not eliminating. The member used the word “eliminating.” Nothing could be further from the truth. We’re divesting the ONTC from our government’s assets. That’s not a foreclosure. Elimination is a foreclosure. We are not foreclosing.

What we are doing is going to be building a stronger transportation system for northeastern Ontario for that corridor. We’re going to be working with everyone to ensure that we protect the asset, the worth, of the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission, so that we’re able to maximize, in the new model, jobs—project jobs. In fact, we’re very confident that as we move forward, we’ll be able to increase jobs and get some of the business back.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: We have all heard this song before: Privatize and the world will be yours. Well, we’ve had private winter road maintenance in northern Ontario, and believe me, northerners will tell you that it’s not better.

The north is once again rising as the powerhouse of the province. The ONTC could and should be part of that. It was Ontario’s development road. It could once again be Ontario’s development road, right to the Ring of Fire. Once again, why are you throwing away the province’s stake, our stake? Why are you killing the Ontario Northland?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Again, let me reinforce and emphasize—we’re not killing the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. The previous government wanted to kill the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. We’re not killing. We are divesting the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission. We’re putting it up for sale to the private sector because we honestly believe that, as we move forward in developing the enormous potential of the economy of northern Ontario, we can best do that with a modern transportation system that includes not only rail; it includes air. It ensures that we’re meeting the potential of northern Ontario with a very, very modern transportation system.

AGGREGATE EXTRACTION

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, as you know, aggregates, such as sand and gravel, are vital to Ontario’s economy. Aggregates are used to build roads, bridges, hospitals, schools—in fact, much of the infrastructure that all Ontarians use on a daily basis.

While it’s true that aggregates are relatively plentiful in Ontario, the State of the Aggregate Resource in Ontario study commissioned by our government shows that rising demand due to population growth, and land constraints, such as in my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, could significantly deplete aggregate resources within 20 years. The report also found that there is serious public concern about the social and environmental costs of aggregate extraction and transportation. Can the minister please update the members of this House how our government is managing aggregate resources in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to thank the member from Oak Ridges–Markham for raising this very important question. I think it’s fair to say that all members of this House recognize that aggregate resources are indeed necessary for our economy, to keep building the infrastructure that Ontario relies upon, including roads, bridges and hospitals.

Because the public sector is the largest purchaser of aggregates in Ontario, we want to ensure adequate supply of aggregates now and in the future at the fairest price for Ontario taxpayers.

I also know, Mr. Speaker, that working together, we can balance our need for aggregates while also ensuring we protect our water and our environment. That is why all parties of this House have agreed to refer a review of the Aggregate Resources Act to a standing committee, a move that was unanimously supported in the Legislature last week. I look forward to working with all the parties in the House to get the review right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: I’m glad that our government is taking such a balanced approach. I raise this question because a number of my constituents have expressed concerns about the impact of aggregate extraction on our natural environment. In particular, my constituents are concerned that the heightened demand for aggregates may lead to new extraction around the Oak Ridges moraine, where it is currently restricted in order to protect its natural heritage.

Minister, I know that my constituents are not the only ones raising these concerns. I’ve heard that similar issues have been raised in other communities, especially as it relates to the loss of agricultural lands and impacts on their water.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What specifically is your ministry doing to address these concerns?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want the member from Oak Ridges–Markham and other members to let their constituents know that our government has certainly listened to their concerns and the concerns raised by communities regarding the extraction of aggregates in Ontario and its potential impact on the environment.

I’m certainly very pleased the motion passed last week with unanimous consent, and I do think it’s fair to say that we expect each party on the Standing Committee on General Government will be giving it a full review and will come forward with recommendations that will strengthen the act by seeking advice and insight from key stakeholders. The all-party committee certainly provides a wonderful opportunity to ensure that we all have a say in the management of this vital resource. So I’m looking forward to the recommendations the all-party committee brings forward, and as the process unfolds, we’re committed to sharing those details of the review with the people of Ontario.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Bill Walker: My question is for the Premier. In relation to the eHealth boondoggle, the auditor reported $1 billion wasted when the computer system was not up and running.

In regard to the Ornge debacle, the auditor reported on $1 billion spent on helicopters that had their windows blown out and rotors falling off, and operational problems that are a concern of the coroner, looking into it as a possible cause of death.

Premier, I would like to know why David Caplan lost his job and Minister Matthews keeps hers. Premier, leadership is about making tough decisions when necessary. Why does Minister Matthews keep her job when you threw Caplan under the bus? I ask you to do the right thing and ask the health minister to resign.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. John Milloy: As I mentioned in this House Wednesday, comprehensive hearings by a standing committee of this Legislature—in fact, chaired by the honourable member’s party—will be looking into the Ornge situation. They’ll have a chance to learn first-hand of the actions that the minister took when she found out about wrongdoing. She replaced the board and the CEO. She replaced the new performance agreement. She called in forensic auditors. She introduced tough new legislation.

But it will also be an opportunity for the member from Whitby-Ajax to talk about her briefing on May 19 and why, when she was given detailed information about Ornge operations, she failed to ask questions in this Legislature. She failed to alert the authorities or the Minister of Health. All she did, Mr. Speaker, was lobby to have an Ornge base in her riding.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Bill Walker: I’ll once again redirect to the Premier. It’s shameful to sidestep. The Premier keeps protecting the Minister of Health from accountability for Ornge, saying she is needed to drive other reforms. With Ornge on her resumé‚ I would suggest she isn’t qualified for the job.

Does the Premier believe there’s no one else in his whole caucus who is capable of doing a better job than the current health minister? Premier, it’s absurd that you would continue to excuse this type of behaviour. The minister needs to accept responsibility for the misdeeds under her watch.

I ask you again: Why are you not firing her? Will you do the right thing and ask her for her resignation?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. If this happens again, I wanted to make sure that you heard my first comment when the desks were being pounded. In case you didn’t hear it because of the noise, I will begin to look at individual members, and I will bring them to order. If they do not come to order, I will name them. I want the minister to answer the question—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And if the member from Durham continues to speak while I’m speaking, he will be named.

Interjection: Name him.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need that either.

Start the clock. Minister.

Hon. John Milloy: Like I said, Mr. Speaker, Wednesday’s public accounts meeting will be a chance to discuss all aspects of this, including as I’ve said, why, when the member received the briefing on May 19, the only follow-up she did was to continue to lobby for an Ornge base in her riding. I quote from a letter she sent to the Honourable Deb Matthews, Minister of Health: “As you know, Ornge is planning to relocate one of its air ambulance helicopters to the eastern greater Toronto area in order to enhance its emergency response coverage. Based on my meetings with concerned stakeholders, there are numerous advantages to support introducing this service to Oshawa.”

SEVERANCE PAYMENTS

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. In January 2011, Debbie Sevenpifer was fired as CEO at the Niagara Health System. According to the sunshine list last week, she received a payment of $618,000. But according to the NHS, that’s only part of her severance.

Does the Premier think that handing a hospital CEO a six- or seven-digit cheque after being fired is a good use of front-line health care dollars?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague that we have worked very hard on our side to introduce more transparency and more accountability with respect to these kinds of issues. I say to my honourable colleague that the correct kinds of questions she asked herself with respect to this particular issue are the kinds of questions that we of course ask ourselves over here. I say to my honourable colleague as well, I think I’ve made it public that I’ve already asked the finance minister to take into account, in the delivery of his budget, specific new measures that we might put in place to deal with these very kinds of issues.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cindy Forster: Whether it’s closing local hospital emergency departments like in Port Colborne and Fort Erie, or failing to provide adequate mental health services in Niagara, families in Niagara have watched their health care system erode before their eyes. They’re rightly outraged when their health care system hands over over $600,000 in a severance package.

CEO severance packages need to be capped. Why won’t the Premier condemn this golden handshake to the Niagara Health System’s former CEO?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I think the sentiment that I share with my honourable colleague and, I assume, all colleagues in this House is that the message we want to send to those people who have the privilege of serving on our hospital boards is that they need to be accountable to taxpayers, not just in the community but right across the province. They need to understand how important it is that we send as many of those precious taxpayer dollars all the way to the front lines in terms of better services.

We’ve had some tremendous success in that regard. We have the shortest wait times in Canada. We’ve built a number of new hospitals; we have expanded close to 100 others. We’ve made real progress, and the message that we’re sending together, I believe, as a Legislature, to all those people who sit on our boards is that it’s very important to be mindful of the responsibility they owe to Ontario taxpayers.

VISITORS

Ms. Sarah Campbell: I rise on a point of order. It is my distinct pleasure to introduce Jim Boudreau and his lovely wife, Patti, who are up in the public gallery. Jim is the MLA for Guysborough–Sheet Harbour in Darrell Dexter’s NDP government in Nova Scotia. In our recent Ontario election, Jim came all the way up to Kenora–Rainy River to help get me elected, and for that I thank him.

MINISTER’S COMMENTS

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

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I’ve given your office notice of a matter of privilege I wish to raise. May I proceed?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I am aware of the member’s writings. I would ask him to give us a brief

summary of the point of privilege, and I will hear the member from Cambridge.

Mr. Rob Leone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to summarize my notice that I gave your office earlier this morning. Pursuant to standing order 21(c), I provided the Speaker with the required written notice of a point of privilege that I’m raising.

During question period of Thursday, March 22, I heard multiple statements from the Minister of Health that concerned me. As such, I’m raising this point of privilege for her contempt of the Legislature at the earliest opportunity. These statements made by the Minister of Health misled the Legislature by telling the Legislature something that was not true and affected the opposition’s ability to hold the government to account. I am asking you to find a prima facie case that a breach of privilege occurred that constitutes contempt of this Legislature.

During question period, the Minister of Health stated that she did not take immediate action with the draft copy of the Auditor General’s report to the Ministry of Health because “I was not sworn in.” The minister further stated multiple times throughout oral questions that she was “not sworn in” as minister until October. This contravenes

section 2 of the Executive Council Act. The act states that serving at the pleasure means that a minister serves in their role until the order in council is rescinded.

At the issuing of the writs, while a cabinet minister in the previous Parliament may not be a sitting member of the Legislature, he or she remains a cabinet minister until replaced. This has been part of parliamentary practice for centuries.

The Minister of Health was sworn in as health minister in October 2009. She has not and cannot produce an order in council that rescinded that appointment. She knew she was still the minister when she made her misleading remarks in the House. She made announcements. She still got ministerial pay when she collected her paycheque.

Mr. Speaker, the leader of the third party even informed the health minister that the clerks of this House stated “that the cabinet stays in effect, charged with all of their responsibilities, during an election campaign.” This further shows that she demonstrated wilful blindness to the facts before her and demonstrates that the minister attempted to mislead this House.

Later in Thursday’s question—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Cambridge, a few times you’ve used the assumption of misleading the House. I would ask you to temper your language to ensure that that does not prejudice what I need to find.

Mr. Rob Leone: I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

Later in Thursday’s question period, the Minister of Health changed her position on the responsibility of a minister without withdrawing her previous statements. She stated, “The member opposite knows full well that when the House is dissolved, when we are in that interim period between the writ dropping and the new cabinet being sworn in, there are limitations on the activities of ministers.” Based on her statement, “there are limitations on the activities of ministers,” she recognizes that the minister is still a minister during the writ period.

This demonstrates that her statements suggesting that she was not sworn in are not an honest mistake of fact; they’re rather a strategy to interfere with the practice of the opposition holding the government to account.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Wrap up, please.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, give me one second. I did summarize this for you. I guess the

summary wasn’t quite enough for you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ve read the original as well.

Mr. Rob Leone: Mr. Speaker, I’m going to draw your attention to the Honourable Steve Peters, who on September 28, 2009, quoted David McGee’s Parliamentary Practice. I think you have the quote, so I won’t go with that.

The three criteria that Mr. McGee stated are, I think, effective in this case. The first is the statement that the minister was not sworn in can be construed as being misleading due to the fact that it is, in fact, incorrect. Secondly, despite being told by the leader of the third party that the Clerk said otherwise, the minister stated, “When I was sworn in as minister ... after the election;” in this statement, the Minister of Health, despite knowing that the clerks confirmed that she was a cabinet minister during the writ, implied that she was not sworn in during the election. Lastly, Mr.

Speaker, the intent from the minister to allegedly mislead the Legislature is demonstrated by the information provided from the clerks’ table. The Minister of Health intentionally ignored that information in an attempt to cleanse her from the issues involving Ornge that arose during that campaign.

Further, O’Brien and Bosc define contempt as “any action which, though not a breach of a specific privilege, tends to obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions.” The health minister’s statement that she was not sworn in obstructs the opposition from holding the government to account and, as a result, constitutes contempt for this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, our role as parliamentarians is to represent our constituents. For opposition MPPs, we have the additional role of holding the government to account. Oral questions is time for MPPs to get information from ministers based on the inquiries that we receive from our constituents. In other words, we are the liaison between our constituents and the government. The words of ministers of the crown are fundamentally important because we have to go back to our constituents to inform them of the government’s response. It is unacceptable for the House to be misled by a minister because it counters our duties to our constituents.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, at the very least, that you recognize the severe nature of these misleading statements and, like Speaker Milliken of our federal Parliament, refer this matter to an appropriate committee of the Legislature, even if it’s only to clear the air. Should you find that a prima facie case of contempt does in fact exist, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion and to refer the case to a committee of the Legislature.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I thank the member for his letter originally and for his summation now, and I do remind him one more time that you are not to make any other prejudiced comments about misleading as it was not germane to my decision pre—I need to make that decision afterwards. So I want to thank the member.

The government House leader on the same point of order.

Hon. John Milloy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to respond to the point of privilege presented by the member from Cambridge regarding certain answers given by the Minister of Health during question period on March 22, 2012.

As we’ve heard, the member claims that contempt of this House occurred from certain answers that the Minister of Health gave on the date. Specifically, he asserts the very serious charge that the minister deliberately misled the House.

Mr. Speaker, I would point you and other members of the Legislature to comments made by Speaker Carr on June 17, 2002, in regard to a similar matter raised by the then-member for Niagara Centre, Mr. Kormos. The Speaker ruled, “The threshold for finding a prima facie case of contempt against a member of the Legislature on the basis of deliberately misleading the House is therefore set quite high and is very uncommon. It must involve a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead the Legislature.

In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct independently proved, a Speaker must assume that no honourable member would engage in such behaviour or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or honest mistake.”

While remarks made by the Minister of Health on Thursday may have required further explanation or clarification, they in no way demonstrated a deliberate attempt on the minister’s part to mislead anyone.

I wish to refer members to the matter involving the Honourable Art Eggleton concerning comments he made in the Canadian House of Commons about the handling of captured prisoners by Canadian troops in Afghanistan, as summarized in O’Brien and Bosc: “In his appearance before the committee” that was looking into the matter, “the Clerk of the House referred to Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand where it is stated that the following elements have to be established when it is alleged that a member is in contempt for deliberately misleading the House: one, it must be proven that the statement was misleading; two, it must be established that the member making the statement knew at the time that the statement was incorrect; and three, that in making the statement, the member intended to mislead the House....”

I’d be happy to provide you, Mr. Speaker, with the references to that appearance.

On pages 2 and 5 of the letter from the member from Cambridge, he admits that the minister continued to clarify her remarks throughout questioning. I would argue that this hardly seems like the behaviour of someone attempting to deliberately mislead this chamber. There’s simply no case to be made that the minister either knowingly or intentionally misled this House.

Mr. Speaker, through you, with the greatest respect, I would also caution the member from Cambridge that a continuous spree of frivolous points of privilege dilutes the seriousness of such accusations, especially this one. Accusing a member of contempt is both serious and consequential. Not only has the member from Cambridge failed to provide convincing evidence on his case, but he’s lowered the level of dignity and discourse in this place by tossing around such very serious charges carelessly.

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

Point of order?

Mr. Jim Wilson: On the same point of privilege: It’s unfortunate, the language that the House leader for the Liberal government has used there. In fact, I think he owes the member from Cambridge an apology on those very comments. It’s really quite below this honourable member, who is an honourable man on normal occasions.

Mr. Speaker, when I read the very well-researched, five-page submission by our honourable colleague from Cambridge, I think that the point, from a layman’s point of view, was that the minister had an opportunity during that exchange, because she was reminded by the leader of the third party that the table officers had indicated that she still served as a cabinet minister during the writ. During that debate, she heard that several times from the NDP, from ourselves, and she may have even heard the table itself say that.

The fact of the matter is, she did not correct her behaviour, and she continued to use the ploy that she wasn’t in elected office or wasn’t responsible during this period of time. To me, that is misleading the House in a purposeful way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you for everyone’s input. I appreciate the opportunity to hear your concerns, and I will reserve my ruling on this in due course.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1300.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

COLLINGWOOD BLACKHAWKS

Mr. Jim Wilson: It is with great pleasure that I rise today to applaud the recent victory of the Collingwood Atom A Blackhawks. On home ice at the Eddie Bush Arena on Saturday, the Collingwood Blackhawks defeated the Whitby Wildcats in a 3-0 victory to win the Ontario Minor Hockey Association championship and sweep the series.

The Collingwood Blackhawks have been unstoppable this year, having been undefeated in the Ontario Minor Hockey Association playdowns, beating Owen Sound, Brampton, Burlington and Grimsby before defeating Whitby for the championship on Saturday.

It’s also exciting for many of the players on the team who are now celebrating their third OMHA title, from their novice win in 2010 to an Atom win last year, and now this year’s impressive win over Whitby. Saturday’s shutout means that Collingwood will now go on to compete in the prestigious Ontario Hockey Federation championships, where Collingwood will compete with the four regional Atom champions.

This is the first time in the history of Collingwood minor hockey that a Collingwood team has qualified for the Ontario Hockey Federation championships. The tournament will take place in Cobourg from April 13 to 15.

People from around Collingwood are cheering today and are extremely proud of their hometown team. Without question, the Blackhawks’ clean and upbeat approach to hockey has gained them an admirable reputation throughout Ontario.

I know I speak for all members of this Legislature in congratulating the Collingwood Atom A Blackhawks on being the Ontario Minor Hockey Association champions and for the immeasurable amount of time, commitment and sacrifice that they make to their sport of hockey.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and congratulations, Blackhawks.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Lorenzo Berardinetti: I want to make a few comments regarding clean energy. Ontarians work hard every day to make better lives for themselves and their children. Our government is working hard, too. Just like families across the province, when times are tight, we have to make careful choices—choices that support the needs and aspirations of all Ontarians; choices that will create jobs for Ontario families.

That’s why I’m proud that our government is investing in economic development in places where it is really needed. That’s why I’m disappointed that the official opposition voted against the attracting jobs and investment act and the thousands of local jobs it would have created in our communities.

The PCs are putting ideology ahead of helping small businesses create jobs across the province. This act would help companies across eastern and southwestern Ontario to expand their workforce, buy state-of-the-art equipment, and compete and win in a global economy.

The Conservatives are using the global recession to push ideology, tearing down rather than helping to build a stronger Ontario. The NDP has been silent on eliminating the deficit and creating jobs. They’re quick to criticize new ideas, but have no suggestion of their own. Our government, on the other hand, has a balanced plan and is making thoughtful choices to eliminate the deficit and grow the economy and create jobs.

ELMIRA MAPLE SYRUP FESTIVAL

Mr. Michael Harris: I am pleased to take this opportunity to inform the House and members of the public about the time-honoured tradition in my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga that I look forward to every year.

Right now, organizers in Elmira are busy preparing for the 40th annual maple syrup festival, where my team and I will be serving the best pancakes in the region, drenched in Elmira’s legendary maple syrup.

I also want to give my colleague Elizabeth Witmer fair warning that this year’s Team Harris will defeat the reigning champions, her daughter Sarah’s Mother Flippers, in the annual pancake-flipping contest.

On a serious note, though, I want to congratulate the more than 2,000 volunteers who work every year to ensure that the maple syrup festival upholds its Guinness World Record for being the largest festival of its kind. With more than 65,000 people attending each year, this festival has done so much to promote Elmira, the surrounding areas, local maple syrup producers and, most important, a unique sense of community spirit.

For years, the proceeds of the maple syrup festival have played a major role in supporting local organizations and building stronger ties amongst residents. Typically, 40% of the proceeds from the festival go to support people with developmental disabilities in my riding, while the remaining funds are divided amongst other charitable organizations.

This festival not only provides families with an excellent way to spend some time together, but it also serves as an example of what people can do to benefit their community. So I encourage everyone to join me at the maple syrup festival in Elmira this weekend.

DANFORTH EAST

COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION

Mr. Michael Prue: We have a wonderful group in Beaches–East York called the Danforth East Community Association, or DECA, as we like to call them. They have been responsible and continue to be responsible for revitalizing that area of Danforth Avenue east of GreekTown, which I think is known by pretty much everyone across the country. They have organized a number of community events over the last couple of years—events for children, jazz festivals, arts.

A few weeks ago, they brought a wonderful man all the way from Australia by the name of Marcus Westbury, from Newcastle, Australia. He came to talk about revitalizing downtown cores and the wonderful job that they have done in Australia. This was done in conjunction with the Gerrard bazaar BIA. What Marcus was able to show is that you can revitalize a derelict downtown into a tourist town. They fixed up the storefronts. They filled the vacant buildings. They used a lot of it for community space. That is what DECA wants to emulate here.

I was pleased to meet with Anita Schretten, Tanya Geisler, Catherine Pekelmy and Ciara Behan. We talked about flower planting, facades repainting and involving the entire community in order to keep costs down for business but also to make sure that local people have an input as to how those improvements will affect the community.

My congratulations to DECA and everything they continue to do.

BIRTHING CENTRES

Ms. Tracy MacCharles: I rise in the House today to acknowledge and applaud our government’s decision to create two birthing centres in the province of Ontario. This service will not only provide women with more choice on where they can deliver babies, but it’s part of our government’s health plan to move more health care services out of hospitals and into the community, where we can safely do so.

Specifically, I would like to acknowledge the fine work by Lisa Weston and the nine other midwives who work at Sages-Femmes Rouge Valley Midwives. These passionate and hard-working midwives serve women and families in my riding of Pickering–Scarborough East and all of Durham and mothers from across both Durham region and greater Scarborough. These centres will be run in partnership with Ontario midwives, who attended more than 15,000 births last year.

This is one part of our government’s action plan for health care and our commitment to quality care delivered with better results and good value. As a mother of two children, it’s great to see a service that provides more choices for women in terms of how and when they deliver their babies.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. Monte McNaughton: As you know, Ontario’s economy is struggling. Our unemployment is the highest in the country, with over 600,000 people out of work.

Currently, at age 65, a driver holding a class A licence in Ontario is required to take a mandatory road test to simply keep their job. The current requirement adds significant costs and act as a real drain on our economy. Workers are required to take multiple days off to rent, hire and insure a truck and trailer, not to mention lost wages and time away from family. Additionally, trucking companies need to find replacement workers and often have no choice but to decline contracts due to uncertainty caused by this needless requirement. Drivers themselves are often reluctant to accept work and assignments in the immediate time following their mandatory age 65 road test due to this regulation.

In most jobs, when you work hard and gain experience, you’re rewarded and advanced, but in this case, the most experienced and most seasoned drivers face unnecessary red tape, government bureaucracy, and discrimination.

Since my election, I have consulted with associations, stakeholders, drivers and workers. The entire trucking industry is saying the same thing: Something needs to change, the McGuinty government just doesn’t get it, and it’s time for new direction.

The McGuinty government is moving too slowly on this issue. The industry is calling for action, and so am I.

HEALTH CARE

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Today in Kenora, members of the public are standing together in solidarity to oppose proposed cuts to our health care system. They are worried, as am I, that if the government moves forward with many of their cost-cutting measures, as proposed in the Drummond report, their community’s hospital will lose care beds, as well as many other communities across my riding and across the province of Ontario.

Health care in my region is already under attack, facing significant challenges as a result of service models based on southern Ontario realities that simply do not exist in our region. Our smaller health care centres, like those in Rainy River and Ear Falls, are under significant threat as a result of government inaction on this issue. This is creating a strain on all hospitals and community health care centres in our region who are forced to pick up the slack.

I would like to take this time to express my gratitude to those citizens in Kenora and across my riding who are standing up to proposed cuts and government inaction, and I would once again like to ask the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care to step up to the plate, acknowledge the challenges that are facing our region and work with me and all stakeholders to find a solution.

NORTH YORK GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Michael Coteau: I rise today on a very unique occasion. On behalf of the residents of my riding, Don Valley East, I’d like to extend heartfelt congratulations to Dr. Tim Rutledge, president and CEO, and his entire team at North York General Hospital for receiving the highest designation from Accreditation Canada. This is a rare achievement for any hospital or health care provider in this country.

After being evaluated using over 1,800 different criteria, North York General Hospital has received accreditation with exemplary standing for meeting 100% of the required practices and standards in all areas of the hospital, including all patient care programs, administrative functions and community engagement.

North York General Hospital has implemented various initiatives over the past years which have contributed to this recent achievement. It has launched a computerized provider order entry system that combines the latest clinical evidence from medical literature, making it possible for medical practitioners to provide the best-quality care for their patients.

Further, North York General Hospital has implemented a bar code scanning system, which is the first in Canada. Bar code scanning uniquely identifies each medication and each patient across medical, surgical and critical care units.

Receiving accreditation with exemplary standing assures patients and their families that the care they are receiving from North York General Hospital is of the highest quality. We’re extremely proud to have such a dedicated health care service provider in our riding of Don Valley East.

EPILEPSY

Mr. Rod Jackson: Today is an important day. It’s epilepsy awareness day.

Epilepsy is one of the most common neurological disorders. It affects over 100,000 Canadians and over 65,000 Ontarians—

Interjection: Too many.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Far too many.

Though this area is broadly researched in public awareness, sometimes stigma can make life with epilepsy more difficult for people than it needs to be. With one in every 100 people living with epilepsy, awareness and a basic knowledge about the condition is very important.

I’d like to recognize two organizations working towards greater awareness about epilepsy: the Epilepsy Cure Initiative and Epilepsy Ontario. These organizations reach out to the public, support individuals and families living with epilepsy, participate in advocacy and awareness campaigns, and often contribute to research initiatives.

Epilepsy has also touched my family, and from this experience I know how challenging it can be for an individual and for a family. The management of this condition, concerns with driving and medication, access to treatment as well as strain on family are realities that are realized when living with epilepsy.

As a public, it’s our duty to understand this condition and do what we can to make life a little better for those that are living with epilepsy. For this, awareness is something I think is paramount. Today is about all those courageous people managing their epilepsy. I notice that there are a few people in the House today wearing purple today in honour of those that suffer with epilepsy, and I thank you for that.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRE PROTECTION AND PREVENTION

AMENDMENT ACT (RETROFITTING

OF RETIREMENT HOMES WITH

AUTOMATIC SPRINKLERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PRÉVENTION

ET LA PROTECTION CONTRE L’INCENDIE

(MODERNISATION DES MAISONS

DE RETRAITE PAR L’INSTALLATION

D’EXTINCTEURS AUTOMATIQUES)

Mr. Paul Miller moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 54,

An Act to amend the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997 to require the retrofitting of retirement homes with automatic sprinklers / Projet de loi 54, Loi modifiant la Loi de 1997 sur la prévention et la protection contre l’incendie pour exiger la modernisation des maisons de retraite par l’installation d’extincteurs automatiques.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

First reading agreed to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for a short statement.

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, this bill amends the Fire Protection and Prevention Act, 1997, to require that all retirement homes be retrofitted with a system of automatic sprinklers.

PETITIONS

ANTI-BULLYING INITIATIVES

Mr. Toby Barrett: The petition here is organized by PAFE, Parents as First Educators.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas, as an anti-bullying measure, Bill 13 is unnecessary because Ontarians already have Bill 157; and

“Whereas Bill 13 promotes radical revisions to school instruction on sex and gender that a majority of parents do not support; and

“Whereas legislation is not the way to implement equity education (this should rather be addressed by teacher training, after wider parental consultation, in a way which respects the views of people of faith);

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to vote against Bill 113.”

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Paul Miller: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Ontario horse racing and breeding industry generates $2 billion of economic activity, mostly in rural Ontario;

“Whereas more than 60,000 Ontarians are employed by Ontario’s horse racing and breeding industry;

“Whereas 20% of the funds generated by the OLG slots-at-racetracks program is reinvested in racetracks and the horse racing and breeding industry, while 75% is returned to the government of Ontario;

“Whereas the OLG slots-at-racetracks program generates $1.1 billion a year for health care and other spending, making it the most profitable form of gaming in the province for OLG;

“Whereas the government has announced plans to cancel the slots-at-racetracks program, a decision that will cost the government $1.1 billion per year and threatens more than 60,000 jobs;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Call on the government of Ontario to protect the $1.1 billion of revenue the government received annually because of the OLG slots-at-racetracks program; direct OLG to honour the contracts with racetracks and protect the horse racing and breeding industry by continuing the OLG slots-at-racetracks revenue-sharing program.”

I agree with this petition and will affix my name to it, and Alexander will bring it down.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I have a petition from a group of residents from York South–Weston addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas St. John the Evangelist Catholic elementary school in Weston is overcrowded, with 480 students in a school designed for 260; and

“Whereas the students will be relocating 40 minutes away in September 2012 during the duration of the Metrolinx Weston tunnel construction; and

“Whereas the Toronto Catholic District School Board has placed St. John the Evangelist third on the urgent capital priority list for 2012;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“Respectfully request full funding to replace St. John the Evangelist school during the Metrolinx Weston tunnel construction; therefore, the students are not relocated twice.”

I support this petition. I will be affixing my signature and handing it over to page Nicholas.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Jim Wilson: A petition to restore local control.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Dalton McGuinty’s Liberal government is forcing Ontario municipalities to build industrial wind and solar power generation facilities without any local say or local approval; and

“Whereas the McGuinty government transferred decision-making power from elected municipal” councils “to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, who are accountable to no one; and

“Whereas the McGuinty government has removed any kind of appeal process for municipalities or for people living in close proximity to these projects; and

“Whereas Tim Hudak, Jim Wilson and the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party have committed to restoring local decision-making powers and to building renewable energy projects only in places where they are welcomed, wanted and at prices Ontario families can afford;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the McGuinty government restore local decision-making powers for renewable energy projects and immediately stop forcing new industrial wind and solar developments on municipalities that have not approved them and whose citizens do not want them in their community.”

I certainly agree with this petition and I will sign it.

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: I have this petition from the people of Sudbury—more precisely, from Chelmsford—and it reads as follows:

“Whereas the Ontario government is making ... PET scanning a publicly insured health service available to cancer and cardiac patients...; and

“Whereas” since “October 2009, insured PET scans” are “performed in Ottawa, London, Toronto, Hamilton and Thunder Bay; and

“Whereas the city of Greater Sudbury is a hub for health care in northeastern Ontario, with” Health Sciences North, “its regional cancer program and the Northern Ontario School of Medicine;

“We ... petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to make PET scans available through” Health Sciences North, “thereby serving and providing equitable access to the citizens of northeastern Ontario.”

I fully support this petition, will affix my name to it and ask page Emma to bring it to the Clerk.

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. It reads as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas Solray Energy Corp. has given notice of its proposal for a class 3 solar power facility known as Epsom Solar Farm to be located in the township of Scugog; and

“Whereas the site is on prime” agricultural land “that has been in production for many generations; and

“Whereas we consider productive farmland to be of vital importance to farm and rural communities by providing healthy, locally grown food and ensuring the sustainability of Canada’s food supply; and

“Whereas class 1 to 5 farmland and land that is zoned rural or agricultural should be protected from the current proposal and similar” proposals “that may be considered in the future; and

“Whereas other sites of less value to agriculture are better locations for solar” production development;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the” Legislative Assembly of Ontario “not to allow large, industrial solar farms on prime agricultural land, and we further express our support for giving local communities, through their elected municipal councils, the power to control and approve large-scale renewable energy developments.”

I am pleased to sign and support it and give it to Aylin, one of the new pages here.

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

Mr. Bill Walker: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the horse racing industry employs approximately 60,000 people, creates $1.5 billion in wages and $2 billion in recurring expenditures annually; and

“Whereas the partnership that was created between government and the horse breeding and racing industry has been a model arrangement and is heralded throughout North America, with 75% of revenues going to the provincial government to fund important programs like health care and education, 5% to the municipalities and only 20% goes back to the horse business; and

“Whereas the horse business is a significant source of revenue for the farming community and rural municipalities;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Ministry of Finance continue the revenue-sharing partnership with the horse racing industry for the benefit of Ontario’s agricultural and rural economies.”

Speaker, I agree with this. I’ll add my signature and I’ll send it with Alexander to the clerks’ desk.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Jim McDonell: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas a new policy from the Electrical Safety Authority that mandates that all electrical contractors must have at least one licensed master electrician on staff for every business effective December 31, 2011, is forcing electrical contracting small businesses ... out of business;

“Whereas this ESA policy severely impacts small electrical contracting businesses in Ontario. George, in my riding ... who has been” an electrical contractor “for the past 51 years and a small business … for the past 36 years, who has good standing with the Electrical Safety Authority, Ontario Hydro, local utilities, who follows the same rules and regulations of the ESA, follows the Ontario electrical codes, adheres to the same inspections and pays the same fees as large companies” has now been forced out of business. “Effective December 31, 2011, George will no longer be licensed to practise in Ontario” and has been forced to close his business.

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to request the Minister of Consumer Services to direct the Electrical Safety Authority of Ontario to modify the licensing requirements to allow small electrical contractors and self-employed electricians to work in the residential and rural market without the unnecessary burden of obtaining a master electrician licence, or at the very minimum, grandfather those who are currently qualified and entitled to work in Ontario.”

I support this petition and will be signing it and passing it to page Felix.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Jim Wilson: “To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas residents of Ontario want a moratorium on all further industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed; and

“Whereas people in Ontario living within close proximity to industrial wind turbines have reported negative health effects; we need to study the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts of wind turbines; and

“Whereas Ontario’s largest farm organization, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario have called for a suspension of industrial wind turbine development until the serious shortcomings can be addressed, and the Auditor General confirmed wind farms were created in haste and with no planning; and

“Whereas there have been no third party health and environmental studies done on industrial wind turbines, and the Auditor General confirmed there was no real plan for green energy in Ontario and wind farms were constructed in haste;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Liberal government support Huron–Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson’s private member’s motion which calls for a moratorium on all industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed.”

I think that’s a good idea, Mr. Speaker. I agree with this petition, and I will sign it.

SCHOOL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Toby Barrett: “Petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Grand Erie District School Board has purposely gerrymandered busing, circumvented its own catchment areas, avoided all but the most basic facility improvements and actively positioned PDCS for closure before and during the ARC process;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“We petition the Legislature of Ontario to conduct an inquiry into the actions of the Grand Erie District School Board over the past 10 years leading up to the current accommodation review.

“In addition, we call upon the Legislature to put a moratorium on all current and pending school closures in the province of Ontario.”

GREENBELT

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Durham. This one is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Whereas the Greenbelt Act was passed by the Ontario Legislature in 2005, affecting property rights in Ontario; and

“Whereas the right to own, use, enjoy and the opportunity to earn a living from private property is the basis of freedom and democracy; and

“Whereas the greenbelt restricts property owners in the use, enjoyment and ability to earn a living from their private property; and

“Whereas property owners are not being compensated for any loss of these rights;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, petition of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to amend the greenbelt plan area at the 10-year re-evaluation in 2015 to allow ... development when requested by the community and supported”—more importantly here—by local communities to allow people to enjoy their right to their property.

I’m pleased to sign this petition, in support of it, and present it to Abbigail, one of the new pages here.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Toby Barrett: I have a large collection of anti-wind turbine petitions.

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas residents of Ontario want a moratorium on all further industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed; and

“Whereas people in Ontario living within close proximity to industrial wind turbines have reported negative health effects; we need to study the physical, social, economic and environmental impacts of wind turbines; and

“Whereas Ontario’s largest farm organization, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, and the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario have called for a suspension of industrial wind turbine development until the serious shortcomings can be addressed, and the Auditor General confirmed wind farms were created in haste and with no planning; and

“Whereas there have been no third party health and environmental studies done on industrial wind turbines, and the Auditor General confirmed there was no real plan for green energy in Ontario and wind farms were constructed in haste;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

“That the Liberal government support Huron–Bruce MPP Lisa Thompson’s private member’s motion which calls for a moratorium on all industrial wind turbine development until a third party health and environmental study has been completed.”

I affix my signature to these petitions.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to present another petition from my riding of Durham, which is as follows:

“To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas citizens are concerned that contaminants in materials used as fill for pits and quarries may endanger water quality and the natural environment of the greenbelt; and

“Whereas the Ministry of the Environment has a responsibility and a duty to protect the sensitive areas of the greenbelt and provincially sensitive wetlands; and

“Whereas the government of Ontario has the lead responsibility to provide the tools to lower-tier governments to plan, protect and enforce”—

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: Excuse me a moment here—my colleague Mr. Shurman.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Don’t heckle your members.

Mr. John O’Toole: —“governments to plan, protect and enforce clear, effective policies governing the application and permitting process for the placement of fill in abandoned pits and quarries; and

“Whereas this process requires clarification regarding rules respecting what materials may be used to rehabilitate or fill abandoned pits and quarries;

“Therefore we, the undersigned, ask the Minister of the Environment” and the Minister of Natural Resources, who is here, “to initiate a moratorium on the clean fill application and permit process on the greenbelt until there are clear rules; and we further ask that the provincial government take all necessary actions to protect our water and prevent contamination of the greenbelt, specifically” in my riding of Durham, on Lakeridge Road, as well as in Newcastle.

I’m pleased to sign and support this on behalf of my constituents. The former Minister of the Environment is here—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. The member from Northumberland–Quinte West.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to rise today on a point of privilege. I have provided you the written notice of a point of privilege, pursuant to standing order 21(c), so that I may raise the matter in the House.

The question of privilege relates to interference by a member of the Ontario Liberal caucus bureau with my free movement within the legislative precinct on Thursday afternoon, following the flag-raising ceremony in recognition of Greek Independence Day. I am raising this matter of privilege at the earliest opportunity.

The facts on which this matter is raised are as follows: I attended the flag-raising ceremony on the front lawn of the Legislature with Bill Walker, MPP for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound. Immediately following the ceremony, Mr. Walker and I made our way to committee room 230, where we had a scheduled meeting with Environmental Commissioner Gord Miller. To get to the committee room, we had to pass through a corridor leading to the entrance of the Liberal caucus boardroom. The boardroom was being used to host an exclusive reception for members of the Greek-Canadian community. As Mr.

Walker and I walked through the corridor, a member of the Liberal staff stepped in front of me and physically blocked the corridor by extending his arm in front of me. He apparently assumed Mr. Walker and I intended to attend the reception, because he advised us that it was a “private event,” and that we were not permitted. It took me somewhat by surprise, because we were in the hallway and not the entrance of the boardroom. When I told him I was actually heading to a meeting elsewhere, he allowed us to pass so I could continue on to my meeting with the Environmental Commissioner—at least not immediately.

All of this occurred in front of visiting dignitaries and guests from the community, Mr. Speaker.

Freedom of movement in the legislative precinct is a privilege of members that has been recognized by legislative authorities and established by parliamentary precedent.

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Marleau and Montpetit state, “The House has the authority to invoke privilege where its ability has been obstructed in the execution of its functions or where members have been obstructed in the performance of their duties.”

In House of Commons Procedure and Practice, O’Brien and Bosc explain both the privilege and the role of the Speaker in more detail. In

chapter 3, which deals with privileges and immunities of members, they state, “In circumstances where members claim to be physically obstructed, impeded, interfered with or intimidated in the performance of their parliamentary functions, the Speaker is apt to find that a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred.”

Speaker Fraser ruled on this particular privilege in 1989, Mr. Speaker, following a protest at the House of Commons. The member of Parliament for Windsor West was stopped by security at a roadblock and prevented from accessing Centre Block by car. On October 30, 1989, Speaker Fraser found that even though the argument could be made that the member was free to walk to Centre Block, a prima facie case for obstruction existed. The matter was referred to a standing committee.

In 1999, Speaker Parent considered a point of privilege that was raised by members of Parliament who had difficulty accessing their offices. The members stated that the impediment prevented them from performing their functions and meeting their obligations in a timely fashion. Speaker Parent ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege existed and referred the matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Perhaps the most significant precedent comes from this Legislative Assembly, with Speaker Peters’s ruling of May 4, 2010, in respect to members of the Ontario PC caucus being obstructed on budget day 2010. In that instance, as here, Mr. Speaker, staff from the Ontario Liberal caucus bureau physically prevented members of the opposition from attending to parliamentary duties. There, it was to be present in the chamber, while here, it was to attend a meeting with an officer of the Legislature. In that instance, as here, the breach of privilege embarrassed the opposition in the presence of dignitaries and invited guests.

I appreciate that the government will try to minimize the breach that occurred, as they did when the budget day obstruction occurred. If so, then the following from Speaker Peters is important to consider:

“For a prima facie case of privilege to be established, it is enough ... that members wanted to attend the House and were, at least for a time and against their will, prevented from doing so. It is of no significance where such an obstruction occurred or what parliamentary proceeding members were prevented from attending.

“Further investigation may well reveal a plausible explanation or mitigating circumstances for what occurred in the budget lock-up on March 25, but I do believe that such a further investigation is warranted.”

I respectfully submit that there is no conclusion but that a prima facie breach of privilege has been established for the events that occurred on Thursday. I was physically obstructed, impeded and interfered with when I tried to make my way with Mr. Walker to committee room 230 to meet with the Environmental Commissioner. While the interference was short-lived, it clearly occurred. Upon your ruling that a prima facie breach of privilege exists, I am prepared to move the matter be referred to an appropriate committee of the Legislature for a hearing into the facts and circumstances that led to the breach.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that I expand on one aspect of my letter to ensure that you can fully appreciate the action of this staffer. When I say in the letter that he blocked me, I should tell you that he actually extended his arm, physically restraining my passage. He did this in full view of members of the public, including dignitaries who had been invited to the Greek Independence Day reception.

Clearly, he left the impression in the eyes of those visitors to the Legislature that the authority of a Liberal Party staff member transcended that of an opposition member of provincial Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, while I was not here two years ago, I must tell you that the facts surrounding the point of privilege accepted by Speaker Peters two years ago are virtually identical to the facts in this matter. Speaker Peters ruled that it wasn’t his job to determine whether the breach of a member’s privileges was serious or minor; his ruling made it clear that that was the job of the Standing Committee on the Legislative Assembly. His ruling did make it clear, though, that impeding the free access of a member was a serious matter and one worthy of referral to that committee.

I am deeply troubled by the need to stand before you and raise this issue. After a great deal of reflection and having reviewed the facts of Speaker Peters’s ruling of two years ago, I cannot, in good conscience, let the unwarranted action of this Liberal staff member go unchallenged. It is somewhat ironic that the issue raised before Speaker Peters occurred on budget day in 2010 and we are, today, on the cusp of the announcement of this year’s budget. For anyone who, like me, believes in the ultimate authority of Parliament, it is immensely disappointing that Liberal staffers would appear to have learned nothing from the ruling of your predecessor two years ago.

Restricting my free access to walk the halls of Queen’s Park can only be considered breaches of my privileges as a member of provincial Parliament. Given the facts of this matter, and the precedent of the Speaker’s ruling in 2010, I would ask for your ruling in the affirmation that I have suffered a breach of privilege.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the independence day ceremony out on the front lawn is symbolic. I heard the fine Minister Sousa, the member from Scarborough Southwest, the member from Beaches–East York and, of course, my esteemed colleague the member for Whitby–Oshawa, who so eloquently put how proud they were to stand there on the front lawn, praising the great nation of Greece, the founding fathers of democracy and the freedoms which we enjoy, and yet on this particular point I was obstructed in democracy.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask for your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. On the same point of privilege, the member from Beaches–East York.

Mr. Michael Prue: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was denied entry on that day to Room 247. I was on the front lawn with members of my community, my neighbours, my friends and people with whom I had worked for many years in the Greek community. I was invited, along with everyone else who was on that lawn, by the member from Scarborough Southwest to attend the reception. You can imagine my horror when I got upstairs and was denied entry by a staffer named Dylan. When I challenged that staffer, he told me he was under direct orders that no one except Liberals could enter.

I was so angry, I came down the stairs and wrote a letter to the government House leader, which he undoubtedly has by now, with a carbon copy to the NDP House leader and the Conservative House leader outlining the umbrage that I felt, being denied access to a public celebration in honour of the Greek community.

If I was good enough to be asked by the government side to come out and say words of praise to the Greek community, I think I should have been welcomed in with my friends. I have to tell you that I was with one of the directors of the Pan-Macedonian Association of Ontario, a woman by the name of Sue Keramidopoulis. We were separated at the door. She was allowed to enter and I was not. It was extremely embarrassing to me. It was embarrassing to the president of the Greek community of Toronto. He told me at the celebration the following night—it was in Markham—that he too was embarrassed. He didn’t know what to do, but he felt the entire Greek community had been slighted.

When I wrote to the government House leader, I also sent a carbon copy to the Speaker. I’m not sure whether you’re going to rule this is a question of privilege or not, but I think that any time a public celebration is held in any room, be it a government room, an opposition room or any other room, if it is open to the public, then it needs to be open to the members of the opposition as well, and that’s the point I’m trying to make.

I understand that that room is used for government purposes; I understand. We have a caucus room too, as do my colleagues of the Conservative Party, and when it is a private meeting, it is a private meeting. But this was a public meeting to celebrate the events of 1821 and the broader Greek community. To separate out who in this chamber can enter that room on such an occasion and who cannot, I think, was a gross violation.

When I challenged Dylan, he made it very clear to me that those were the orders under which he was acting. He was acting under explicit orders, and he stepped between me and the door so that I could not enter. I do want to say that the member from Scarborough Southwest, when he heard I was barred, attempted to mediate and come out, but was told by Dylan as well that those were his instructions.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Same point?

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the fact that I was given notice of this point of privilege by the member opposite, but I have to apologize; I only received that notice just at the end of question period around noon hour. I did some very initial digging, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t know all the facts of the situation. I do know that there was absolutely no intention, in any way, to impede members of this Legislature from their duties here in the Legislature, and I certainly apologize if there was a misunderstanding.

At the same time, Mr. Speaker, I would ask your indulgence—the members have brought forward their case—if I would be allowed to submit something in writing to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I really do take this one very seriously, and I would like to hear everyone’s issues, please.

House leader?

Hon. John Milloy: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I plan to look into this matter further. I do, at the outset, express an apology to any members if there was a misunderstanding. Obviously, the intention was never to impede members in their work.

I ask your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, if I would be allowed to make a submission to you in writing, which, of course, I would copy to the other House leaders, on this point of privilege once we have all the details in place, so that we can fill you in on our perspective on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Mr. Bill Walker: Just to further this point of privilege, I want to concur that the events did, in fact, happen as Mr. Milligan has outlined.

We were going to another function with the whole intent, as we were invited by the consul to come back to the Greek community, and he was physically impeded. I think it was very deliberate. I think my esteemed colleague was recognizable as a member of opposition, and it was very deliberate and it was that way.

We chose, out of respect for this House, for the elected people and particularly for the day we were celebrating, not to make an incident of it that day, because we did not want to further tarnish the goings-on of that afternoon. But we do believe very strongly that it needs to be brought to your attention. We do believe we were—not only was it rude, but it was unacceptable behaviour. It was deliberate. It was very much, “You shall not come in here.” We were invited on the front lawn—we went out with our colleagues—the way it should have been, to come up to that reception, and I think it was very deplorable that we weren’t allowed in there.

More concerning, I think, or perhaps equally concerning, is that the Greek community and those in my community and Mr. Milligan’s might think that we did not wish to attend that gathering, that we did not want to bring our best wishes on behalf of our caucus and our colleagues. So I very much dislike that we were physically barred from going in there.

It is my hope that you will rule that this was, in fact, a point of privilege. I would take up the House leader across the hall—that not only would I like him to do an investigation and make an apology, but I would like that they extend an apology to the Greek consulate, advising that we wished to go and we were not able. We were, in fact, obstructed from being able to attend that function, which we were planning later on to go to.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Mr. Paul Miller: I had another incident that relates exactly to what these gentlemen were talking about—the members. When the Queen visited a year and a half ago, Mr. Bailey and I were also pushed aside by Liberal staffers and told to stand behind a fenced area, and the Liberal members were allowed to go and sit in privileged seating, so this is not a new thing, Speaker. I think it’s an ongoing situation that certainly has to be addressed, and I’m sure you’ll take the right, appropriate action on this. It’s very, very troubling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further on the same issue? The member for Simcoe–Grey.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Just as the opposition House leader, I want you to know that the full force and effect and support of all of the members of the PC caucus are behind this complaint, the point of privilege. As Mr. Mille