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

May 31, 2012

40th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2012-May-31 (PDF)

L059 - Thu 31 May 2012 / Jeu 31 mai 2012

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 31 May 2012 Jeudi 31 mai 2012

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PESTICIDES

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TOBACCO CONTROL

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

CASINOS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WATERLOO AIR SHOW

ALAN KING

DOUG FIELD

STRATFORD HOUSE OF BLESSING

CONCESSION STREETFEST

JOHN HOWARD SOCIETY OF OTTAWA

RON SMITH

COMPUTER EDUCATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO JUSTICES OF THE PEACE

MODERNIZATION ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LA MODERNISATION

DE LA

LOI SUR LES JUGES DE PAIX

DE L’ONTARIO

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(MONEY TRANSFERS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

DU CONSOMMATEUR

(TRANSFERTS DE FONDS)

PETITIONS

WATER QUALITY

ONTARIO NORTHLAND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

SERVICES DE LABORATOIRE

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

TOURISM

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE

TAXATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

RADIATION SAFETY

HORSE RACING INDUSTRY

CYCLING

LABORATORY SERVICES

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

(LICENCE FOR COSMETIC

PURPOSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PESTICIDES

(LICENCE À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES)

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

AMENDMENT ACT (RELATIONSHIP

WITH GRANDPARENTS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT

DE L’ENFANCE (RELATION

AVEC LES GRANDS-PARENTS)

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

(LICENCE FOR COSMETIC

PURPOSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PESTICIDES

(LICENCE À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES)

CHILDREN’S LAW REFORM

AMENDMENT ACT (RELATIONSHIP

WITH GRANDPARENTS), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT LA LOI

PORTANT RÉFORME DU DROIT

DE L’ENFANCE (RELATION

AVEC LES GRANDS-PARENTS)

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

PESTICIDES AMENDMENT ACT

(LICENCE FOR COSMETIC

PURPOSES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PESTICIDES

(LICENCE À DES FINS ESTHÉTIQUES)

CORRECTION OF RECORD

ORDER OF BUSINESS

STRONG ACTION FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR UNE ACTION

ÉNERGIQUE POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT (RENT

INCREASE GUIDELINE), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION

À USAGE D’HABITATION

(TAUX LÉGAL D’AUGMENTATION

DES LOYERS)

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FAMILY CAREGIVER LEAVE ACT

(EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS

AMENDMENT), 2012 /

LOI DE 2012 SUR LE CONGÉ FAMILIAL

POUR LES AIDANTS NATURELS

(MODIFICATION DES NORMES D’EMPLOI)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 4, 2012, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 30,

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

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and good morning to you. It is a beautiful morning out there in the GTA today, unless you’re a motorist. From what I understand, there are several transport trucks that have turned over on the 427 and 401. There’s a little traffic report for those of you who may be heading out on the road this morning. You might want to check with 680News first before you do that.

It’s my pleasure to speak to Bill 30 today. I think we’ve all—hopefully not all, but many of us have been in the situation where we have had somebody in our family or a close friend or other relative who has been very, very ill and needs someone to stay home and care for them. That’s what this bill is intended to do. However, with this bill, as with many of the bills that come from the other side of the House, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered before this can become legislation.

There are many, many people out of work in the province of Ontario right now. There are 550,000 Ontarians who currently don’t have a job. Is this bill a priority for those 550,000 Ontarian men and women? As we heard yesterday in question period, 16.5% of young people under the age of 25 are unemployed in this province right now. This is not the kind of bill that’s doing anything to create jobs in the province of Ontario. What it does is, actually, it makes it more difficult for those who are creating jobs in this economy right now, an economy that’s struggling, an economy that’s at the bottom of the heap in Canada right now.

What this actually does is, just for a little bit of background, it would give a family member up to eight weeks off the job, but there’s no plan to pay for that person to be off the job. Everything coming from the government side is indicating that they’re expecting the federal government to pay for this. So it’s a Dalton McGuinty Liberal government promise here in Ontario, but they’re expecting the feds to pay for it. It’s kind of an interesting bill to put forward.

The thing to remember in the province of Ontario is that there is only one taxpayer, right? There’s only one taxpayer here. This bill falls unbelievably short of the cost of this program to the economy or to any level of government.

So how many people can afford to be off work for eight weeks? We all met this week with members from the Multiple Sclerosis Society in our offices, and they had a reception here. We were all wearing the nice carnations on our suit jackets and outfits earlier this week in the House to recognize people that are struggling with MS. Many of us have met with members of the Cancer Society and have heard the stories.

One of the problems that the people in particular with the MS Society had with the bill—I had a brief chat with them in my office, up on the third floor here, earlier this week—was that under this bill, if you decided that you were going to take one day off to look after your ill relative, or even part of an afternoon, maybe, to help that relative get to a doctor’s appointment or an X-ray or go pick up some prescriptions or go buy them some groceries or give them some care that they need, you were burning the whole week.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order, Speaker, I wonder if you could check for a quorum?

The Clerk-at-the-Table (Ms. Tonia Grannum): A quorum is present.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): A quorum is present. Member from Prince Edward–Hastings, continue.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you. It’s nice to see that everybody decided to show up. They must have seen me on TV in their offices and rushed down here. I know the member from Peterborough likes to be here when I’m speaking. He likes to participate quite often when I’m speaking—

Mr. Jeff Leal: I sent an SOS to round everybody up.

Mr. Todd Smith: I was worried that you might have missed my traffic report that I had on about five minutes ago about all the overturned transport trucks on the 400 series of highway in the GTA this morning.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I sent an email to say I’m on my way.

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s nice to see you.

That is another issue, too. We’ve got all these traffic accidents out there. We’ve got all this gridlock out there on the 400 series of highways. People can’t get to work, and it’s a struggling economy. The member from Barrie is here. He made it in.

Back to the matter at hand, which is Bill 30. Many people who are caring for a loved one with a chronic disease need to make the maximum use of the days they take off. Where I was before we had to check for a quorum was that we were talking about whether or not it was the right thing to do to basically eliminate a whole week of this Caregiver Leave Act for taking just a few hours off in one day, and that’s the way it’s written. The MS Society had some concerns about that this week.

A lot of people can’t afford to take off a whole week of work, and a lot of people don’t necessarily need to take off a whole week of work to look after a loved one. So that’s something that obviously needs to be adjusted if this does, in fact, get to committee and we do clause-by-clause on this bill to discuss the merits of it. So I guess there are questions about that. This legislation doesn’t give family members the option of just taking half a day off or a day off without charging them for the whole week. I believe this is something we could possibly fix when we do get to committee.

You know, it’s interesting that this bill comes out and you’re almost asking people to adjust their lives to the bill, when the bill should really be there to allow people to run their own lives. It’s just another example of how poorly thought out this legislation is. It’s all about just gathering headlines, which is what this government is often all about. They run out of ideas and they scramble to put something out there that will get them a headline instead of putting out something that’s thoughtful and comprehensive and actually is good policy. We don’t see a lot of good policy from this government; we see a lot of good politics, unfortunately.

In addition to something being good politics, it also has got to make sense and be a good law. I guess we can accomplish that if we get to clause-by-clause. If you don’t do that, if you don’t build a bill on good policy, quite often what you’ll end up doing is having to backtrack and close down two power plants in Mississauga and Oakville to save seats on your side because your policy is flawed. Unfortunately, that’s what we’ve seen.

There are also many questions about what this bill does for small businesses—and I am the small business critic on this side.

Mr. Rob Leone: And a great one.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much.

Earlier this month, I believe it was our member from Elgin–Middlesex–London, Mr. Yurek, who has a pharmacy in his riding and was talking about the effect of this kind of bill on his business. It really struck me, as the small business critic, how this family caregiver bill could actually create huge problems for small businesses.

He told a story about a few years ago, when his pharmacy only had 12 employees—if this was in place at the time, he could have lost one of his pharmacists for up to eight weeks. In a rural area, that’s a huge, huge loss. He told a story about the fact that he did have an employee, a pharmacist, go off on leave for a period of time. When you only have 12 employees, and you have a skilled employee like a pharmacist, which don’t grow on trees in rural Ontario—there are lots of them here in the Toronto area—

Interjection: Mr. Yurek.

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s who we are talking about here: Mr. Yurek. He and his brother had to work 18-hour days just to keep the pharmacy going. That’s the kind of thing that this bill would create, the dilemma that it would create for small businesses. So I think it’s something that really needs to be looked at. He talked about the fact that for any small business, and this would affect small businesses under 50 people, they just don’t have the manpower, especially when it comes to some of these skilled trades, to make up for the time.

I understand the sensitivity of this bill and why it was brought forward: for companionate reasons. Unfortunately, many of us, as I said earlier, have had to look after an ailing and failing family member. I recall when we had to look after my grandmother, my mother, fortunately, was a nurse, so she was a professional caregiver and was able to give the proper care at home. This is something that is intended to provide some compassionate leave for family members, but unfortunately this bill is rather flimsy. It needs to have some changes in it that will allow people a little bit more liberty to take the time that they need.

There’s no disputing the motives of this bill. We would all like to care for our chronic and terminally ill family members; there’s no question about that. Anyone who has ever been in that circumstance knows exactly what those final days and hours are worth. Once they’re over, your life changes forever in ways that would never have seemed possible before.

I look forward to potentially discussing this bill further at committee. Thank you for the opportunity this morning to speak on it, Mr. Speaker.

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

M me France Gélinas: I too was visited by a member of the MS Society this week. It is always a pleasure to welcome them to Queen’s Park and support the great work that the MS Society is doing.

I like the comments that were made by the previous speaker, who really spoke to the issue of: Do we need to do more for family caregivers? Absolutely, we do. But then comes, “What are we doing with this bill?” With this bill, we are giving caregivers the opportunity to take a week off at a time in very, very specific circumstances that are very limiting.

When you look at who is doing most of that work, most of that work is done by people looking after aging parents, people looking after some of our family members or friends or relatives in the communities who are aging. Well, Mr. Speaker, aging is not a disease. Aging would never qualify for what we have in this legislation.

The spirit of the legislation is good. I had the pleasure to hear the Minister of Labour, who was there and attended the MS Society lunch, talk about what she wants the bill to accomplish. I think we can do a whole lot more while respecting the limited fiscal constraints that Ontario is under, but bring more flexibility to the bill so that not only do we give permission to take a week at a time but we have to build more flexibility as to how family caregivers can be excused from work.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I’m glad to be offering a few short comments on what I have been hearing this morning. I just wanted to thank the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for his comments. He spoke of the need for the bill, and I think that everybody who stands in this House to talk to this bill has a personal story or reflection where they’ve understood the need, the gap in legislation that would allow for something as flexible as this piece of legislation.

But I also hear, I think, that both the opposition sides don’t appear to know about the personal emergency leave, which is a piece of legislation that provides an unpaid job-protected leave up to 10 days per calendar year. Employees can take that for personal illness, an injury, a medical emergency, a death or an urgent matter.

At the end of the day, there are a number of leaves that are available, but what we’re talking about in the family caregiver leave is to fill that gap. We’ve identified a gap, and so have many of our groups that we spoke of this morning. We talked about the MS Society having come here the other day. They’re one of the groups that have indicated an expressed support for the bill. They recognize that there is a gap in legislation, and they appreciate the fact that we put this legislation forward. The Parkinson Society is another group.

The Alzheimer Society of Ontario, the Canadian Cancer Society and the caregiver coalition: These are groups that have physical experi-ence, everyday experience, and I trust their advice to be heartfelt. Obviously, they have day-to-day experience that would lend their support having great value to us, so I appreciate that advice.

I appreciate that there are members in this House who offer constructive suggestions on how to make the bill better. I look forward to their advice during committee hearings, and thank them for their constructive advice.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m very pleased to respond to the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. I believe what he said is quite an accurate

interpretation. All members would, from the very premise of the bill, want to support the idea of families being able to take care of their loved ones. That’s an unquestionable sentiment from our leader, Tim Hudak.

However, when you get down to it, it’s sort of like much is said about nothing. That’s kind of the truth. There isn’t one nickel of support for that individual who has to take time off work, so that’s a problem. But they are forcing Stephen Harper to pick up the ball. It is so transparent. It’s so upsetting to me that it’s always, “Blame someone else.”

Here’s the other issue. Let’s say, for instance, I was the caregiver—

Interjections.

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. Speaker, some of them are interrupting.

Say I was the caregiver and I have to take a day off work from a law firm or something like that, to take my ill child or mother to the hospital or for an appointment. I couldn’t just take the day off; I have to take the week. It’s seven days at a time. I mean, what for? Maybe I’m only needed there some of the time. Maybe there are other members of the family who want to take part of that time. They should have really given some thought to this.

I commend the Minister of Labour, who is here, and she’s responding to things, which is good. But I’ll just read it here. It says, “Family medical leave is unpaid, job-protected leave of up to eight weeks” for the employee to provide care or support to an individual who “has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death.” I would have to say, the regulation, “a significant risk of death”—now, if it’s deemed that it’s not—look, the devil’s in the detail. I did speak on this earlier, and I’d refer the listeners to look to Hansard and see my full comments on it. Thank you.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to join the debate today. I am anxious to see this bill head towards committee, because there are some mechanics within the constructs of the bill that need to be worked out, a whole host of different scenarios that could come into play, one being, what happens if a family member is out of province and that caregiver is in a different province and needs to provide the care outside of Ontario? How do we deal with that scenario?

Also, simply the fact that—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I can’t hear anything, Mr. Speaker. It’s early and we’re already doing this? This doesn’t bode well for the rest of the day.

We all have a personal story. My brother was injured in a mountain bike accident. He’s a quadriplegic; he requires ongoing care. They have a different system in British Columbia. He does receive a great amount of care. The thing is that those caregivers are paid well, and he receives a wonderful service through his community and through the province there.

But this leaves a tremendous gap for those family members who need to take advantage of this type of a program yet would never—could never—financially carry the burden of losing one, two, three days’ worth of work. That’s putting people further behind than I think the members in this House understand.

You know, we’ve heard that some members of the official opposition would like the federal government to not play a role, or to play a role, or do you want money attached through the federal government? I don’t know. I know the government would like the federal government to take a role in terms of attaching some supplements through EI. Why don’t you just do it here? You have the ability to attach a supplement to this program to ensure that people take advantage of it, that you get a good catchment of this program, yet it’s a Band-Aid solution.

It’s a stopgap, and it’s such a small measure that we see this in almost every respect when the government is trying to address problems. You can do it right, but the direction that the government is heading is not that direction.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you, Speaker, very much. It was interesting to hear the comments from the member from Nickel Belt, the Minister of Labour, our good friend here from Durham and our member from Essex as well, who, from what I could hear—and it wasn’t much—seemed to ask a lot of questions as well. That’s the nature of this bill, right? There are not a lot of answers in this bill; it’s all about questions. We heard questions from the member from Durham. We heard more questions from the members from Nickel Belt and Essex as well.

One of the things that the member from Durham touched on is, what is a serious illness or a serious health condition? That’s one of the questions I have as well. It’s not clearly defined. There is no clear definition of who is eligible to take this caregiver leave.

One of the other things, from a small business point of view—again, I don’t know how much thought the government put into how this was going to affect businesses, both big and small. The Minister of Labour touched on the emergency personal leave, that will have a negative effect on large manufacturers as well. But it’s going to have, as I detailed earlier, an effect on small businesses.

One of the things that the PC Party wanted to bring in was a small business bill of rights. The main point of that small business bill of rights was to consult with business before any new legislation or regulation is tabled here in the House so that we could understand what kind of an impact it was going to have on job creation, which is arguably the biggest issue facing the province right now. We have 550,000 people out of work in the province of Ontario, and we want to give people eight weeks off? It’s going to have a negative impact on business. I think there are a lot of questions that need to be answered when this bill gets to committee. Thank you again, Speaker.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: It’s a great pleasure to rise today to speak on behalf of the PC caucus on Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act. It’s actually one that’s quite interesting for me, given the fact that I’ve spent probably about the last 20 years of my life as a human resources professional and worked in labour relations. So this is something I know a little bit about.

I’ve actually lived the experience of employers and seen what it means to employees to have an employer that actually cares about what they’re doing and actually has a conscience about how they manage their employees—which, I might add, is most of the employers in Ontario. Because, let’s remember, the biggest employer in Ontario is small business. I’ll tell you what: Especially in Barrie, the biggest employer is small business. Over 70% of all the people who work in Barrie are employed by employers who have four or less employees.

Let’s talk about what that means to employers when they have to give eight weeks of leave to an employee—who is not getting paid for this leave either, by the way. I’ll talk about that in a minute. Let’s talk a little bit about how this is really just window dressing. It’s just putting a bright, shiny piece onto a bill to try to score some points. Even before we go into the details of the bill, there are suggestions from my PC colleagues, and perhaps members of the third party as well: If you’re planning to open a boutique shop or a small business, ask our colleagues across the aisle for window dressing tips, because they’re the experts. We see this all the time.

The second thought: Don’t do it, unless you want debt, deficit and a credit downgrade. Most certainly, they’ll tell you it’s not their fault. As the member from Durham mentioned earlier, it’s always somebody else’s fault, isn’t it?

In all seriousness, Bill 13 is political window dressing at its finest. It touches our deepest feelings and our passion for our families and our loved ones, but it does really little to help our loved ones or our small businesses, who are struggling right now, not only to keep their doors open but to keep these very people that this bill pretends to protect employed. It provides eight weeks; this bill provides eight weeks of leave for people who need to take care of their family members who are seriously ill. It sounds great, right?

But there’s a catch. As the member from Durham and the member from Prince Edward–Hastings mentioned, you don’t get paid for it—small catch.

The best

part is that the government is expecting the federal government to provide EI coverage for people on this leave. As my colleague the member from Cambridge pointed out a few weeks ago, the government knows full well what the answer will be. It will be no.

Interjection.

Mr. Rod Jackson: They at least know that they can’t afford it. At least they’ve got enough sense to realize what they can and can’t afford.

As a result of eight long years of Liberal mismanagement, our once-great province is now taking welfare cheques from that very government. They’re already giving us enough money; they’re not about to hand out more. Now the Premier and the government is actually asking for more money.

What is even more mind-blowing is that he hasn’t even asked yet—hasn’t even asked the federal government yet. So we’re just assuming it’s going to happen.

So let’s face it: The average hard-working Ontarian can’t afford to take this leave, especially people who are already incurring large costs, often large costs, for the very family members that they have to take the leave to give care to.

Let’s talk about some of the increases that businesses are already incurring and families are incurring with the increases to hydro through the global adjustment. The Auditor General stated that the Premier’s green energy experiment alone explains 56% of the increases to people’s hydro bills. I don’t know about you, but walking around and knocking on 30,000 to 40,000 doors like I did in the past year, that was something that people were talking about. It’s hurting them hard, all the time—especially small businesses.

I have a good friend who has a butcher shop; he can barely keep the doors open. He actually went and employed seven people from another butcher shop in Barrie that got shut down purely because of the hydro costs. He can’t shut down his freezers in the middle of the day. He can’t choose when he turns on and off his power. He can’t make that decision. He doesn’t have a choice. He has got to keep his meat cold. Yet he still took seven extra employees from that butcher shop when it got shut down and employed them in his place, and he makes nothing from that. That’s an employer who cares about his employees and has a good sense of conscience that can be appealed to.

That’s what we need to be talking to employers about. We have to be consulting with them about these sorts of things; that’s the main point. There is no consultation.

There is no demonstrable need for this. The best practice is for an employer and an employee to negotiate a proposition: “Let’s talk.” You can’t legislate everything. It’s just one thing after another, whether you’re legislating about what kind of food they can eat in their cafeterias, whether you can talk about how many days—the minister already mentioned they get a 10-day emergency leave.

I tell you, as an HR professional, most people never use it. Part of the reason they never use it is because they don’t know it exists in the first place. Most employers don’t know it exists, and if they do know it exists, they don’t know how to administer it. If they do know how to administer it, they know that the employer has to get a note from the employee saying that they have reasonable cause to believe that they’re ill. There are a number of different things that the doctor has to go through to prove that they’re actually eligible for the emergency leave. They don’t know that.

It’s either getting abused or it’s not getting used. That’s what is going to happen to this: It’s going to get abused or it’s not going to get used. It’s not going to benefit anybody. It’s just window dressing.

Nobody is trying to deny leave for loved ones. No one wants to deny care for loved ones.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Yes, you are. That’s exactly what you’re doing.

Mr. Rod Jackson: The government can imply that we don’t love our loved ones and we don’t want to care for them and paint this picture that we’re awful. But, you know what? The reality of the situation, the pragmatics of it are that we can’t afford it, people won’t know about it, they won’t know how to administer it and the cost is going to be immense for businesses that are already struggling.

My colleague from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington pointed out that during the minister’s briefing the minister’s own staff provided no data that there is demonstrable need for this bill. There’s no reason for the government to table this bill other than to score some political points by playing on people’s emotions. We see that a lot from the other side.

Bill 30 is poorly thought out. For one, it doesn’t provide a guideline as to what constitutes a serious medical condition. If the government leaves such an important definition free for

interpretation, it’s highly likely that this intended bill will turn into a dysfunctional disaster, and I will attest to that, having worked for 20 years in the human resources field. This will not work.

For example, a small business owner may be forced to give leave to an employee who should not be qualified for the leave. I’ve seen that happen so many times, and usually it’s because an employer doesn’t know the rules around the whole leave.

Especially when we’re talking about small employers that employ five or less employees—we just keep piling the regulations on these people so it makes it harder and harder to do business. Anyone who has talked to a small business owner for more than five minutes will tell you that they know there’s a burden that makes it so difficult for them to do business that they don’t want to do business anymore; they want to get out of it and go work for somebody else. We’re losing the biggest employers in our province because we’re regulating their businesses to death. It’s not fair.

If one of these people go on leave, how does the government expect a small business to carry out its daily operations? They can’t. If someone goes for eight weeks, and a small business loses one quarter of its employee workforce, they’ve got to hire someone else. How do they do that? There are already regulations that make it so difficult to hire someone part-time or for a short time. Imagine trying to find someone who has got a specific skill set to fill that gap for that short period of time. You’re going to kill that business in many cases; they’re not going to be able to do it.

I go back to the butcher. Try to find a qualified butcher who can actually afford to let one of his people go for up to eight weeks. You can’t do it. It doesn’t make any sense.

Let’s be real about what’s happening here. This will not help employers. It won’t help employees, certainly ones who need a paycheque, because you’re taking more and more and more out of their pockets every single day. They can’t afford to have more.

Conversely, an employee who should be qualified for leave isn’t given one because the doctor doesn’t think there’s a serious medical condition.

Good laws should have clear

definitions so that we know what they’re talking about; this one doesn’t. It falls woefully short of the simple and commonsensical expectation.

Furthermore, Bill 30 is unnecessarily rigid in many ways. The bill dictates that an employee may take leave only in periods of entire weeks—a week being a period of seven days starting and ending on Saturday. As a result, this is an unreasonable clause. A caregiver has to either take extra unpaid days off—delaying care and delivery to the following Monday. There’s no clear rationale behind this unnecessary and unreasonable restriction. This doesn’t make sense.

The bill needs lots more thought. I agree with my colleague from Essex: If this does go to committee, it needs some severe changes to make it work.

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

M me France Gélinas: It’s funny how sometimes we disagree as to where we’re coming from philosophically, but at the end of the day I tend to agree with what he said: that the bill, as it is written, won’t be that useful.

If we look at the definition which is not there, the bill only applies to serious medical conditions. “Serious medical condition,” unfortunately, has not been defined in the bill, but it is terminology that has been commonly used by insurance companies. People who have insurance to cover themselves if they get sick have used this terminology of “serious medical condition.” The definition already exists elsewhere in the health care system, but it has not been defined in the law.

My guess is that once a health provider, a family physician or a nurse practitioner finds herself in front of a client where it’s requested of them that they sign a caregiver leave and they know that the regulation to sign one of those is a serious medical condition, they will be really, really hesitant to sign one of those for the 91-year-old who doesn’t hear very good anymore and doesn’t see very good anymore and has trouble walking, because he needs a walker.

He would certainly benefit from having his caregiver come to a specialist appointment with him because going there by himself may be difficult—sometimes the parking, the transportation. Once he’s there, he doesn’t always understand what the physician is trying to say. He would very much benefit from having his caregiver come to that appointment with him, but he would not qualify for a serious medical condition. So I agree that the bill is very limited in its usefulness right now.

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

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I just want to follow up on one issue the member for Barrie raised, which—I’ve always found this very disconcerting about the Conservative Party, Mr. Speaker. They love to beat up on Ontario. Western Conservatives, whom I used to run against in Manitoba, love to tell everyone that Ontario is the problem. Then, our own members love to tell us that we’re the problem as well. That’s why I’m proud to be a Liberal.

Some $23 billion goes out of this province. When I was mayor of Winnipeg, if it wasn’t for Ontario, they wouldn’t have a floodway and a human rights museum, because Ontario taxpayers are paying for that. Ontario taxpayers pay for higher subsidies in Quebec for settlement money and in western Canada, including housing programs. When are you going to stand up for this province? Some $23 billion. Quite frankly, this is just absurd to me.

Employment insurance covers leave. Why wouldn’t it? If you actually, as you so often do on issues like Bill 13 and others, believe in this stuff, vote for it. We have a right to employment insurance like everybody else. We have the lowest level of per capita spending of any provincial government, and we subsidize, with the exception of Alberta and Saskatchewan, public services so they can have lower taxes and have more services. And if you compare us to Quebec, they’ve got a good deal. Ontarians deserve the same deal from Confederation that Quebeckers and Manitobans do.

I’m proud to be a Canadian and I’m proud to have lived in three provinces. If you lived in Manitoba or you lived in Quebec for significant parts of your life, you’d know that we don’t get the deal other provinces do. This economy, for most of our lifetime, and today, and for most of the next decade, will continue to pay the freight.

I owned and operated a business in this province, Mr. Speaker. We paid low taxes. Taxes on small business are 18% less than they were when you were in power. It is easier to do business in Ontario than it ever has been, and I paid less taxes under a Liberal government, as a corporation and as a small business, than I did under a Tory, so if this is unacceptable to you, maybe you can apologize for your taxation record in government.

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

Mrs. Jane McKenna: I’ve never been so proud to be a PC, and I’m going to stand here right now and tell you something. I was on the committee for Bill 13, and I want to tell you something: I was never so ashamed to be on that. First and foremost, we had five days of deliberation with 90 people who came in. If all I have is my word, I owed it to them to have a voice in what was said in that. We took one of the 17 amendments that we had, and I was embarrassed that, out of all the things that were said, we didn’t come together, first and foremost.

Second of all, we stand here, and I am a conduit and a vessel to my constituents of Burlington—and we all are. This is our job: to educate the people on what is going on in this Legislature so they can go back and they understand. The best part about this is that we are all people from different places, and we all deserve to be here to give the people the information that they need from different eyes, because we’re all unique people.

But I want to explain something else. When we stand here today, this is another example of what comes from the government when it’s their agenda and not what is everybody else’s agenda. They need to listen to what people are saying, because we’re not listening. I can’t be the only person in here with our PC caucus who is knocking on doors and listening to people, and they’re dumbfounded at what exactly goes on in this House. We are a minority government that all needs to work together, and it amazes me that we do not because it still acts like a majority government over there.

So I’m standing here to say today that I am proud, never prouder, that I am a PC. I will stand here to say that if we ever needed a change, we need it now, and we need to be standing here for the constituents who we all represent, as conduits and vessels, to continue to be the voice for them.

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

M. Michael Mantha: Ça me fait plaisir de tout le temps me lever ici dans la Chambre pour adresser ce qui concerne les Ontariens, spécifiquement pour cette pièce. Et puis, il faut qu’on ait de la discussion. C’est une bonne étape de présenter ce projet de loi par en avant. Je parlerai à mon collègue du Parti conservateur où il indique qu’il y a un attachement, il y a un problème, il y a un obstacle pour les personnes qui trouvent la période de demande—qu’il faut que tu prennes une pleine semaine. Franchement, moi je regarderais ça de l’autre bord.

C’est que l’employeur peut maintenant avoir la discussion avec son employé qui dit : « Oui, je prends la pleine semaine. » Maintenant, l’employeur peut se mettre dans une position où, vraiment, il peut regarder toute la pleine période que la personne va être

partie de l’ouvrage.

I hear what my colleague from the Progressive Conservatives had said: that when you’re looking at the entire week’s period that an individual has to take in regard to this bill—he refers to it as being stringent and being an obstacle for an employer. I look at it another way: that maybe that is of a great benefit to the employer where there will be a set time set aside for an individual to take that period.

But we have to remember also that in these small businesses that are going to be affected—and large businesses as well—you know who your workforce is. You have that ability and you have that flexibility to work with them. When somebody is actually affected by a loved one who is in need of care, not only is the employee being affected, but the employer is also being affected because they are aware of the situation.

You’re right: Small businesses are the backbone of many Ontario communities and rural Ontario communities. We do need to have the discussions in order to identify what exactly are the steps that need to be taken by employers and employees so we can make this a benefit.

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

Mr. Rod Jackson: I’ve heard a couple of times from the opposite side that somehow or another they’re trying to get people to believe that we over here don’t stand up for the people of Ontario, and we’re not proud of Ontario. You know what? Nobody believes that. We didn’t work as hard as we did to get here and get these seats because we don’t care about our communities and we don’t care about Ontario.

It’s not Ontario that’s the problem; not at all. It’s the government of Ontario that’s the problem. That’s why we need it to change, and we need it to be responsible to the people who elected it.

We also need to remember that we need to help support people who don’t have jobs. There are hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people who don’t have jobs. In Barrie, we have one of the highest unemployment rates in the country for a city of its size. We bounce off the bottom with Windsor now. When I tell people that, they’re surprised. They can’t believe it. “What’s wrong in Barrie?” What’s wrong is that businesses are being regulated so badly it is being made so difficult to do business in Ontario.

I’ve been a small business owner in Canada, in Ontario, as well. I have lived in other provinces; I lived in other countries for a number of years. I’m proud to be in Ontario. I’m proud to have established a business in Ontario. I’m proud to have worked for employers in Ontario. I’m proud to have been an employee in Ontario, too.

This bill doesn’t do anything substantially or tangibly to help the employers or the employees in Ontario—full stop. It is pure window dressing from the government side to build on people’s emotions and really does absolutely nothing to help the people who really need the help. It makes tons of assumptions about how it’s going to get paid for without actually giving any substantial study or thought to stakeholders.

If I talk to employers in Barrie, large and small, about this—in fact, I have received lots of correspondence from them. They don’t want it. They’re saying the same thing I am: less regulation and more paying attention to the real employers in the province.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I am very pleased this morning to have this opportunity to participate in the second reading debate of Bill 30,

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

short title of this bill, as the government has articulated it, is the Family Caregiver Leave Act (Employment Standards Amendment), 2011.

Mr. Speaker, this bill was first introduced in this House on December 8. So it was almost six months ago. It has been called for debate from time to time when the government is uncertain or unsure of what to do to fill this Legislature’s time. It would appear to be sort of a place-keeping bill that the government calls from time to time just to kind of fill in time and fill in airtime.

Our caucus has spoken to this bill extensively. This morning, we had participation from the members from Prince Edward–Hastings and Barrie, both of whom come from constituencies that have many concerns about many other issues that are facing the province, obviously, as well as this one. We have a jobs crisis in the province of Ontario. We have huge issues with respect to energy—and, of course, wind energy is a big issue in many ridings in the province of Ontario.

We have the equine industry. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity on Tuesday night to attend a big public meeting in Wellington county that was organized by the warden of Wellington county, Chris White, and the county council. There were hundreds of people there who were very, very concerned about the potential devastation of the equine industry because of the government’s decision to end the slots-at-racetracks program. Randy Pettapiece, my colleague from Perth–Wellington, was also there. At the end of the meeting we had the chance to address the crowd, to speak to them about what we’re going to do. I indicated a willingness to continue to work on their behalf, to advocate their concerns.

Clearly, the government is not listening, but we would urge particularly the members of cabinet, who have an opportunity to speak in the inner sanctum, behind closed doors in the cabinet meetings, to seriously re-evaluate this issue, because I believe it’s going to cost taxpayers more than what it will save, if anything. I think in fact it’s going be shown to be one of the big boondoggles of the provincial government at the appropriate time when we see the books after the next government takes office.

I do digress, Mr. Speaker, and I must return to the discussion on Bill 30, and I recognize that. This bill, if we were to listen to the government and believe them, would purport to create a family caregiver leave, added to the Employment Standards Act. “Under

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

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

section 49.1 and personal emergency leave under

section 50.”

Our caucus, again—as I said, we’ve discussed this bill now for 11 hours. It’s interesting that the government seems to think this is an important priority, yet six months into it we still haven’t concluded the debate. We’re down to 10-minute speeches, but at the same time, 11 hours of debate—the government hasn’t called it on a consistent basis; just from time to time when it doesn’t know what else to call.

Obviously, if this place is to be relevant, we need to be responding to the day-to-day concerns of the people of Ontario. Again, there are all kinds of concerns that are brought to my attention in my constituency office on Fridays. My staff work on them through the week and I get back when I can, obviously, to participate in those discussions with my constituents. I have to say that this doesn’t come up very often in my riding office.

From time to time I’ve heard concerns about this, and I think that most compassionate employers who want to retain staff over time would take a compassionate approach. If staff need time off to deal with urgent family matters, I think that most employers are probably already doing this sort of thing. But the government seems to feel that it’s necessary to make some sort of value statement that it’s doing something to ensure that this happens in every case, and I understand that.

I also recognize some of the points that were made by the members for Prince Edward–Hastings and Barrie on the concerns that small businesses have. Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business will tell you that coming out of a recession—we’re still in economic difficulty, obviously, with the jobs situation, but coming out of a recession, it’s the small business sector that is the most dynamic in terms of job creation, and up to 80% of new jobs tend to be in the small business sector.

Surely, that being the case, we want to encourage small business, we want to get behind small business, we want to evaluate the level of regulation, red tape and the level of tax that small business is facing.

That has always been the focus of our caucus, and we’ve brought forward those concerns for years. Obviously, when we were in government between 1995 and 2003, it was a big focus of ours. Small business contributed to the creation of more than a million jobs in the province of Ontario, encouraged and supported by the Harris and Eves governments.

Under the McGuinty government, I hear consistently from business people that the provincial government is in no way supportive of small business. In fact, the level of regulation, red tape, and the level of tax has never been worse. I even hear comments that it’s worse under the McGuinty Liberals than it was under the Bob Rae government, the New Democrats, between 1990 and 1995. At that time, certainly when I was here, we considered the level of tax, red tape and regulation to be killing jobs and small business, and oppressive.

I think the government needs to obviously listen to the opposition in this regard. We have all kinds of ideas to bring forward, and certainly in a minority Parliament, I would venture to suggest, we have an obligation to bring forward constructive suggestions and ideas. It’s not good enough just to be obstructionist and present the opposition. Although we do have an obligation to do that too, I would say we also have a commensurate obligation to bring forward constructive, good ideas from our side of the House. We’ve tried to do that.

Unfortunately, the McGuinty government has been more or less unwilling to co-operate with us. Of course, they point the finger at us in terms of our perceived unwillingness to work with them, but I would suggest that the latter is actually—we are prepared to work with them. We’re certainly making an effort. We’re trying to bring forward ideas. We have a considerable number of ideas with respect to elimination of red tape and regulation. Of course, this government is looking to solve the fiscal problem that they face, that they created, largely, with higher taxes and higher regulation on small business. Again, we would encourage the government to consider some of these ideas.

Certainly, our position on this bill has been brought forward, as I said, by a number of our colleagues. We have pointed out the fact that the minister’s staff provided an initial briefing on the legislation to our caucus and gave us this information. We were told that this bill is intended to introduce a proposed family caregiver’s leave for up to eight unpaid weeks per year. To qualify for the leave, the employee must be caring for an individual whom a physician has deemed to have a critical injury or illness and cannot care for themselves.

We are told the leave will mirror the family medical leave significantly, except it will not include the provision of significant risk of death within a 26-week period.

Currently, before this bill was introduced, we were told that there are only two leaves available to workers in Ontario that are protected under the Employment Standards Act. Family medical leave is unpaid, job-protected leave of up to eight weeks in a 26-week period, but for an employee to be eligible, a qualified health practitioner must issue a certificate stating that the individual to be cared for has a serious medical condition with a significant risk of death occurring within a period of 26 weeks.

Under the federal Employment Insurance Act, six weeks of employment insurance benefits may be paid to EI-eligible employees under this leave. That, of course, has been discussed in the context of this debate: whether or not the federal government has been adequately consulted in this regard; offloading the responsibility for this provincial legislation onto the federal government, expecting them to pay for it. Certainly, we would have to call attention to that and question whether or not that’s appropriate.

Personal emergency leave: Some employees have the right to take up to 10 days of unpaid, job-protected leave each calendar year, due to illness, injury and certain other emergencies and urgent matters. This leave is only eligible for individuals who work for a company that regularly employs more than 50 employees.

Again, we have concerns about this bill. During the initial briefing, the Ministry of Labour staff could not cite any demand for this proposed leave, nor could they cite any circumstances or instances where employees had asked for leave to care for a family member and were terminated as a result. The Ministry of Labour also has not yet briefed any stakeholder groups whom this bill could significantly affect.

In short, our caucus has concerns. We’re not sure that this bill is the right way to go. We do encourage the government to send this bill to committee so that we can have an opportunity to hear from many of the interested groups and individuals. I think that’s appropriate and prudent, and I hope that can happen soon.

I know that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has a real interest in this and, I’m sure, would want to participate in those discussions. They are the voice of small business. I think that to the extent that we, as a minority Legislature, can work with small business and work with the people who speak on their behalf through the CFIB, obviously we’re going to be acting in the public interest.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your indulgence this morning in listening to my comments, and I encourage all members of this House to consider the comments of the official opposition with respect to Bill 30.

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

M me France Gélinas: It was interesting to listen to the comments that were made by the previous member on a number of issues. The first one is that you have to realize that this bill will only be needed when your employer doesn’t co-operate. Right now in Ontario, people who find themselves looking after their loved ones—most of the time, their employers know. Most of the time, their employers are sympathetic and have already put into place as much flexibility as they can.

I mean, let’s face it: Whether you are an employer or an employee, everybody has a heart. If you know that you’re looking after a dying mother or you’re looking after a very disabled person and you’re also holding down a job, your employer will know about this. You will have had to have chats with your employer about requesting flexibility etc. This bill will only apply when you have gone to your employer and explained to them that you are the primary caregiver for somebody, usually for years and years, and then your employer does not comply; your employer does not give you the flexibility that you need.

When you look at those people—I remember the Parkinson Society coming to talk to me about this bill and saying, “When our members need to go for cataract surgery, for example, you need to put little drops in your eyes. You need to do this four times a day. So the caregiver would like to sneak back at home four times a day to put the drops in, but the bill does not allow you to do this.” The bill says, “You should take a whole week.” Everybody loses. The worker doesn’t want a full week, the employer doesn’t want a full week, but that’s all we have to offer. We have to do better.

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

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I just wanted to thank the member from Wellington–Halton Hills for his comments. I think he started out with his comments kind of in a way that was not helpful and that he talked about more pressing issues, and I can’t think of anything more pressing when somebody has somebody ill at home.

I guess I heard from the PC caucus a number of comments with regard to the fact that we hadn’t consulted and that we hadn’t been talking to small business. I just want to remind people—I raised this before when I spoke about the bill—the Human Resources Professionals Association did a survey back in January and they got 616 responses. These respondents worked almost exclusively for large companies which were able to implement these internal policies. Some 95.6% of those 616 responses supported the idea of family caregiver leave. That’s a very high incidence.

A majority of those respondents noted that the issue is timely and urgent. They said it had an impact on many Canadians across Canada. The respondents also noted that it was a complicated issue. I think everybody here has acknowledged that. They said it was difficult to legislate and difficult to administer. I think that’s what we’ve heard this morning. But they also gave the government support and credit for addressing it. They noted that the legislation was progressive and that it was a step in the right direction for Ontario.

Many commented that through the sheer force of demographics, their companies have already been forced to address this issue. So you can put your head in the sand, or you can decide to address the issue. That’s what this legislation is trying to do.

I guess I would close; I have about 20 seconds left. One of the comments in the response was, “This is an excellent retention initiative. It is costly to recruit, select and train new employees. It is better to allow for family care leave than to go through the process of hiring a new employee. Although small companies may find it difficult to deal with an extended absence, they manage to do so for apprenticeship training and other extended absences.”

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I very much appreciate the opportunity to comment regarding the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

I have to tell you, if you look at individual cases, it’s something that needs to be addressed. Very specifically, it states in subsection (2), “An employee is entitled to a leave of absence without pay to provide care or support to an individual described in subsection (4) if a qualified health practitioner issues a certificate stating that the individual has a serious medical condition.”

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, the concern here is the seven-day provision in regard to that. I’ll give you an example. My aunt, Chacha Mary, as she’s known, had a knee replacement where she had an epidural that paralyzed her. My mother is the one who is now driving to Toronto to pick her up because of the problems that are taking place with Wheel-Trans. Wheel-Trans would send an individual—they end up sending cabs, and she cannot walk or get into a cab, so my mother ends up driving from Oshawa to Toronto in order to pick her up to get in for some care to try and assist her.

We’re going through a very difficult time in this particular case. A seven-day provision in order to assist an individual is not something that’s going to be functional in this particular case.

What we want to see is the ability to assist these individuals in matters that’s going to be functional. In order to take a seven-day leave for an individual in similar situations would be very problematic for a lot of people, where more specific opportunities to target those individuals who are in the care and need that specific assistance, where possible, would be very beneficial to a lot. I think that a lot of provisions that need to be addressed—such as this—through the committee process and other aspects would be far more beneficial to the individuals in doing what the government wants to assist with.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s a pleasure to rise and address the comments made by the member from Wellington–Halton Hills.

The idea of giving leave for people who have to look after parents or relatives who are ill is not, in itself, a bad idea. What concerns us is that the bill is very narrow. The bill is put forward in a context where there is not adequate home care, not adequate support for caregivers in this province. Like many of the bills that we’ve had to address and debate in this chamber, the bill gives a sense of there being forward motion, with, in fact, the impact being fairly negligible. That’s a huge concern, Speaker.

You and I and many of the people in this chamber have gone door to door in our ridings, talked to people at the door. I’ve talked to people in my riding who have come to the door clearly exhausted, particularly seniors, women, who are looking after husbands who have severe health problems: Alzheimer’s, cardiac conditions. They’re exhausted. They need much more than this bill. Certainly they need to be in a position where family can come and help them when they have an extreme situation, but they need ongoing support, which they currently can’t get.

So not only does the primary person who’s dealing with the illness have great difficulties, suffering from lack of support, but their caregiver has their health pushed to the limit, their health endangered as well.

I don’t see a reason to vote against this bill, but I don’t expect a huge improvement in the situation if it does pass.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Wellington–Halton Hills, you have two minutes to respond.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I want to thank the members who offered comments with respect to the remarks that I made this morning. The Minister of Labour intervened as well.

I would invite the government members to participate in this debate this morning. I’m not sure why the government members—there are a number of them here. The ranks are a little thin this morning, I have to say, in the House, but at the same time there appears to be a quorum, and we would certainly invite the Liberal members to participate in this bill. If they feel so strongly about it and believe so passionately that Bill 30 needs to be passed, I encourage them to stand up and talk about Bill 30. We would certainly be interested in their views, and we can continue to debate this issue.

I thought the member for Nickel Belt and the member for Oshawa made constructive suggestions with respect to my comments. Both of them talked about the lack of flexibility for real family situations. You may need a half a day off, but you actually have to take a week off under this legislation, unpaid. That doesn’t provide the flexibility that many families would need if they’re facing these situations.

The member for Nickel Belt said everybody has a heart—employers and employees—and I certainly agree with that. As I said in my comments, the vast majority of employers and workplaces, when they want to retain good employees, are willing to make compromises in terms of these kinds of situations. Prudent employers who want to retain their excellent staff keep informed about their family situations to the extent that it’s possible, and if an employee is facing a family crisis, they would want to ensure that that employee has the opportunity to address it in a compassionate way.

We all have families, we all have hearts, as the member for Nickel Belt said. I have confidence that the vast majority of employers are already prepared to do this without the need for government legislation.

The Minister of Labour said that this is a very pressing issue, but it’s interesting that the House has been debating this for almost seven months.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m proud to join the debate on Bill 30, the Family Caregiver Leave Act. I know that our outstanding labour critic, the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, and our deputy critic, the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex, have both previously spoken very eloquently, outlining some very serious concerns with this bill. I have to tell you that I tend to join with them in questioning the purpose of this particular piece of legislation that we’re debating this morning.

Of course, I want to start by stressing that I think every member of this House, and indeed every Ontarian, has the utmost respect for family caregivers. If I believed that this bill, as it’s currently written, would do anything to extend real help to these families and individuals, I know that the members of our caucus would be supportive.

But certainly, as a representative in Leeds and Grenville, I have to say that I speak from a little bit of experience. Like so many people in my riding and across the province, I have a very personal understanding of the incredible stress and strain that accompanies an illness in the family. It’s a difficult, almost heart-wrenching process to care for a loved one who is ill. There’s the pain and heartbreak of seeing someone you love, whether it’s a parent, a sibling, a spouse or a child, become seriously ill and knowing, in too many cases, that they won’t recover.

This heartbreak is compounded when the role of a caregiver is suddenly thrust upon a family. Immediately, grief is compounded with the fear of the unknown. There’s no training to prepare for the role of a family caregiver and the physical, financial and emotional toll that it would take on a family. I know that you can’t

schedule when the call is going to come for help. It could be in the middle of the day, in the middle of the night or anywhere in between. It’s a monumental task that can overwhelm even the strongest and most resourceful of individuals and families. So I want to take the first part of my time to applaud every family member in this province who selflessly puts their own lives and those of their families on hold in order to care for someone they love in their most vulnerable state.

My questions about the bill aren’t to suggest that I don’t have compassion for family caregivers. But I’m afraid that I’m very disappointed in seeing that this bill fails to deliver really anything meaningful to the table this morning.

On its surface, the bill sounds very well intentioned. Employees will be provided up to eight weeks of unpaid leave to care for a loved one who suffers from a serious illness. But again, I want to go back to the comments from the member for Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington, who stated during the earlier debate that this is yet another piece of legislation that the McGuinty Liberals have thrust upon this House without any due diligence. It sounds very promising on the surface, but again, as I think he said or perhaps the member for Chatham–Kent–Essex said, once you shine the light of scrutiny on the bill, you really start to see the flaws that are there.

There are too many examples in this province of what happens when this government rushes through a piece of legislation without consultation. You could even say, Minister, that that’s one without proper consultation. The Green Energy Act, as certainly we all acknowledge on this side of the House, has tremendous flaws. We have consistently, over the last several months, tried to put forward some very strong amendments and strong bills to resolve that.

I remember, as a relatively new member of this Legislature, being in a committee that debated the Far North Act and all of the changes as this government opposite thrust that through without consultation. Once again, we’re seeing that with the Family Caregiver Leave Act.

The minister has simply failed to consult with key stakeholders. She even mentioned this morning in her remarks that she mentioned the bill when speaking to the Human Resources Professionals Association. She even had a chat with some of the members after her remarks. With respect, I must say, Minister, that’s a very, very poor way to have consultation on a bill. Personally, I wouldn’t be bragging about it here this morning.

Only a government like this one, that has run roughshod over business with increased red tape and regulation, would come and speak to a group and acknowledge that they’re consulting with them after they’ve already tabled a piece of legislation.

The minister also talked about this statistic this morning, which she mentioned that day with HRPA, where they did a survey and showed that 95.6% of their respondents looked favourably upon the concept of family caregiver leave. Well, of course they do. Who wouldn’t, without having the bill in front of them, agree with that concept? I’m actually surprised it’s not 100% rather than 95.6%. But I’m sure that if they had seen Bill 30 at the time, there would be no way that there would be 95.6%. Why? Because these same HRPA professionals would be dealing with a vague piece of legislation that foists yet more regulations and red tape onto them.

In fact, if the minister truly wanted to consult HRPA, I bet you that some of the questions I would guess they would ask would have been included in this bill, questions like: Why isn’t something as basic as serious illness defined in this act? How do businesses manage to afford replacing workers who are on leave, particularly the small businesses?” Ontario businesses already have had five new leaves of absence created in the past seven years. The question I’m sure some of these professionals would ask is, do we really need a sixth?

Real consultation, I think, would have raised those types of questions and allowed them to be incorporated in the act before its presentation, not when it was presented during committee.

I know many of my colleagues have talked about engaging in more discussion with some of the stakeholders during the next phase of this bill. But I guess, when you look at a piece of legislation, as a Legislature, you really have to ask two questions: Does a problem exist? And will this law fix it?

Minister, in this case, I don’t think anyone on this side of the House, on the government side of the House, has indicated a problem exists. In fact, as the member for Wellington–Halton Hills said, we’re getting very little action from the government this morning in this debate. I think they’re missing the opportunity to talk about whether a problem exists. If a problem does exist, then stand up in your place and talk about it.

In fact, I would suggest that the minister can’t demonstrate any meaningful way that Ontario employers are currently denying their employees companionate leave. Yet we’re debating legislation that presumes there’s a problem and that it’s up to a government, this government, to fix it. I have to tell you that businesses are extremely skeptical of that government trying to fix a problem through legislation.

Let’s get back to the assumption of the bill, because certainly, Speaker, the government opposite wouldn’t play any games with this bill. The underlying implication of Bill 30—I have just a few moments left—is that employers large and small aren’t providing this compassion. One of the things that I want to close with is this government’s lack of support for the business sector. I can remember back at the end of February, February 29, the refusal of the government opposite to support the motion of our leader, Tim Hudak, to continue the planned reduction of the business tax. They said during the election that they would support it and then they turned tail and ran from it on February 29.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’m delighted to stand on behalf of my colleague Deb Matthews and me and introduce some very special guests here to support Kendra Squire, who is one of the pages. We have Phil Squire and Yolanda Squire, her parents; grandmother Mariane Vantol; grandfather Peter Vantol; and great-uncle Harry Linstram. I ask everybody to welcome them here to the Legislature.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I would like to welcome Mrs. Dace Phillips, a retired Bell Canada employee who resides in the riding of Richmond Hill. She is joined today by her daughter Alex Phillips, who happens to be a member of my staff. I want to welcome them to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: We have a guest in the House who has travelled a long way to see us today, and that is Dr. Charles Mulli from Mully Children’s Family in Kenya. He’s accompanied today by Frank Tilley, the chair of the Mully Children’s foundation in Canada. Many members will remember they helped to raise a bulldozer that was sent over to that country and has done remarkable work. Dr. Mulli is here.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: It gives me great pleasure to introduce my wife, Patty Fedeli, who is here in the gallery today.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: I would like to welcome to the Legislature today, seated in the east members’ gallery, Gyanendra Badgaiyan, Kahan Singh Pannu, Ajeet Singh Pannu and Nidhi Sharma. They are four members of the 115-member Indian administrative services team on a week-long foreign-study training mission in Toronto. They are in the House today to observe question period and also to take in a tour of our historic Legislative Building.

Mr. Speaker, IAS officers in India perform the same function as our deputy ministers and ADMs in the Ontario public service, and I want to extend them a very warm welcome.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family of page Hannah Symington in the west members’ gallery: her mom, Rev. Joanne Symington, and her brother Nathan. They’re visiting Queen’s Park. Thank you, and welcome here today.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s a pleasure to invite everyone today to join with us in our Tibetan community in room 228 for some fabulous Tibetan food and an experience of Tibetan culture. That’s right after question period, in room 228.

Mr. Kim Craitor: I am pleased to introduce in the members’ gallery two special individuals from the riding of Niagara Falls. I have Peter Conradi, the publisher of Bullet News Niagara, and Bullet News reporter John Robbins. Peter lives in St. Catharines. John lives in Fort Erie. They’re here today specifically to cover the second reading of my private member’s bill for grandparents’ rights under the Children’s Law Reform Act. Welcome, Peter and John to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My wife has found where I work, and she has come to watch me work today. Welcome, Jenn.

Mr. Bob Delaney: I am pleased to introduce Ian Leaper of Mississauga, who won a lunch with his MPP and is here to watch question period for the first time.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: It must be PC wives’ day today at Queen’s Park, Speaker. I would like to welcome my wife back to Queen’s Park: Kate Bartz.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: It is my pleasure to welcome to the Ontario Legislature the grade 5 students from George B. Little Public School on Orton Park Road in Scarborough–Guildwood today.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I would like to introduce a good young student from Ryerson today visiting myself and Queen’s Park: Ash Navabi.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’d like to welcome Elio Riggillo and Louise Lambert, who are here today to collect on lunch with me, and I look forward to visiting with them.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: It’s my privilege to welcome to Queen’s Park this morning students from St. Mary’s Catholic school of Campbellford, Ontario. Welcome.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am delighted today to welcome Michele Farrugia here with us; he’s here with Amy Swanson. Welcome, Michele. We’re delighted to have you with us.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s a pleasure to welcome our summer intern from York University, Hasrat Kaur Grewal, and members of my staff—Fozy Ismail, Sharon Kaur and Christine Rettig—who make me look good every day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from the Parliamentary Assembly of Bosnia and Herzegovina, led by the Speaker of the Parliamentary Assembly, His Excellency Milorad Živković. That delegation is accompanied today by Her Excellency Biljana Gutić-Bjelica, ambassador of Bosnia and Herzegovina to Canada. Welcome to our Legislature of Ontario.

It is now time for oral questions—I’m sorry, leader. I have another introduction in the gallery today.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery as well officers from the Rajya Sabha, the upper House or the Senate of the Parliament of India. They are led by Secretary General Dr. V.K. Agnihotri. The delegation is here to meet with their professional counterparts, the senior directors of the Legislative Assembly staff. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature as well.

Now that I’ve read all my notes, it is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, my question is to the Premier. Later on this afternoon, the Ontario PC caucus will be proud to stand in unison with our colleague Jeff Yurek, the member for Elgin–Middlesex–London, in support of Bill 92, a mandatory public sector wage freeze.

Premier, you have dithered and delayed. You’ve talked about getting public sector pay under control but have failed to do so for years. As a result, we’re plummeting towards a $30-billion deficit. When you’re spending $1.8 million more every hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week than you’ve taken in revenue, the time for action is now. Premier, will you support this good bill by Mr. Yurek and bring in a public sector wage freeze to save us $2 billion each and every year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question, but I would recommend to my honourable colleague that he also talk a little bit about the other private member’s bill put forward by one of his colleagues, the member from Haldimand–Norfolk, whose bill proposes that we limit compensation to the annual rate of economic growth. That does not constitute a freeze, Speaker.

The fact of the matter is, there are conflicting positions within the official opposition. I find it interesting that the leader of the official opposition has not put forward a bill in his own name. The fact of the matter is, he’s choosing among options put forward by his caucus.

I believe we have a shared—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —which is dealing with compensation issues, Speaker, but they’re just going about it the wrong way.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, back to the Premier: The problem is, the Premier is heading in no direction on this. He has dithered; he has delayed now for many years. As a result, we’re heading towards a $30-billion deficit. We have been downgraded by Moody’s, put on negative credit watch by DBRS. In fact, Premier, if we don’t act today, I worry that we’ll get another downgrade.

I met you in your office back on November 8. I suggested this item. You rejected it out of hand. I am not going to give up, because it’s the right thing to do. It’s a fair thing to do, to say to all of us in the public sector, “No pay increases in the next two years.” It will save us $2 billion a year. I’ll be here this afternoon with every member of the PC caucus in one voice, saying, “Bring in a wage freeze. Support Bill 92.” Will you do the same, sir?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, Speaker, I say to my honourable colleague that I appreciate the intention behind the proposed private member’s bill; I recognize his enthusiasm as well, but I would recommend to him that he take a look at the experience in the other provinces. They’ve all rejected that approach, Speaker, notwithstanding their varying political stripes. The federal government has also rejected that particular approach.

My colleague makes constant reference to the credit rating agencies. They’re not unimportant in all of this, but they’re looking for consistency; they’re looking for an approach that is designed to be effective. Our approach, Speaker, is thoughtful, it’s balanced and it’s going to be effective, and that’s why we reject the approach being offered by my honourable colleague.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the bond rating service has put you on negative watch. They’ve downgraded you. This is clearly an indication that they gave your recent budget a failing grade. The only thing holding that’s holding this ship together currently, the only thing that’s keeping us afloat, is low interest rates. We all know that interest rates are going to rise and we’re going to pay higher interest as a result of the downgrades caused by your failed budget that increases spending and increases taxes. A 1% increase in interest rates will cost us $500 million a year in new payments—that could be 250,000 MRIs.

Premier, enough with the excuses. Stop kicking this can down the road, because it is some can: a $30-billion deficit. The time for decisive action is now. Will you support Bill 92 to bring in an across-the-board wage freeze and save us $2 billion each and every year?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re not going to do it because it’s not going to work. It’s as simple as that.

Again, I say to my honourable colleague, we do have, in fact, some common ground here. We both understand that more than one half of the money that we spend on behalf of taxpayers goes into compensation. We both understand that there is a need to come to grips with that. I think that we have a much more thoughtful, a much more responsible approach, and it’s guaranteed to be a much more effective approach when it comes to dealing with compensation in the province of Ontario.

I say to my honourable colleague, I commend him at least for putting forward a specific proposal. He was missing in action at the time of discussing the budget, Speaker, but at least he’s making an effort today. It’s just that he’s going in the wrong direction.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: Premier, you had an opportunity. I sat down with you; we were about two feet apart at your desk. I put this package on the table. I said it will save us $2 billion a year, and I said, “Premier, if we don’t act, I worry we’ll get downgraded.” The Premier ignored my advice, and we got downgraded. We got a failing grade by the credit agencies, and I’m worried it’s going to happen again.

So, Premier, no more delays. We’ve heard all of your excuses. For some time, you said, “Well, we’ll count on the goodwill of the union leaders.” For some time, the Premier said, “Well, we don’t like a pay freeze because of the catch-up pay.” Then he said, “Well, Don Drummond is against it,” which wasn’t true, but that was one of their excuses. Now they’re hiding behind other methods of delay. We can’t afford it, Speaker, when we’re hitting $1.8 million an hour, digging a deeper hole.

Premier, no more delays. The time for action is now. Will you bring in a public sector wage freeze to save us $2 billion a year and get our books back in order?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will achieve those savings, Speaker, but we’ll just achieve them in a way that’s effective, in a way that works.

My honourable colleague says he’s interested in saving, but he opposes our corporate tax freeze. He says he’s interested in saving, but he opposes our business education tax freeze. He wants to proceed with corporate tax cuts, business tax cuts, at this point in history when clearly we can’t afford to do so.

Instead, our priority is to protect health care, to protect education and to hit the pause button when it comes to compensation. I think that’s balanced; I think it’s thoughtful; I think it’s responsible. It’s exactly what Ontarians want us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the evidence is clear. Your plan has been a dramatic failure. Look at the 50 agreements that were negotiated last fall and winter: 49 had wage increases, some of which were way above what’s happening in the private sector. So the notion that he wants to continue down this path is going to dig us into an even deeper and deeper hole.

Let me ask the Premier about his approach, which seems to be waiting for one-offs and negotiating contracts when they expire.

Premier, our bill is for the whole broader public sector. You don’t negotiate directly with colleges, you don’t negotiate directly with universities, you don’t negotiate directly with hospitals or municipalities. Our bill, Bill 92, is across the board in the broader public sector.

Premier, does your approach include a wage freeze for the sectors you don’t negotiate with directly—colleges, universities, hospitals and municipalities—or will you let sleeping dogs lie?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would recommend to my honourable colleague that he take a look at a Supreme Court of Canada decision that dealt with—

Interjections.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, that body may not be of importance to them, Speaker, but I think it is to most Ontarians and Canadians.

I would recommend to them that they take a look at a particular decision that dealt with a measure adopted by the British Columbia government. They went ahead in the approach being recommended by my colleague. That matter was taken to court. It involved 9,000 employees. It ended up costing BC taxpayers $85 million because of a mistake made by the BC government.

We have 1.2 million public sector employees, and I hesitate to think of the cost that would flow from this mistake were we to adopt this particular approach. So we’re going to do something that is tried—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —and designed to be effective on behalf of Ontario taxpayers.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Now, Speaker, we’re at Liberal excuse number four. You had the Drummond, you had the catch-up pay, you had the goodwill of unions, and now a misinterpretation of a court case from 2001.

They say, “Well, we need to consult.” I have in my hand a document that says, “Finance Minister to Launch Consultations with Employers and Labour Leaders on Compensation.” They announced their consultation on July 19, 2010—more than two years of consultation, more than two years of delay. The time for action is now. And in British Columbia, they brought in a public sector wage freeze across the board. They’re getting their books back in balance. It’s time for action in Ontario.

You’ve had two years to act. You refuse to do so. The time is now. Support Bill 92. Rein in runaway spending. Balance the books in the province of Ontario. Get our economy moving again. Support a good bill that will help us get our financial house back in order. The time for decisive action—

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

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think Ontarians know the difference between sound bites and sound public policy.

I think Ontarians are asking what happened to the leader of the official opposition who said, on December 15, 2009, “Where collective bargaining agreements exist, I think you need to respect the collective bargaining process.” Then, in 2010, a year later, he said, “The approach that I think is the preferable approach, always, is the collective bargaining approach.” Then, he said about a year later, “We’ll consider all options on the table as a last resort....” Our first resort: open negotiations; bring their ideas to the table; we’ll look for responsible leadership.

I think Ontarians are entitled to ask what happened to that leader of the official opposition. If they’re going to be optimistic about the future, I want to them to consider that we’re on the job. We know what we’re doing. We’re putting forward a thoughtful, responsible, effective approach.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier told this House that legislating wages at this point in time “is simplistic. It has been rejected by all the other provinces and the federal government, notwithstanding varying political stripes.”

Can the Premier give us his opinion, then, Speaker, at what point it stops being simplistic to override collective bargaining?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I hope there are at least a few people watching the channel today, because they’ll get a sense—the official opposition says that we’re not going fast enough and the third party’s telling us that we’re going too fast. We’re right in the middle. We find ourselves in the extreme centre, or, as I like to call it, the far middle. That’s where we are as a party.

I say to my honourable colleague, we’ve set out our approach clearly in the budget. We will work as hard as we can, in earnest and in all sincerity, with our public sector partners. We will sit down to the table. We’ll do everything that we can to negotiate an agreement. But at the end of the day, we must ensure that we live up to a fiscal plan that we put in place.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This week, the Premier is saying that legislated wages will backfire, yet just a few weeks ago, he was insisting that he was more than ready to do exactly that. He actually called on the leader of the official opposition to help him with that job.

If the Premier knows that these schemes that we’re talking about here are simplistic and that they are certain to fail, why, then, does he plan to use them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: What I’m saying is, first we talk—first we talk. My honourable colleague the leader of the official opposition renounces the talking approach. I think it’s very important that we sit down and enter into discussions with our teachers, with our doctors, with our broader public sector partners, through their direct employers. That’s an important process which we uphold, and I think my colleague the leader of the third party does as well.

But we have to say something else on behalf of Ontario taxpayers. At the end of the day, if those discussions do not prove to be fruitful, if they don’t secure the agreement that we need to live up to our fiscal plan, then we will have to resort to other measures. We’ve been clear about that from day one.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, with each passing day, it gets less clear where the Premier actually stands. In fact, people are wondering if he actually knows where he stands anymore.

Just yesterday, the Premier noted that legislated wage schemes have actually failed in BC, failed in Ottawa, and they’re going to fail if they’re tried in the context here in Ontario. They’ve created pointless conflict and higher cost. If these simplistic schemes won’t work, why does the Premier keep saying that he’s willing to try them? If he has some secret plan, when is he going to share it with the people of Ontario and the other leaders across the country who haven’t yet been able to crack the code?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: So, again, for the benefit of those watching, what we have here in the official opposition—this would be the iron fist, this would be the velvet glove, and I think we’re probably a combination of the two. We’re trying to go about this with a velvet fist, Speaker.

We feel a sense of responsibility. We think that we owe it to our public sector partners, with whom we have worked so hard and so well and so effectively on behalf of Ontarians, whether it’s in our schools, in our health care system, in our colleges, in our universities and so many other sectors around the province—we owe it to them and we owe it to ourselves to sit down and work as hard as we can to come to terms.

But what we’re saying as well, on behalf of all Ontario taxpayers, is, we’ve got to hit the pause button for a couple of years, given our fiscal circumstances. I think most people understand that.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier also stated: “We’re into difficult discussions with our teachers, our partners there.” In fact, today I think he actually used the word “sincerity” when he talked about those discussions. Yet most teacher representatives have actually walked away from bargaining in total frustration with the government. So can the Premier clarify exactly who it is that he’s talking to these days?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I can say—

Interjection.

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —that discussions in fact do continue with our teachers. It would be our preference that more be represented there, but the fact of the matter is, the table is up and running. We continue to have discussions, and we always welcome the return of all of our federation partners.

I say as well, on the doctor front, that the Minister of Health had a very good meeting yesterday with representatives of Ontario doctors, and we look forward to fruitful discussions as we move forward into the future.

I think my honourable colleague recognizes these are not easy things, these are not easy discussions, but I believe there is a repository, a residue, of goodwill to be found in all of our public sector partners. They understand how far we’ve come together, they understand our fiscal reality, and they want to be part of the solution.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’ve heard a lot from the people who teach our kids, who clean the schools and keep them safe, and they understand very well that times are tough and that money is tight. In fact, many have already said that they’re ready to accept a wage freeze. But when they look to the Premier for a respectful discussion, they see him peddling simplistic schemes that he knows are not going to work—in fact, schemes that he plans to vote against this afternoon. Is the Premier really ready to roll up his sleeves and do the hard work that’s necessary in collective bargaining?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would recommend to my honourable colleague, as I would to our public sector partners, that they take a look at our eight-year history and our previous two mandates as a government.

Let’s take a look at our schools. We’ve had no strikes, we have smaller classes, we have higher test scores, we have higher graduation rates—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, come to order, for the second time.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There’s no doubt that it isn’t always easy to reach across those divisions and find the solutions that work, but it beats the simplistic schemes that are destined to fail every single time.

Is the Premier prepared to make it clear today that he really does reject those simplistic schemes, and is he ready to actually roll up his sleeves and bargain appropriately and meaningfully, with a mind to getting negotiated collective agreements in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Speaker, I think the leader of the third party has, in that last question, come very close to accurately representing what we’ve been doing for a long, long time now. The fact of the matter is that we have rejected simplistic solutions. We have, in fact, embraced a sincere discussion process with our public sector partners. It is not easy. These are difficult and challenging discussions that we are having. But again, we approached this in a respectful manner.

We believe that there is a tremendous amount of goodwill, based on the record that we’ve established with our teachers and doctors, for example, during the course of the past eight years. We think there’s an understanding of our fiscal reality. We think there’s a determination to come to grips with this by working together. We think that there is an honest belief on the part of all of our public sector partners that they’ve got to be part of the solution. We think that is to be found in hitting the pause button for a couple of years so that, together, we can inform our plans and live up to the fiscal reality of our day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’d like to make a point. Just in case you missed it, I’ve already started identifying individual members.

New question.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Premier, since 2003, public sector compensation has grown over 46%. Now, 55 cents of every dollar spent by the government goes to wages and benefits. These habits have led us down a path where we face a $30-billion deficit by 2017. This prognosis erodes confidence in our province’s finances and kills jobs. Moody’s has told you this is a problem, S&P has told you this is a problem, and the 600,000 unemployed Ontarians should show you that this is a problem.

We need immediate and decisive action, and yet you’ve brought forward a budget that increases spending and makes it harder to do business in Ontario. Why, Mr. Premier, at a time when we need strong leadership, are you so intent on killing jobs by not taking necessary action to control the size and cost of government?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, in fact, the government is taking that action. As the Premier indicated earlier in question period, he is doing it in what I would call a responsible fashion that has a reasonable probability of passing and withstanding court challenge.

I would remind the member opposite: Over the course of the last three years we have in fact brought down the average rate of settlement below private sector agreements, below the federal government and below municipalities. There is in fact more to do. We have laid out a plan that takes $6 billion out of compensation over the next three years. We need to achieve that in order to get back to balance.

Our current budget deficit is in the order of $15 billion, and it is going down. We made important investments in hiring teachers and bringing on more doctors, and we’re glad we did that because that’s what Ontarians needed.

Our plan is responsible; it’s balanced. It will be successful, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Mr. Premier, our high deficits are killing jobs. Our province is the greatest province, yet nobody is investing here. Just last week, Timken in my riding announced it’s closing its doors—another 150 jobs to the 6,000 jobs that have been lost due to your negligence. Your neglect and weak leadership will ensure that our 64-month streak of unemployment remains the highest in Canada. Further, your 2010 promise to negotiate a wage freeze was a failure.

This afternoon, we debate my private member’s bill, which will save our province $2 billion annually by mandating a public sector wage freeze. This bill will send a strong message to the credit rating agencies, businesses and investors, making Ontario strong again, and they will create jobs here and we will be the economic engine of Confederation.

Because you’ve proven you can’t do this yourself, will you at least stand up with the PC Party this afternoon and commit to reducing the deficit and—

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

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: No. In fact, the very day you introduced your bill, your colleague over there introduced another bill that ties wage increases to GDP—the very, very same day. And on February 26 of this year, the member from Frontenac—I apologize if I’ve got the wrong riding; Lanark–Frontenac—wrote a piece in the National Post saying that Ontario should tie government wages to economic performance.

Mr. Speaker, you’ve got three different positions from three different members. They are, again, absent without leadership. Their plan would fail miserably, just like British Columbia’s did. That’s why Ottawa didn’t do it. That’s why Alberta didn’t do it. That’s why Saskatchewan didn’t do it. That’s why Manitoba didn’t do it. That’s why Quebec didn’t do it. That’s why Newfoundland didn’t do it. That’s why Nova Scotia didn’t do it.

We have a responsible plan that will get the budget back to balance as we move to protect health and education from the kind of cuts that that party would impose on them.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

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

Yesterday in public accounts, former Ornge chief operating officer Tom Lepine said that when he presented Ornge’s corporate structure to the Ministry of Health, well, the ministry official looked worried, but they only asked a single question. They asked, “Had Alfred Apps”—the president of the Liberal Party—“signed off on it?”

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker: Is the approval of a well-connected Liberal insider all it takes for this government to rubber-stamp a hare-brained scheme like Ornge’s corporate structure?

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

Hon. John Milloy: As members know, the public accounts committee is seized with this matter, and they’re basing it upon a very thorough report which was done by the Auditor General.

Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General came forward with recommendations which the Minister of Health has implemented, with the sole exception of the missing piece, which is Bill 50, a piece of legislation in front of this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, this is about taking action to correct problems at Ornge. We certainly acknowledge on this side of the House that there were weaknesses. The Minister of Health has moved forward.

But, again, Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member wants to hold hearings here on the floor of the House, then perhaps she wants to explain about correspondence that was received by the NDP in December 2010 and why they did not raise concerns at that point. Let’s talk about the very, very close ties, increasingly close ties, between Ornge and the Progressive Conservative—

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

M me France Gélinas: Back to the Premier: Last week, memos came to light from ministry staff saying that legal counsel had serious concerns about the performance agreement for Ornge. Now we are learning that in this government, as long as the scheme passes the nod test of a well-connected Liberal insider, it doesn’t matter if there are red flags; it doesn’t matter if there are alarm bells from advisers and staff; it doesn’t matter if there is testimony from whistleblowers or if there are questions from MPPs. It is all ignored.

Does the Premier seriously think that his minister is doing her job when well-connected Liberal insiders have greater say than her ministry staff?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, Mr. Speaker, if the member wishes to hold hearings during question period, let’s talk about the fact that a very senior Ornge executive, a senior aviation expert, said he opposed the move to Oshawa for a variety of reasons. Despite that, we saw a barrage of lobbying coming from very well-connected Progressive Conservatives. In fact, according to the Toronto Star, they received an email sent by a prominent Conservative, a former Conservative, Matthew Ellis.

He’s the agency’s director of government relations, and he said, “Jim Flaherty is eagerly waiting a decision on whether or not we’ll be going to Oshawa.” Ellis sent another email stating, “Any answer on Oshawa base? I’m being confronted by two Flahertys, Chris Alexander”—the Conservative MP for the riding of Ajax–Pickering—and “several candidates at an event.”

If the honourable member wants to raise concerns about influence, let’s talk about—

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

PESTICIDES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Our government is committed to protecting families and children through tough environmental laws that shield Ontarians from toxic chemicals. One such enforcement measure is the cosmetic pesticides ban. It has been nearly three years since this ban came into effect in Ontario. Speaker, through you, would the Minister of the Environment please provide the House with an update on the implementation of the cosmetic pesticides ban since it was introduced?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Thank you very much for an excellent question. As the member would know, to protect Ontario families and improve our environment, our government brought in the cosmetic pesticides ban. This ban provides for the most comprehensive restrictions on cosmetic pesticide use in all of North America. It reduces the unnecessary risks of harmful, cancer-causing pesticides being used for cosmetic purposes. More than 90 pesticide ingredients are banned for cosmetic uses in Ontario.

Since the ban came in to effect, concentrations of pesticides in urban waterways have decreased by 80%. We continue to focus on outreach and education, helping Ontarians to learn how to care for their lawns and gardens using greener products and practices.

I was disappointed that both the Conservatives and the NDP voted against—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Answer.

Hon. James J. Bradley: —that cosmetic use of pesticides on our lawns and gardens. I expected that of the Conservatives, not of the NDP—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I would like to thank the minister for his answer.

Reducing the use, creation and release of toxic substances, such as pesticides, into the environment is crucial to protecting the health of Ontarians. I understand that several health organizations, such as the Ontario family physicians’ association and the Ontario Public Health Association, have come out in support of our government’s ban on cosmetic pesticide use.

Through you, Speaker, I am wondering if the minister could share with the House what these two organizations have to say about the ban and the strong action we have taken to protect Ontario children and families.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I just happen to have two quotes that would answer this question. First: “The Ontario College of Family Physicians solidly supports a province-wide ban on the use of cosmetic pesticides. Our research demonstrates the many health effects associated with pesticides. On behalf of our most vulnerable patients, the children of this province, we are pleased to hear that government has moved so quickly to develop this important legislation.” That’s Jan Kasperski, who is the chief executive officer, Ontario College of Family Physicians.

Then Connie Uetrecht, executive director, Ontario Public Health Association, says the following: “The Ontario Public Health Association is pleased to see a ban on the use and sale of pesticides for cosmetic purposes. This enabling legislation is another positive step the McGuinty government is taking to protect the health of our children and our environment.”

I hope that the NDP this time will join with the government instead of the Conservatives—

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

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, given your past statements, and in fact your statements here in the House today, I think it’s important for all of us that you clarify your position with respect to a legislated public sector wage freeze.

On the one hand, you say there are legal impediments to imposing a freeze, and you’re citing continuously the 2007 Supreme Court case involving British Columbia as your justification. But on the other side, you say you will legislate a public sector wage freeze if necessary. You can’t have it both ways, Minister. Which one is it?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, it—

Interjections.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, you have to—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Renfrew, who is not in his seat, will not heckle.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it seems evident—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton will not take his place.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —that the Conservatives have not read the Supreme Court decision and, of course, they didn’t read the budget either.

But first of all, the Supreme Court decision calls for consultation and negotiation. It threw out a legislated freeze. It cost, I think, $85 million to the government of British Columbia. Last year, the government of British Columbia moved in a very different direction, which the Leader of the Opposition failed to point out. In fact, they brought forward a policy that was very similar to our previous one. That’s why the federal government did not move to freeze wages until after they had—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: —extensive negotiations. I have a great deal of respect for the finance minister of the federal government; I only wish his colleagues here in the provincial Legislature did, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that I have read all of the cases on this subject and not just the few selected ones that he’s relying on. You should know that the BC case has been found to be overly broad in its application, and other more recent cases have established that “the courts cannot close their eyes to the periodic occurrence of financial emergencies when measures must be taken to juggle priorities to see a government through the crisis.” And I would note that this decision was supported again in 2011 by our own courts here in Ontario.

Minister, we’re in a dismal financial situation here in Ontario. You need to take urgent action to avoid a fourth credit downgrade, and you cannot hide behind your selective legal rulings. You know that there is no legal barrier to prevent a legislated public sector wage freeze, so will you stop the political posturing and vote for our motion for a legislated public sector wage freeze?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there’s a reason why every province and the federal government have rejected what they are suggesting. There is a reason why her colleagues from Lanark-Frontenac and Mr. Barrett have also rejected that approach: because it won’t work. It won’t survive a court challenge.

The member is going in the same direction. The official opposition is moving in the same direction. We just have a different approach. We have laid out our approach, Mr. Speaker. We have laid out bargaining mandates as contracts come available. We are going through the consultation, the negotiation that the courts call upon us to do. We are acting with the benefit of very good legal advice, both from within the government and outside the government. We’re confident this is the right approach.

This will help us achieve the balanced budget plan that we’ve laid out in the budget, and we believe it’s the responsible approach to take to collective bargaining and working with all of our partners in the public—

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

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Cindy Forster: My question is to the Premier. The community start-up and maintenance benefit provides emergency financial support to help families on social assistance to avoid homelessness. Your government cancelled this benefit in the recent budget. During Niagara Week discussions this week, we learned that this cancellation will in fact increase homelessness and it will increase the demand for homelessness and housing services. We already knew that in the Niagara region they are severely underfunded by this government with respect to meeting their current needs.

Why is the government making cuts that will increase homelessness in Niagara and failing to give them enough money to deal with the people that need it?

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

Hon. John Milloy: I appreciate the question. I also appreciated the opportunity to meet with representatives from the region of Niagara during the week that they were here and to have a very good discussion about many of the innovative activities and actions that they’re taking to reduce poverty and in fact to address the issue of homelessness.

The honourable member may be aware that we are in fact moving forward with the first phase of consolidation of a number of housing programs, most under my ministry, that are actually being transferred to MMAH as part of a long-term affordable housing strategy. It will give communities the opportunity to address issues of homelessness and those that are at risk of homelessness by giving them the flexibility to work outside the rules. As part of that, we are in the process of winding up the community start-up and maintenance benefit and transferring a portion of that money over as part of this new program.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Cindy Forster: Back to the Premier: In the recent budget, the government also put a $10 cap on the so-called discretionary benefits for social assistance recipients. These benefits help people with funerals, hearing aids, prosthetics, assistive devices, glasses, dentures, wheelchair batteries. The city of Hamilton has been forced to step forward to protect these benefits by investing 1.8 million of local taxpayer dollars to meet the needs of this program, and a $4-million cost for 2013.

Why is the government cutting essential supports for people on social assistance and leaving our municipalities, which are cash-strapped already, with an impossible task of trying to meet the needs of these people?

Hon. John Milloy: There were some tough choices that we had to make in this budget, but the fact of the matter is, no party has a monopoly when it comes to compassion for those who are poor or those who are facing homelessness in this province.

I am proud of our record when it comes to poverty reduction. I’ve said in the House before that, during the recent election campaign, I went out for a debate on poverty, and it took me four tries to find the three sentences that the NDP had buried in their platform when it came to poverty.

The fact of the matter is, I am proud of the investments we have made in terms of affordable housing—the hundreds of millions of dollars. We have built more affordable housing than any other government. I correct myself, Mr. Speaker: the billions we’ve put into affordable housing.

I am proud of the efforts we have made in terms of the Ontario child benefit—

Interjections.

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

Hon. John Milloy: —in terms of the increases to social assistance, OW and ODSP—

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

Hon. John Milloy: —to initiatives like full-day learning, creating the Healthy Smiles Ontario program and raising the minimum wage, and we are right now anxiously awaiting one of the most comprehensive reviews of social assistance in the history of this province.

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Kim Craitor: My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. The World Health Organization uses May 31 each year to underscore the health risks associated with tobacco use and to advocate for effective government policies to reduce consumption.

Ontario has come a long way since we have been in power, making consistent strides to make the province smoke-free. However, tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Ontario. The urgency of this situation is undeniable.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: What is the government doing to continue to make Ontario a tobacco-free province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: It was six years ago today, May 31, 2006, that I stood with my colleagues in this House. I was proud to have been part of a government that passed the Smoke-Free Ontario Act.

Since then, Ontario has become known around the world as a leader in tobacco control. We have done far more than any previous Ontario government to address the harm caused by tobacco use. We established a province-wide law for smoke-free bars, restaurants and other enclosed workplaces; we launched the tobacco industry cost-recovery litigation; and we’ve introduced legislation against contraband tobacco, to restrict industry from lowering their prices to attract customers, especially youth.

We have come a long way in the past six years, but there is definitely more to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kim Craitor: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Health. The costs associated with smoking in Ontario are huge. The cost for the Ontario health care system because of smoking is pegged at $1.93 billion in direct health care costs and $5.8 billion each year in productivity loss, and on top of that, the loss of life.

What’s most frustrating is that they are entirely preventable. Let’s not lull ourselves into thinking tobacco use is simply a lifestyle choice or a habit; it is truly an addiction. I remember, when I worked in the tobacco fields, priming tobacco and picking tobacco leaves, that at the end of the day I was covered in nicotine. From that day forward, I never smoked, because I wasn’t going to have what was on the outside of me in the inside of me.

Through you, Speaker, to the minister: How, specifically, will Ontarians be assisted to combat this addiction that we have in this province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What a wonderful, wonderful question. I do want to take this opportunity, though, to acknowledge that the member from Ottawa West–Nepean, when he was mayor of Ottawa, led the country in bringing in legislation to restrict smoking. Congratulations to Bob Chiarelli on that.

We do need to be taking a cross-government approach to support our efforts. We are working with our partners and other ministries to help prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco, and we’re making it easier for smokers to get the help they need to quit, and reducing the demand for all tobacco products, both legal and illegal. We’re helping smokers quit by funding nicotine replacement therapy, and that includes gum and patches and counselling provided by family health teams, community health centres and addiction agencies.

This renewed strategy is all part of our action plan for health care, which aims to make Ontario the healthiest place to grow up and grow old.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICE

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Health. On Tuesday of this week, I advised the House that the new CEO of Ornge, Mr. Ron McKerlie, has admitted to the Ministry of Health that it’s becoming increasingly more difficult for Ornge to properly staff its response teams with qualified paramedics. The solution proposed by Mr. McKerlie is to water down the regulations to allow Ornge to staff their medic crews with a single paramedic rather than the two paramedics that are required by regulation now.

Based on the minister’s response on Tuesday, she was apparently not aware of this request. I trust that the minister has had sufficient time to inform herself. Will she commit today to take the advice of her emergency health services branch and deny Ornge the request to water down those regulations?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, there is absolutely no change in requirements for paramedics. Once again, the member opposite has got a little bit of information and fails to tell the whole story.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Wel