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

March 26, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Mar-26 (PDF)

L017 - Tue 26 Mar 2013 / Mar 26 mar 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 26 March 2013 Mardi 26 mars 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

TAXATION

TAXATION

MANUFACTURING JOBS

POWER PLANTS

PAN AM GAMES

POWER PLANTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

HYDRO OPERATIONS

POWER PLANTS

CASINOS

CHILD CARE

WIND TURBINES

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

WATER QUALITY

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WIND TURBINES

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

PANDAS

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

OPTIMIST CLUB OF EAST LONDON

CLARKSON CUP

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

LAHORE RESOLUTION

THOUSAND ISLANDS

SECONDARY SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

PLANNING AMENDMENT ACT

(ENABLING MUNICIPALITIES

TO REQUIRE INCLUSIONARY

HOUSING), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR L’AMÉNAGEMENT

DU TERRITOIRE (INCLUSION

DE LOGEMENTS ABORDABLES

PAR LES MUNICIPALITÉ

S) HELPING VOLUNTEERS

GIVE BACK ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 VISANT À AIDER

LES BÉNÉVOLES À CONTRIBUER

ENSURING AFFORDABLE

ENERGY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 FAVORISANT

L’ÉNERGIE ABORDABLE

REGULATED HEALTH PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(TREATING SPOUSES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PROFESSIONS

DE LA SANTÉ RÉGLEMENTÉES

(TRAITEMENT DES CONJOINTS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

FINDING YOUR WAY PROGRAM /

PROGRAMME FINDING YOUR WAY

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

FINDING YOUR WAY PROGRAM

FINDING YOUR WAY PROGRAM

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

WIND TURBINES

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

WATER QUALITY

AIR QUALITY

LANDFILL

WIND TURBINES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

SUPPLY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2013

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 25, 2013, on the motion for second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

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

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

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Questions and comments?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m certainly pleased to rise in response to a number of the comments that have been made in relation to Bill 11, the air ambulance act.

First of all, I’d like to address something that seems to have been coming up in comments from the third party in relation to some testimony that we heard at public accounts last week; namely that of Dr. Andrew McCallum, the former chief coroner who is now president and CEO of Ornge. The third party is saying that Dr. McCallum stated that Bill 11 is unnecessary. I was there; this has been taken completely out of context. Dr.

McCallum stated that the provisions of Bill 11, all the types of protections, the patient advocate, the whistle-blower protection—all these types of measures have been, in fact, instituted at Ornge under his leadership. The quality improvement plan, the performance agreement, all these provisions that we are enshrining in legislation have been introduced by Dr. McCallum—and prior to him, Mr. McKerlie, the former interim CEO. At this moment in time, the various protections for the Ontario taxpayer and for the public safety aspects of the service are all being looked after through the new leadership at Ornge.

So I really take exception to the fact that the third party is saying that Dr. McCallum said that Bill 11 was unnecessary.

We all know that memories fade of issues that have gone before. There are new challenges in this House, and we need to have this legislation enacted so that never, ever again can something like this occur.

I would continue to urge all members of this House to support Bill 11. We need this act, and we need it for protection of the public here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure today to respond to the member from Timmins–James Bay. In a lot of ways, we agree with the position of the NDP.

I just want to make it very clear that with this particular issue of the Ornge ambulance fiasco, if you will, before the public accounts committee now, I’m surprised and indeed disappointed that the minister hasn’t, at least as a courtesy and out of respect, waited for the findings of that committee—to bring forward another bill which really doesn’t get the entire job done. In my understanding, a lot of the nuances within Bill 11 are actually permitted under the powers of the Minister of Health today.

But what is most troubling is it seems that the trouble continues. When our critic Christine Elliott spoke on this, she said that as far back as 2005, the ministry was advised by the Auditor General of Ontario of trouble at the organization. Every day for months, we received trickling independent information from the media. The most troubling, of course, was back some time ago, just earlier this month—insurance for Ornge had cost $450,000. They bought Chris Mazza, who was making about $1.5 million for Lord knows what he was doing, an insurance policy at the cost of $450,000. It was a $10-million life insurance policy.

This is the kind of waste—and what I always think of: Always put the constituent first; always put the people of Ontario first. It seems that in many cases, specifically in this organization, that they’re putting themselves first. Can you imagine people making over $1 million in an organization dealing in health care, that is already struggling for—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you for your comments.

The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think that it’s really interesting that some of the criticism of what we put forward yesterday—one of the main points of contention for our party is that this Bill 11 does not have Ombudsman oversight. We have said very publicly that it’s a missed opportunity to put another measure of accountability into the legislation. Ombudsman oversight, as well as including all health care organizations, is desperately needed.

The Ombudsman’s office has repeatedly called for oversight over the MUSH sector, and Ornge should be no different. Perhaps if the Ombudsman had been provided with oversight, we would not be in the mess that we’re in today and the Liberal government would not be trying to change the channel.

New Democrats are still very concerned that what we see here is a government that’s still trying to dodge responsibility and change the channel. Does the public have any assurance that what happened at Ornge will never happen again? No—unequivocally, no. Does the public see a government that is willing to take any reasonable steps to ensure transparency and accountability at Ornge? Again, no. If you were very serious about this issue, you would include the Ombudsman having oversight over Ornge.

To make matters worse, there are questions that are puzzling and actions that don’t make sense. Why is this government introducing far-reaching regulations that allow them to change the bylaws of a corporation without any notice or agreement? This is a dangerous precedent indeed. Why is the issue of federal incorporation still being used? What does this mean to all of our federally incorporated health care organizations? That they are beyond the control of government.

We need to see some action from this government on where it matters most. We want to see acknowledgment that more should have been done and that concrete steps are being put in place to make sure that this never happens again, both at Ornge and at other transfer payment agencies. We do not have that assurance with this legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I’m pleased to speak for an additional two minutes on this piece of legislation, further to my comments last night.

In terms of the Ombudsman, which keeps coming up in some of this debate, the Ombudsman has an important role in Ontario. We understand that, and we respect that. But I just want to reiterate what I was talking about last night, and that is that we have a new accountability agreement in the Ministry of Health with respect to Ornge. As I said last night, I believe this is a strong piece of governance for Ornge. The steps that the Minister of Health has taken are extensive, they’re concrete. There are requirements for reporting. There are new people involved in the oversight of the agency.

I’m very proud and pleased that the Minister of Health has taken these steps. I think it’s a model, quite frankly, for other ministries and other jurisdictions. Going forward, I think this will only help to serve the agency. I know the staff of the agency work hard every day on behalf of Ontarians and will continue to do so. With this new framework, the new leadership in Ornge, I think we can all be confident.

Is it a perfect organization? No. Were there issues in the past? Yes. But with the new framework in place now, I think we, the Ontario Legislature, and all Ontarians, can take pride and confidence that Ornge is a well-run organization now and that the folks involved in the agency will continue to serve Ontarians and be there for all of us when we need air ambulance the most.

Thank you, Speaker, for this opportunity to speak again this morning on the legislation.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Timmins–James Bay has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: The government is telling us that this legislation is going to fix the problems at Ornge and we’re not going to see yet again another billion dollars of money wasted by this Liberal government. I’ve heard this song three times before. Do you remember eHealth? The government had eHealth and they spent a billion dollars that they shouldn’t have spent, and the government said, “Never again will that happen.” Then what happened? Then we had Ornge.

The government said, “Oh, we spent a billion dollars of taxpayer money that we didn’t have and we’ll never have that happen again.” And now we’ve got gas plants, and the number—God knows what it is. It’s $600 million or $1.3 billion, somewhere in between. The government is yet again wasting taxpayers’ money on things that we shouldn’t have spent the money on. And the government is trying to make me believe that the legislation before us is going to plug the hole? The hole is so big in the Liberal caucus that that ship will never float.

There’s no way that you can guarantee that this legislation is going to stop that stuff from happening again. The issue is, you have refused to give Ombudsman oversight to this particular committee. This bill is so full of holes you can drive a Mack truck through it and sink five Liberal ships without any difficulty.

I want to be clear: We’ll vote for the bill at second reading, only because I want this bill to go to committee so that we can actually do some of the things that should be done to stop these types of things from happening again. The test will be, will the government accept those particular amendments? That will be the test, and that will be the determination if we support this, as New Democrats, at third reading or not.

I want to say to the government across the way, $3 billion of money we didn’t have to spend would have gone a long way to eliminating our deficit and paying for the things that people want in this province, including some of the transit issues that face the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s great to speak on Bill 11 today, another billion-dollar Liberal scandal. Unfortunately, we’ve risen to speak on billion-dollar scandals plaguing this government far too often here in this Legislature.

Interjections.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thou dost protest too much, over on the other side, when we bring up these numbers. Forty million dollars is what they claimed for a gas plant scandal in Oakville, that we’ve heard in committee is costing hundreds of millions of dollars.

Interjections.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thou dost protest too much.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I would ask the members—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order.

Mr. Todd Smith: I would like to speak to another Liberal scandal. How about if we put it that way? Will that appease them? We’ll just call it a Liberal scandal, another one. We won’t attach a dollar figure on this one yet, because we don’t know exactly what it is, but it’s going to be a hefty Liberal scandal.

This Liberal government has spent nine years crowing about the health care system as they allowed their air ambulance service to deteriorate. I have a story that hits home, especially in Prince Edward county, and I will share that with you very shortly. It talks about the troubles not just when it comes to the financial disasters that we’ve seen at Ornge, but it also talks about the human disaster that we’ve experienced with the lack of oversight at Ornge as well over the last many years.

As one of our members just spoke about moments ago, this has been going on since 2005. Last time I checked, this government has been in power far too long, since 2003. The red flags have been raised time and time again, but this government has refused to act. Now they act and they bring forward a flimsy piece of legislation that isn’t going to fix the problems. It’s not going to plug the hole in the health care system that the member from the NDP just spoke of.

Millions of dollars were put into a system with no oversight, not because the mechanisms didn’t exist but because the ministers who were in charge refused to do their job. They were asleep at the wheel. They were asleep at the switch. Can we imagine, really, anywhere else where hundreds of millions of dollars, possibly, could be wasted like they have been in Ornge—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: You caught that—and the person at the very top, the minister, would still be able to keep her job? We’ve had ministers who have lost their jobs and shown some humility and walked away after spending too much on orange juice, but not when you’re wasting millions of dollars on the Ornge file here in Ontario. No, they continue to stick around and bring out this flimsy piece of legislation, saying that they’re doing their job.

The waste of money has been painfully catalogued on the front pages of our newspapers now for months and months and months: $50,000 wasted on a motorcycle that never moves. It sits in a lobby at the Ornge headquarters. It’s an Orange County Chopper, a very cool bike, but why is an organization spending $50,000 on a motorcycle to sit in their lobby as a decoration piece? Ski trips expensed to the tune of $15,000; $1.2 million in loans to former CEO Chris Mazza. That is just the loans; that isn’t the salary. Over the last two years at Ornge, Dr. Mazza received $4.6 million in salary. That includes loans and benefits and bonuses, of all things.

There was $6.7 million in questionable deals with the company that was providing these helicopters for the air ambulance service; the company was AgustaWestland. Hundreds of millions of dollars was spent on these helicopters that were too small for the first responders and those working in these choppers to perform CPR because they weren’t designed properly. Those providing medical service couldn’t provide CPR to those in need.

The cost of the air ambulance actually increased 20% under Ornge while they were handling 6% fewer patients at Ornge. An unexplained $14,000 payoff to a Brazilian law firm by one of Ornge’s for-profit subsidiaries; $40,000 spent on a speedboat expensed to Ornge.

I know all of this happened under the minister’s watch. And if we’re to believe her, not a single bureaucrat or member of her political staff informed her about these over-expenditures. If that’s the case, then the minister is either falling in her job to oversee agencies in her ministry—

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it was “failing,” not “falling.”

Mr. Todd Smith: You could call it failing. If you want to say you’re failing, that’s fine. It’d be nice for you to admit that you’re failing, but “falling” works as well. You’ve been falling down on the job, and I’m happy to see that the minister admits that perhaps she’s been failing in her job, because the rest of us who are watching have realized that for a long time. So maybe some humility is starting to peek through here. Her ministry is failing to appropriately manage her staff. Neither is really encouraging; whether we’re saying “falling” or “failing,” they’re both negative implications.

If only the Liberal dealings at Ornge stopped there. The firm of former federal Liberal Party president Alfred Apps was paid millions of dollars. People with connections to Liberal bigwigs like Warren Kinsella were major players at Ornge. Mr. Mazza even told the public accounts committee that Mr. Apps had arranged for a meeting between himself and Premier McGuinty. Ornge was failing Ontarians in many, many ways.

With the few minutes that I have left, I’d like to tell you a little story about a young boy in Prince Edward county. We’ve talked a lot already about the shortcomings when it comes to oversight and finances at Ornge, but I can recall when I was the news director at Quinte Broadcasting radio stations in the Quinte region in eastern Ontario—it was a May weekend, and two little boys were playing in the southern part of Prince Edward county. They were playing with matches, and one of them unfortunately was burned very, very seriously. The burns of this eight-year-old boy—his name is Joseph Stoness—covered 70% of the young lad’s body. They were third-degree burns, a very, very serious situation.

Paramedics responded to the scene. I believe it was May 24, 2009. They knew that this boy needed the services of an Ornge air ambulance. He was in a very, very serious situation. While they were waiting at the scene, the Ornge air ambulance was on its way and decided that instead of stopping in Prince Edward county to pick up this young boy, it would make its way to Renfrew, which is in the Ottawa Valley, of course, and it would bypass this serious, serious call in Prince Edward county, where this eight-year-old boy had received third-degree burns to 70% of his body.

Those emergency responders who were on the scene in Prince Edward county were beside themselves. They were very, very angry when they received the call from those at the hospital informing them that in fact the air ambulance would not be coming to Prince Edward county; they had been diverted away to a call in the Renfrew area.

The reason, it’s speculated, that that took place is because Ornge had been directed from someone at headquarters that in fact they could get that call in, in the north, and make money on that call and then eventually get back to Prince Edward county to pick up the young boy there and take him to the hospital.

Unfortunately, those on the ground who were driving the ambulances and providing the service on the ground said, “We can’t wait.” They drove the boy to the Picton hospital, Prince Edward County Memorial Hospital, and he waited there. Eventually, that air ambulance did make its way to Prince Edward county. The Prince Edward county OPP detachment issued a report a few days after, saying that the child was airlifted from the location to Sick Kids Hospital in Toronto, but that in fact didn’t take place; it never happened. EMS and land ambulance transported him to Picton.

The Ornge dispatched to pick up the child was diverted by Ornge dispatch five minutes from landing at Picton. The diversion to Renfrew was met with a lot of resistance, as I say, from the attending physicians as well in Prince Edward county. Several hours later, that air ambulance made its way to pick up the boy and take him to Sick Kids in Toronto.

There are problems with the field trauma triage guidelines, that burn victims don’t fall within the environmental standards. So there are some changes that need to be made not just in the way that the finances are looked after at Ornge, but there are some serious problems and shortcomings when it comes to the medical guidelines as well.

Thank you for your time this morning, and I look to comment further on this.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: I touched on this point yesterday and I want to touch on it again just to clarify my position. I think that while we recognize that after the scandal broke and after the Toronto Star and other news agencies released the story related to the exorbitant salary of Dr. Mazza, among other things, the Minister of Health did take some actions that worked towards putting Ornge on the right track, on a new track, and I recognize that. But what I don’t acknowledge is that the bill is necessary. I don’t agree that it’s necessary.

In fact, if you look at all the steps that the minister took, the minister took all these steps without having any bill before this House, without having any bill passed. The fact that there was a new board, the fact that there’s a new CEO, the fact that there’s now continual contact between the ministry and Ornge—all of these things are happening without this bill being passed, without this bill being enacted. So I ask, and I question, why do we have this bill in the first place?

If the ministry is able to make the changes without the bill, if the ministry is able to have oversight without this bill, why even waste the time of this House in discussing and debating this bill?

In fact, my colleague mentioned that this has the optics of simply a political manoeuvre to show that more is being done, but what it does is highlight the fact that this should have been addressed years and years ago. It highlights the fact that this could have been addressed years and years ago, without any bill being before this House.

The Ministry of Health is the primary funder—the sole funder—for Ornge. For any transfer payment agency where you are the sole funder, you have great powers of moral suasion. You can convince and encourage and persuade that organization to do the right thing. That’s what we’ve seen, and we’d like to see that happen moving forward, and we’d like to see that happen with proper oversight in all transfer payment agencies.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments?

Hon. Liz Sandals: I want to comment on one of the things that greatly distresses me about this whole conversation. What we hear over and over again from the opposition is a catalogue of past wrongs. If you listen to the opposition, you would think that that’s what is going on today. The feedback I get from front-line workers at Ornge is that they are truly distressed and truly insulted by the impression that the people in this Legislature often give the public about what is wrong, because people think it’s still wrong, and it’s not.

I would like to read you some of the data about what Ornge is like today, which is because that minister took control and fixed things. From October to December 2012, these are the stats. If you look at the Auditor General’s reports, one of the concerns was that often crews weren’t available to respond to calls. The current data is that Ornge air crews and aircraft are available to respond to calls 97% and 97.3% of the time, respectively; that’s crews and aircraft. That’s a dramatic improvement over what it was when Mazza was there.

Some 96% of these calls were confirmed within 20 minutes, just to do a patient transfer from town 1 to town 2; that’s new. Seven that are actually emergencies—90% of these calls are confirmed within 10 minutes and the aircraft is on the way. That is a dramatic improvement in performance, and I think we need to recognize that in the front-line workers from Ornge and say—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. Further comments?

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: My esteemed and fine colleague who represents Prince Edward–Hastings with great fortitude and knowledge has made some very good points here this morning.

One of the things that I find disturbing is the simple fact that this government—it’s the same government that was led under Mr. McGuinty, and now it’s under the new Premier, supposedly bringing in changes and the whole new facade. But no matter how many coats of white paint you put on the old fence, the old fence is broken and the old fence needs to be replaced.

The Minister of Education can rhyme off all the statistical data she wants, and she can make a good front for the Minister of Health. But the bottom line, and I know—I have many, many friends here on the front lines at Ornge, Minister—many friends, Minister—personal friends that I grew up with, who will sit down and will be more than happy to talk to the Minister of Health, if they can actually get through to the Ministry of Health, and would be more than happy to share their frustrations with what’s going on at Ornge.

You know, we as politicians sit here and we can talk about situations, and that’s what we do, but a lot of times we don’t listen to what is actually going on. This is the problem and this is one of the reasons why I got involved, because when I’m listening to people back in my riding and to front-line paramedics and Ornge operators, whom I have the greatest admiration and respect for, I’m getting a different depiction from the front lines than I am from this government sitting across from us.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments? The member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Well, boy, that’s an interesting defence on the part of the government, saying that this is all in defence of the workers at Ornge. The workers at Ornge were almost swinging off the chandeliers as this whole thing was unfolding, and the government wasn’t listening. I was one of the members, along with Howard Hampton, some years ago, who raised this issue at committee—the concerns that were being brought forward by workers. I know that Frank Klees, the member from Newmarket–Aurora, did the same in order to raise alarm bells about what was going on at Ornge, and the government wasn’t listening.

The government, because there was a majority, was saying, “Oh, there’s no problem. Everything is okay. Don’t worry about it. You’re the opposition. You’re just being partisan.” Well, $1 billion later, who was being partisan?

The Liberals, quite frankly, wasted $1 billion of taxpayers’ money on something they shouldn’t have spent the money on. This is not once; they did the same thing under eHealth. They spent $1 billion on eHealth that they didn’t have to spend. They told us, on both of those occasions, “Don’t worry; it’ll never happen again.” Now we have got gas plants that you’re spending between $600 million and $1.3 billion on—we’ll see what the final number is. All I know is that the Liberals, when it comes to using taxpayers’ money for their own political self-interest, are pretty darn good, but they’re not very good at the political interest and the interest of the public.

I say that that $3 billion of wasted money would have gone a long way to reducing the operating deficit of this province. It would have assisted us in making sure that we have the dollars to pay for some of those services and things that we need to do in this province, such as making sure that we have a good transit strategy that is properly funded.

Now the government is about to spend another $1.3 billion to give corporations the ability to write off their entertainment expenses—nothing that anybody else can do in this society—so the count is up to $4.3 billion of money we should have not spent.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Prince Edward–Hastings has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I’d like to thank those who spoke as well this morning, from Bramalea–Gore–Malton and Timmins–James Bay, as well as the Minister of Education and my good friend from the Trenton-Warkworth-Campbellford area, Mr. Milligan from Northumberland–Quinte West riding.

You’ll recall that for much of last year—I was thinking about this as I was walking down here this morning to the Legislature as the bells were ringing for five minutes to warn us all that we were coming in to start our debates for the day. I was thinking back to last year, when the bells wouldn’t just ring for five minutes; they would ring for 30 minutes. The reason that they would ring for 30 minutes is because we were opposed to this government and their misrepresentation or denial of the will of this Legislature.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Order. Continue.

Mr. Todd Smith: You might remember that the health minister spoke several times about the fact that if it was the will of this Legislature, there would be a select committee to look into everything that was going wrong at Ornge, and it never happened. It never happened. And do you know what? The Minister of Education can say, “Hey, we’re on the road to recovery,” but I can tell you, just back to my story about little Joseph Stoness in Prince Edward county, that we’re not on the road to recovery. What needs to be done hasn’t yet been done. This bill is a stopgap measure to stop those bells from ringing, and it certainly didn’t work.

I can tell you that burn patients, like the little boy in Prince Edward county, still don’t qualify under field trauma triage guidelines set out at Ornge. So, this could happen again. They’re under consideration at the Ministry of Health, but what isn’t under consideration at the Ministry of Health? It’s time to get to the bottom of these problems and get Ontario back on the right track before we lose more money and more human collateral occurs in this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate?

Ms. Catherine Fife: I think that this debate is really important. The government has said that we are focusing on past wrongs, but the important thing about focusing on past wrongs is that you learn from those experiences. And this bill, G11, the Ambulance Amendment Act, as it’s presented has not been revised to prevent—for instance, the example from the member from Prince Edward–Hastings—it has not been adjusted to make those changes so that that little boy is not in that same circumstance again.

Let’s look at what this bill does have, though, for instance. There is, thankfully, whistle-blower protection. I think that we’ve seen from across the province that front-line health care workers have been speaking up; they’ve been standing up for their patients and taking great risks in doing so. This proposed legislation would protect an air ambulance attendant from coming forward and bringing forward his concerns. However, we can actually adjust that and adapt that to include also, in the mainstream health care field, personal support workers as well as long-term-care workers.

It also does—it’s an accompanying regulation unrelated to the bill: The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, FIPPA, will add Ornge to the list of agencies accessible to freedom-of-information requests. As many of you know, we put in many of those requests. We wanted to find out about costs; we wanted to find out about mismanagement. Had we had the opportunity to access that information and had the government provided that information, perhaps we could have brought forward some ideas and pressured the government to take some action.

What’s not in the bill is actually more important for us on this side of the House. The oversight of Ornge by Ontario’s Ombudsman is still not granted. I know the government has expressed some frustration that we keep bringing this up, but when you listen to the Ontario Ombudsman, André Marin, he’s expressed strong concern that his office will continue to not have oversight of Ornge. He has said that without his oversight, there will be “no credible accountability.” The patient advocate role reports to Ornge’s vice-president, not the public or even the board of directors. So we have a credibility issue and we actually have a trust issue with the people of the province.

Ornge will continue to be an organization that cannot be called to government agencies. Government agencies is an important place where we can actually hold a level of accountability for the people of this province.

Finally, the bill cannot obscure the fact that the Ministry of Health has refused to look at their own role in this. And the reality is that this bill will do nothing to prevent future scandals from occurring at other government-funded agencies or organizations. The bill brings far-reaching measures to an organization that is already subject to—and I think the member from Bramalea–Gore–Malton has raised some very good points. Why are we actually having this conversation about this bill?

A huge missed opportunity, when this House was prorogued on October 15; the government could have gone back and reworked the bill, added Ombudsman oversight, for instance. Having the ability to bring Ornge to a government agency—these are revenue-neutral options, definitely another layer of accountability that we could have adapted to.

Today, we’re debating Bill 11, and we’ve been here before. It’s no different than it was pre-prorogation. I know that people know how strongly I feel about prorogation. It was a missed opportunity, it was an interruption in democracy, and it was obviously an opportunity for the government to avoid scrutiny. Instead of using that time for a positive goal—to rework G11—nothing happened. It’s a little bit like Groundhog Day; it’s a little bit like déjà vu.

Quite honestly, the government shouldn’t be surprised that in the four months that the Legislature was shut down, by not bringing Ombudsman oversight into the bill, we are unhappy with that because the public at large would like to see more accountability in this government agency.

But we are happy. I think it’s important to say what is good and that we’re happy that this legislation would bring Ornge under FIPPA, so, subject to freedom-of-information requests.

I think yesterday, though, I raised a number of concerns fundamentally about transparency. It’s so important that transparency is at the core of this legislation moving forward. Air ambulances often deal with life-and-death situations—high-stress, crisis situations, much like the member from Prince Edward–Hastings has told us—and sometimes things do go wrong. For those families to know that they can rely on the excellent services of the Ombudsman for impartial third-party answers often brings help and closure. People want answers when things go wrong, and they won’t get them under this current circumstance.

You would think that this new-found desire for transparency—because there’s a lot of talk and there’s a lot of conversation about transparency and accountability—would bring us Ombudsman oversight, but no; Ornge remains outside of the mandate of our Ombudsman. As I already pointed out, Ornge will also not be called to public accounts or any other government agencies. This is a real trust issue and a real accountability issue, and the government has given us no reasons whatsoever why they are reluctant to take these easy and cost-free steps. They say, “No. We’ve got it under control.”

But, you know, we’ve heard this before. In fact, in the Auditor General’s report on Ornge, from February 2006, the Ministry of Health “committed to set standards and monitor performance against those standards to ensure that the ‘end result will be improved care, improved access to service, increasing effectiveness and efficiency of the delivery of service, and the assurance of greater fiscal and medical accountability.’” So we heard this in this House. We heard the defence of that report. We heard a promise. But the ministry never fulfilled their end of the deal.

As the auditor said in his report, “However, the ministry” had “not been obtaining the information it needs to meet these oversight commitments.” In other words, the ministry wasn’t even trying to improve the operational standards, the accountability. You weren’t asking the hard questions about salary, about fiscal management, and the fact is that the performance agreement included many tools of oversight, but the ministry failed to do their job.

The Minister of Health’s main line of defence is that this original performance agreement tied the government’s hands. But you have to remember who you’re working for. We’re working for the people of this province, and you need that level of accountability. Also, it mentioned that although the ministry wanted to keep Ornge in line, they were first prevented by this inadequate agreement and that they were lied to by the Ornge executives.

Really what happened, if we’re clear and if we’re honest, is the public raised concerns; the front-line workers raised concerns; this House, the opposition, raised concerns. We forced this issue to come to the floor. That’s part of our role as the third party and as the opposition, to actually hold the government to account for your practices and for your policies and, quite honestly, for your legislation.

In

summary, I think I’d say that New Democrats are still very concerned that what we see here is a government that is still trying to dodge responsibility and to change the channel. We have what appears to be a public relations exercise instead of fundamentally changing—making positive changes, constructive changes that actually serve the needs of the people of this province. Does the public have any assurance that what happened at Ornge will never happen again? We do not. This is an ongoing concern.

You had the opportunity to make this bill stronger, to make it more effective. That did not happen. Does the public see a government that is willing to take any reasonable steps to ensure transparency and accountability at Ornge? Again, no. And to make matters worse, there are questions that are puzzling and there are actions that don’t make sense. Why is this government introducing far-reaching regulations that allow them to change the bylaws of a corporation without any notice or agreement? This is a dangerous, dangerous precedent. Why is the issue of federal incorporation still being used?

These are outstanding questions. We have more questions than answers going forward. It makes it very difficult to be supportive of a piece of legislation that actually is ineffective.

There were many editorials over the last two years, three years that have been written about Ornge, and I think that one of the strongest ones is actually from the Waterloo Region Record. It mentions that there is a “bitter taste of Ornge.” G11, this proposed bill, does not remove that bitter taste. More importantly, it doesn’t hold the accountability. It doesn’t improve operational management, and it leaves more questions than answers.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Question and comments?

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’m pleased to hear from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo that she did see some positive aspects of this bill. Certainly, I would expect that people would see the benefits of instituting this piece of legislation.

I just want to focus on some of the protections, in terms of public safety, that have been instituted. First of all, Ornge has already created a declaration of patient values. This is going to guide the organization, going forward, in terms of what type of expectations the public can have. To assist with this declaration of patient values, Ornge has developed an online patient relations portal, and there is a guarantee for feedback on patient complaints.

They have hired a patient advocate to work with patients and their families to address concerns and advocate for operational improvements. I think we all know that quite often patient complaints just arise from misunderstandings. They’re not necessarily in any way catastrophic, and there can be a process whereby explanations, clarifications can be provided through a patient advocate.

In terms of whistle-blower protection, which over the last several months we’ve heard quite a bit about, I think the way that this is being instituted is a very cautious approach, a very sensible approach. The whistle-blower hotline is answered by an independent ethics officer. Grant Thornton LLP is going to be in charge of that process. This is a completely independent organization, and I think this will be extremely helpful, should any further problems appear at Ornge.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’m pleased to join in the debate and provide a few minutes of comments to the member for Kitchener–Waterloo. I have to tell her that during the March break, I went to Gananoque—Speaker, indulge me for a moment—to get my car serviced at Chiasson Ford. Arnold Chiasson, Uncle Arnold—he is the uncle of the member for Kitchener–Waterloo. The dealership just reopened after a four-month renovation. I know that Arnold and Marilyn and their family are very, very proud of the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I wanted to pass along to you your family’s congratulations from Leeds–Grenville.

Interjections.

Interjection: I’m sure they’re proud of the member from Leeds–Grenville too.

Mr. Steve Clark: They’re very proud, yes.

I want to just provide a few comments from what the member for Kitchener–Waterloo said about Bill 11. I want to take members back to a March 4 story by Rob Ferguson in the Toronto Star, “Ombudsman Takes Aim at Ornge Bill.” You’d think that if the government wanted to get something right after what happened in the very tumultuous sitting we had just before the government ran and hid for 128 days, they would have gotten this Ornge piece right.

I want to take a quote from Mr. Marin in that Toronto Star story, that this patient advocate’s “job description posted last year calls on the advocates’ office to ‘investigate, resolve, document and report organization-specific patient and visitor compliments and concerns.’”

This Legislature doesn’t want compliments to be dealt with. There are some real and severe concerns with Ornge and its operation.

This bill does nothing to have transparency and accountability.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I want to congratulate my colleague from Kitchener–Waterloo on her presentation that was both sensible and intelligent.

I hear the response from government members, and you expect this. I recall my friend Howard Hampton saying four years ago, “This is going to be a disaster down the line,” and he was right. I haven’t said it often enough in this Legislature—because he was hearing from the front-line workers that there was a disaster in the making. He raised questions in the Legislature and, of course, the government didn’t want to hear about it at the time, hoping to be able to contain the damage.

Bill 11 attempts to contain the damage as best as it can, and I understand it. You hear the member from Oak Ridges–Markham defending an officer who is—an independent officer advocate, I think, is the language that is being used. But they refuse to do what New Democrats have been calling for for seven long, painful years, and that is that what we need to have is Ombudsman oversight over these matters.

Interestingly, Ontario is one of the few provinces in Canada where they refuse to have the Ombudsman’s oversight over these matters, which include the hospital care, which include child care services. If we had such oversight, we would truly have an independent person doing a review with the powers to go in, investigate—the powers to bring forth people to account. If we had that, we would have the oversight we desperately need, and the government refuses to do that. Why? Why not show some leadership and have the Ombudsman have the power to have the oversight that is desperately needed? That’s what the member is calling for.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Oakville.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: Thank you, Speaker. It’s a pleasure to join the debate to follow up on the comments from the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I think the member from Oak Ridges–Markham had it right when she said that she heard something positive, at least, in the comments.

I think all of us in this House aren’t pleased with what happened at Ornge. I don’t think anybody should be proud of the way that it was managed. I think any government that I’ve ever seen in the province of Ontario—I think in any modern democracy—runs into issues from time to time and they need to act. How that government is judged is on how it responds to the issues that it finds within its own government. We’ve all had them: The Conservatives have had them, the New Democrats surely had them—Rosario, you’ll remember them—and we’ve had them as well.

It’s how you respond to that; it’s what you do next; it’s how you resolve those issues. There will be others to come with other governments of different stripes, I’m sure. That’s the way it works.

So it’s what do you do next. What does this bill say you should do next? It says we need a new performance agreement. It says we need new policies and procedures on conflict of interest. It says we need some whistle-blower protection. It also says that we respect and we understand that the 600 front-line employees who provide this service on a daily basis are doing a good job for the province, are doing a good job for the people in the province of Ontario.

When we try to understand what they do on a daily basis—93% of the calls Ornge receives are for transports between hospitals or between facilities; 7% of those calls are scene calls—and those are the emergencies. That’s where we see them land on the highways.

To say that this isn’t a step forward, I think, would be an error. I think this is a positive step forward; it deserves the support of all three parties in the House. Its first quality improvement plan has been submitted, and it’s going to build on the achievements of the past year. I think we’ve got better days ahead for Ornge and I think we should all be proud of that, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member has two minutes to respond.

Ms. Catherine Fife: Thank you to the members from Oak Ridges–Markham, Leeds–Grenville, Trinity–Spadina and Oakville for commenting on Bill 11. I feel like we’re going in circles a little bit on this one, but I go back to the fundamental purpose of bringing forward Bill 11. It was to rectify the damage, to make changes to the practices, to alter the procedures to ensure that Ornge was actually an effective agency, delivering a very important and fundamental service to the people of this province.

I just want to say to the member for Leeds–Grenville, I’m sure that my uncle would be very happy that you figured a car-dealership part of the conversation into the debate. But I can connect it. If something happened in Gananoque that required an Ornge ambulance, you want to make sure that that loved one—that parent, that grandparent—actually has a chance of receiving the services that the government has promised. I think that when we look at this bill and we look at the—first of all, really, God love the member from Trinity–Spadina. He will not give up on the Ombudsman.

It is a theme that he continually brings, because he is right. We are right to ask for Ombudsman oversight over this government’s agencies. He doesn’t hear it a lot, so I just want to make sure I get it into the Hansard. When the Ombudsman says there will be a lack of credible accountability—his voice, his opinion has greater weight than all of us in here; a missed opportunity to actually strengthen Bill 11. We still have ongoing concerns, and we’re really hopeful that, if it gets to committee, it can be changed in a very effective and positive way.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further debate.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to rise and speak today to Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services.

On September 10, 2012, I stood in this very spot and debated Bill 50. For those watching from home, Bill 50 was a version of this bill last session that was swept away by the Liberals’ shameful prorogation. I’m saddened to see that little has changed since I spoke against that piece of legislation. The bill remains toothless, a mere lip service, an illusion of action. It provides just enough that some may think the Liberals are tackling underlying, systemic problems at Ornge.

The tragedy at Ornge has an impact that extends far beyond the walls of the Legislature. It ripples into the homes of those who have lost loved ones. When Ornge helicopters were unable to reach a young girl in Windsor, not far from my hometown in Chatham, there was a tragic loss of life, and the family called for action to be taken to get to the bottom of what had happened.

Sadly, there is absolutely nothing substantive in this legislation. It is only an attempt to shift the blame away from the Minister of Health for her lack of oversight on the gross waste of public funds at Ornge. It’s an attempt to divert attention away from the fact that the minister has had the power to hold Ornge and its board accountable from the very beginning of the Ornge saga. The minister had the power to intervene under the original Ornge performance agreement;

article 15 of this agreement gave her intervention powers. After the scandal was brought to light—thanks to the hard work of the public accounts committee, the tireless efforts of our member from Newmarket–Aurora, investigative reporters and the Auditor General—the minister wishes to be seen doing something.

Perhaps the greatest disappointment of Bill 11 is that it fails to address the underlying cause of problems at Ornge: the existing structure of the air ambulance service. Even today, we still don’t know exactly what happened at Ornge. This is because the government ignored calls for a select committee and refused to release many pertinent documents at Ornge. Even the Auditor General stated that Ornge would not willingly provide his investigation with documents. It’s an organization that is plagued by mismanagement, corruption and scandal.

It’s quite clear that the problems at Ornge are not merely skin deep. Urgent and meaningful reform is in fact required, but rather than recognize that it is flawed and requires direct oversight by the Ministry of Health, the Liberal government prefers to pretend a few minor tweaks will get the job done.

Some of these insignificant tweaks are abysmal attempts at providing whistle-blower protection. Since the government failed to form a select committee to look into the Ornge scandal, we rely on whistle-blowers as a primary resource for accountability. For every person who has the strength to come forward, surely others are staying quiet for fear of losing their jobs. The government has stood up and stated that the bill will expand the scope of whistle-blower protection, when in reality it will set restrictions. Firstly, the bill does not provide across-the-board protection to whistle-blowers.

This is such a basic measure, so incredibly obvious, that its omission from the legislation is an indictment of this government’s ability to act. Further it imposes limits on which individuals are protected and whom they can approach with information. The point of whistle-blower protection is to ensure that people who come forward will be protected regardless of who they approach, not to only cover them if they happen to have read the legislation and gone through the ministry-approved contact.

Lastly, this bill fails to provide a formal process for the Ombudsman that would have ensured proper protection and follow-up. Instead, the bill calls for the provision of special investigators who will be appointed by and answer to the Minister of Health, a consolidation of control that opens the door to translucency instead of transparency.

Ombudsman André Marin commented on this legislation in a letter to Minister Matthews, stating that the special investigators would not be independent of government and that “far from being watchdogs, they would operate on a ministerial dog leash.”

Mr. Marin makes reference to the government’s claim that this bill was brought about because of recommendations made by the Auditor General. To this point the Ombudsman states, “Nowhere in his report did he recommend (

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

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

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

The simple and obvious answer to this accountability and independence dilemma would be to expand the scope of the Ombudsman of Ontario to include oversight of Ornge. The public wants this. The Ombudsman has called for this. Both parties on this side of the House have called for this. Everyone seems to be in agreement with this noble idea except the Minister of Health. Why is she so afraid of proper Ombudsman oversight? What does she have to hide? We may never know.

The health minister has stated that Bill 11 “provides a lot more oversight” than a previous agreement Ornge had with the government, under which the air ambulance service set up a complex web of for-profit companies leveraged off tax dollars. The Minister of Health had absolutely no oversight of Ornge as it spent millions of taxpayer dollars while also failing to provide proper service. In that regard, I suppose the minister is, in fact, correct in saying that the bill would provide more oversight than before—a slight improvement over doing nothing at all. Mere lip service may be enough for the Liberal government, but it’s not enough for me, nor is it enough for the PC Party of Ontario.

With the introduction of this bill, the minister is making it appear as though all is well and forgotten at Ornge. In my opinion, Speaker, this couldn’t be further from the truth. You don’t use a band-aid to plug a gaping hole in a dam. I’ve recently spoken with an Ornge staffer in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex who has told me of several botched air ambulance missions. I can’t mention him by name because there’s not proper whistle-blower protection.

Let’s face the facts: Ornge was a fraudulent scandal, a total mismanagement of taxpayers’ dollars that wasted millions of dollars, putting lives of patients and crew members at risk almost daily.

In no way could I support this bill. The chief concern of such legislation should be to ensure that a similar tragedy can never happen again. Ornge was a tragedy in many ways. First and foremost, for those who died and the ones left behind, Ornge has done irreparable harm. No apologies, no investigation, no structural reform can ever take back a life or undo the damage to survivors. For these victims and those who remain, we must take real steps to guarantee that this is the last time a scandal like this occurs.

For those who have lost faith in the institution of government—if there are any left—we must show them that there is a better way. We must put politics aside for certain issues. This is one of them.

I call on the government to scrap this bill. It is an insult to everyone that the Ornge scandal has impacted. Let’s do the right thing: protect whistle-blowers, provide actual oversight and let the Ombudsman do his job independently so that we can start to move on from this mess.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Questions and comments?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I want to thank the member from Chatham Kent for his comments on this bill. The member has talked about meaningful reform that is needed in this bill. He pointed out one positive thing that has been put in this bill, which is whistle-blower protection, but it doesn’t go far enough. There are loopholes in that whistle-blower protection that may cause people who have concerns who work at Ornge not to come forward.

The members opposite agreed with us as well that we need to have proper oversight, a democratic process in the government to show proper oversight to the citizens of Ontario. We need Ombudsman oversight. We have said this over and over again. What concerns me, Speaker, is when someone, just like the whistle-blowers—they kept coming to this Legislature. They came to the members here, the New Democrats and the Conservatives. Letters were sent out in July 2011—14 copies, apparently, to the ministry, and nobody saw them.

I think, on that example, if a whistle-blower went to the Ombudsman, the Ombudsman’s ears would perk right up and he would investigate this matter. This didn’t have to be dragged on for four years.

The people of Ontario have lost faith in this government and their ability to oversee Ornge. That’s why we’re here today. We’re here today to discuss this bill and how important it is that this wrong has to be corrected. We have to remember why we are here. We’re here to serve the public. This fiasco hasn’t served the public interest. We have to remember that we are servants of the public.

I ask this government to please listen to the House on this side and consider Ombudsman oversight. We’re going to pass this bill, as the member mentioned earlier, to committee, but we’re going to work darned hard to get you to listen—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you. The Minister of Consumer Services.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Thank you, Speaker. I’m happy to rise again to speak about the Ambulance Amendment Act. I’m very disappointed to hear that the PCs will not be supporting this, will not be helping us to move this bill to committee, to work on it, potentially improve it and bring ideas forward. To say that they won’t support it really is a slap in the face to the Ornge organization and the good work that all of the people do there.

I think it also flies in the face of good movement forward. Some of the things my colleague from Oak Ridges moraine and my colleague from Oakville have talked about that the Minister of Health has implemented are indeed strong measures to increase government accountability, governance and transparency at Ornge.

We talked about the new patient advocate. We talked about improvements in the helicopters. We talked about expanded services in Thunder Bay. We talked about a dedicated patient flight service. We talked about the whistle-blower policy. We talked about a quality improvement plan. We talked about new performance agreements, and requirements to post executive expenses and salaries to improve accountability and transparency. We talked about other new policies and procedures on conflict of interest, performance management and executive compensation, and the appointment of an ethics officer.

Speaker, these are all very strong measures. I have spoken repeatedly over the last two days of how the actions of the Minister of Health, the measures she has put in place for more transparency and accountability, are indeed a model for other organizations. I think it shows progress; it shows we are responding to issues. I’m very happy to hear that the NDP will be supporting this and helping us move this to committee in a constructive and positive fashion, in the interests of Ornge and in the interests of Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Further comments and questions?

Ms. Laurie Scott: I’m pleased to rise today to provide comment about my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex today debating Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services, 2013—basically a response to the Ornge scandal that we have been hearing about, actually, for years.

A lot of members have made comment about that, that people that worked within Ornge had sent red flags to the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care for a long time. The Auditor General did confirm that it was hard to get information out of them. So, there’s up to $3.2 million, I think, that has been wasted so far. We’re still having committee hearings and still hearing witnesses. We did take a break on that because the government prorogued. That shut down our investigation into Ornge.

The people want to know about how their taxpayer dollars are being used and, certainly, the waste that happened. So we’re talking about health here, but in general it’s the government revenues. There’s a waste of millions and billions of dollars that could be used to improve, in this case, home care services.

The minister always talks about the great things she’s doing in the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. One of the things she has not done is done proper oversight of Ornge and its misuses of money. You just can’t put it off to the side and say it’s all running well when there are lots of employers from Ornge that are saying red flags—issues aren’t being dealt with. People are dying. Helicopters are being bought in which you can’t even perform CPR. I mean, that’s just basic if you’re running an air ambulance company.

So, it does need oversight from the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care. Our taxpayer dollars have to be watched, but first and foremost, the safety of the citizens of Ontario has to be monitored. We have that responsibility here, so I appreciate the comments from my colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex, and look forward to speaking on this later.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member from Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Again, the government is trying to position this as if it’s going to fix all of the problems at Ornge in one fell swoop by the way of this legislation. I just want to say—listen, if that’s what the government thinks, I think they’re sadly mistaken.

We’re going to vote for this bill even though we think this is a bill that probably doesn’t do as much as it needs to, only because we believe it has to go to committee. That’s going to be the real test: Will the government actually do things like give the Ombudsman the ability to have oversight over Ornge, something that this government refused to do?

I remind members that in this House, years before this became a scandal, Howard Hampton, myself and Mr. Klees got up on numerous occasions in committee and in this House and pointed out what the employees of Ornge were telling us at the time. When we went to the Ombudsman in order to get him to do an investigation, the Ombudsman told us he didn’t have authority to do so. When we went to public accounts, the government used its majority to stop us from being able to do oversight at the time through the public accounts committee.

This government is trying to talk a good line that they fixed the problem, but the problem has not been fixed. We’ve now spent a billion dollars on Ornge, needlessly—money we didn’t have to spend. We spent a billion dollars on eHealth—money we didn’t have to spend. We’ve spent between $600 million and $1.3 billion on cancelling gas plants that nobody wanted and we didn’t need, and the government is about to give $1.3 billion in HST rebates to employers to be able to offset their entertainment costs. That’s a lot of money.

We’re talking close to $5 billion that this government has wasted through the debacles at eHealth, Ornge, gas plants and now the HST issue, that we could have applied to the deficit, that we could have spent on transit funding, that we could have dealt with in order to have a better health care system, but this government’s choice is always about their political self-interest and never about the interests of the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Chatham–Kent–Essex has two minutes to respond.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Thank you very much, Speaker. Again, I would like to thank the members from London–Fanshawe, Pickering–Scarborough East, Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock—my colleague—and, of course, the member from Timmins–James Bay.

First of all, what I’d like to do is to extend my thanks: On behalf of our leader, Tim Hudak, and the rest of our colleagues, our thanks to all of the hard-working air ambulance staff who have in fact come forward and shared with us the harrowing experiences that they have encountered as a result of this scandal at air Ornge.

Speaker, we talk about wasted money—absolutely right. Now all of a sudden the public are faced with no knee surgeries, no hip surgeries—people suffering in pain. Why? Because there is not enough money. I wonder how much better our health care system would have been, could have been, if this scandal, along with the other scandals in health care, had not occurred. It’s the number one expenditure of this government. Lives have been lost. Family members have suffered.

We need to have protection of whistle-blowers. It’s critical, as far as I’m concerned.

Do we need to move forward? The answer is yes, we do. We need to move forward from this. But do you know what? What has happened in the past cannot be forgotten, nor should it be forgotten. Do we learn from lessons? Yes, we should be learning from lessons.

I have a saying, Speaker, and it’s this: If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we’d all have a merry Christmas. If this hadn’t occurred, I wonder just how much more would have been provided for our taxpayers, especially in the area of health care.

Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): It being 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: First of all, I’d like to introduce Jacob Van Boekel, the page captain here today, from the great riding of Oxford. The reason I introduced him first is that he has a number of guests here visiting with him today, and I’d like to introduce them. They’re in the members’ gallery: Mike and Jennifer Van Boekel, his parents; Gregory and Hannah Van Boekel, his brother and sister; Gerry and Thea Van Boekel, his grandparents; Betty and Bill Hampson, his grandparents; Tim and Carolyn Kaufman, friends of the family; and Heather Vondervoort and Zach Stevenson, who are Jacob’s friends. Thank you very much. I’d like to extend a warm welcome to all the guests.

Hon. Linda Jeffrey: I rise today in the House to welcome my friend and my constituent Lorraine Gandolfo. She is currently the manager of communications and public affairs at the Ontario Trillium Foundation. She is active in the francophone community, and she sits on my Central West Local Health Integration Network board. Welcome, Lorraine, and happy birthday.

Mr. John O’Toole: I would have the privilege of introducing one of the top pages here, Andrew Hodgins. Both Andrew and his sister Keira go to College Park Elementary School in Oshawa. The family lives in Newcastle. Allan and Charisma Hodgins are pleased to be here with their daughter and their friends from Oshawa, James and Cathy Anderson. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: I’d like to welcome, up in the public gallery, students from St. Augustine Catholic High School, from my great riding of Oak Ridges–Markham. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Steve Clark: I’d like to introduce, in the west members’ gallery, a great citizen of Kingston and the Islands, and our PC candidate there, Mark Bain.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I want to introduce the proud father of page Andrew Sheehan, John Sheehan, who has joined us from Grimsby today. Andrew Sheehan, who I had a great lunch with last week, is a student in Grimsby, a Prime Minister of his student council, by the way, and a competitive gymnast winning awards across Ontario.

I just want to say to John and to Andrew that, for the time being, the Niagara West–Glanbrook seat is taken, but I appreciate the direction that this young fellow is heading.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m often concerned about the same thing myself.

Introduction of guests? The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’d like to introduce our candidate from Kingston and the Islands, Mark Bain, who is joining us in the Legislature today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And we won’t go for a three-peat on that one.

I have a few introductions of my own. On behalf of the member from Mississauga East–Cooksville, for page Emily Kostiuk: Her father, Mike Kostiuk, will be here shortly.

On behalf of the member from Huron–Bruce and Ellen Jansen, page: her mom, Val Millson, is here in the gallery for her visitation.

Finally, in the Speaker’s gallery, a high school chum who does not have any stories about the Speaker whatsoever: my good friend Cal Waddell.

Thank you for joining us today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, as you may be aware, Ontario has lost 300,000 well-paying manufacturing jobs under the McGuinty-Wynne government. At the same time, you’ve added 300,000 jobs to the government payroll. So you’ve lost 300,000 jobs in manufacturing and you’ve added 300,000 jobs to the government payroll. Surely, as finance minister, you agree that this is not sustainable. I just want to ask you: Is that record an indictment of your predecessor, Minister Duncan, or an indictment of the Liberal government in general?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Depending upon the supplementary, I may refer to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

But I do want to set something straight here. The fact is, over the last four years, since the recession, the Ontario government, together with the people of Ontario, has done a tremendous job of trying to recover. We have over 400,000 net new jobs, a lot of them in the manufacturing sector, which has had some difficulty, and we are trying to work with them to try to provide for a new manufacturing sector to thrive.

But it’s essential that we all do our best so we ensure our sense of recovery continues. That’s why we maintain a very competitive tax regime. That’s why we have lower taxes for corporate and for personal. That’s why we’re continuing to work closely with our corporate sector and our small business partners to promote those jobs.

Interjection.

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

Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the finance minister, who has the capacity to bring in a new plan to help open Ontario up for manufacturing and investment: There is going to be an incredible renaissance for manufacturing jobs in North America. The Americans believe they can capture five million new manufacturing jobs. But I do lament the fact that in the recent Wynne Liberal throne speech, they had no ideas for bringing manufacturing jobs back to our province. The entire topic of manufacturing’s decline was absent from their paper.

The minister says all these jobs are coming. Minister, we’ve seen GM putting investment now in Michigan, Caterpillar heading to Indiana, and John Deere putting investment in Wisconsin. Why in the world, given this crisis in manufacturing, would you have no mention whatsoever of a potential manufacturing renaissance in your throne speech?

Hon. Charles Sousa: This is a very interesting question, coming from the same man and the same party who voted against supporting our manufacturing sector. We were the only party that stood for the manufacturing sector, that supported the auto industry, which you called corporate welfare and which we call helping our businesses and the people of Ontario.

We now have one of the strongest auto manufacturing sectors still, because of our partnership and because of our involvement. We will continue to do that with all other sectors of Ontario so that we promote not only manufacturing but also financial services and other sectors that are essential to the strength of Ontario.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I would ask that the minister make a bit more effort on his homework, respectfully. When we hear that the Big Three—GM, Ford and Chrysler—are all looking to invest in the United States and looking to invest in Mexico and they have not promised one new job here in the province of Ontario, that should tell you, as finance minister, that something has gone dangerously off the rails.

Let me give you an example. We brought forward a bold plan to kick-start job creation across the economy, including in manufacturing. Unlike the Liberals and their partners in the NDP, who think manufacturing is a thing of the past, we believe in a bright future for the manufacturing sector, to rebuild our middle class and make our province strong.

Minister, one of the things you could do: We put out a plan to reduce the number of regulations, the red tape, this thicket of runaround they have to go through, by a minimum of a one-third reduction in regulations. If we failed to do so, I would dock my cabinet’s pay; I would dock my pay as Premier as well. Will you commit to following this outstanding policy to motivate job creation and investment in manufacturing in the great province of Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased that the leader of the official opposition had an opportunity this morning to have a media availability. Perhaps it gave him the opportunity also to explain why the PC Party opposed our tax cuts, making investments in manufacturing and other industries in Ontario very competitive. Perhaps he had a chance to talk to the media and explain why the PCs opposed the auto restructuring investment that supported and saved over 485,000 jobs in our manufacturing sector. Perhaps he had the opportunity to explain to the media why the PC Party opposed our Advanced Manufacturing Investment Strategy, which has created or retained 5,800 jobs in 29 communities across—

Interjections.

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

While I accept that as the answer, at that moment I was also hearing too much from both sides. Again, I remind you that when you’re putting the question I would like the same side to be quiet, when you’re putting the answer I would like the same side to be quiet; and when you’re putting the answer I’d like this side to be quiet, and when you’re putting the question I’d like this side to be quiet. Amazing. It can be done.

New question.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, in January alone Ontario’s private sector lost 48,000 jobs—the largest number of job losses to this province since the Great Depression. On top of this, just this week, Minister, we’re seeing more anti-Alberta sentiment from your government and more anti-resource jobs for Ontario. You are continually slamming the province of Alberta for Ontario’s woes.

Minister, our white paper, An Agenda for Growth, outlines specific steps the Ontario government can take in order to stop this downward trend and make Ontario a leader in manufacturing again. Can you outline any reasons why you haven’t incorporated any of our pro-growth ideas?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Let’s be clear: Ontario has recovered 415,700 net new jobs since the recession. Ontario has recovered 156% of those jobs lost since the recession,

whereas in the US it’s only been about 65%. A majority of those new jobs are in high-paying, value-added employment, and we recognize that Ontario is still one of the most attractive destinations for investment. We are outpacing every other jurisdiction, pretty well, in North America. I should say this: For 13 consecutive quarters in a row consumer spending has gone up, and manufacturing sales have been over 36% higher than the recessionary lows.

We are doing our part; we’re working closely with all stakeholders to improve Ontario’s fortunes and prosperity.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Minister, your government’s deliberate decisions have cost us 300,000 manufacturing jobs in 10 years, while you’ve added 300,000 jobs to the government payroll. This month will mark the 75th month that Ontario’s unemployment rate is higher than the national average. Many other jurisdictions, including the United States, have lower labour costs than Ontario, which is why we have seen production leaving the province only to cross the border.

We have proposed labour reforms that put power and choice back into the hands of individual employees, not union bosses. In June 2012, GM announced that their consolidated line will close and production of the Chevy Impala will be moved to Detroit, Michigan, while production of the Chevy Equinox will be moved to Springville, Tennessee.

Minister, why haven’t you incorporated any of our policies to make our labour costs competitive, so companies like General Motors won’t leave this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, again, this party is talking about supporting our manufacturing sector without really supporting them. When we put forward initiatives to help the automotive industry, you voted against them. When we sought your support in order to provide for those jobs and cut those taxes, you voted against them. We will continue to do what’s necessary to support our industries with or without you.

I do hope that you will participate in trying to put forward a budget that’s going to be there for the benefit of the public, not the benefit of any political party.

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

Mr. Monte McNaughton: Listen, your record of job losses in this province is nothing to be proud of; I can assure you of that. Some 300,000 manufacturing jobs lost in this province in 10 years, while you’ve added 300,000 to the public sector—absolutely shameful.

Ontario’s loss of manufacturing jobs has not been unique globally. Manufacturing employment also fell over the past decade in powerhouses like Germany and South Korea.

Unlike in Ontario, experts are predicting a prolonged period of low energy costs for the United States, especially as a result of newly accessible deposits of oil and gas such as Marcellus shale. Many US states are also moving toward pro-job creation labour policies, giving workers a choice as to whether or not to join a union.

Minister, my final question is simple: If you do not plan to incorporate any of our pro-job creation policies while other jurisdictions are moving forward, what specific policy—

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

Hon. Charles Sousa: Here we are again. I appreciate the premise of your question, because what you said this time is, in fact, that the world is suffering. We’ve had recessions right across the globe. Many of them are even more impacted than we are in Ontario. We felt it quick, we felt it fast, and we took immediate action to protect our industries—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Nepean–Carleton, you can whisper it, but it’s still not quiet.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When we moved forward to try to make some support mechanisms to help our businesses, to provide more opportunity—not more government—to create those jobs by the private sector, you voted against it. You voted against the very economic development plans that we’ve brought forward in eastern and southwestern Ontario to promote those very businesses that you speak of. We’ll continue to do what we have to do to support our manufacturing, to support our businesses, with or without you.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Deputy Premier. The government currently plans to start phasing in a new tax loophole for Ontario’s largest corporations, which will allow them to stop paying the HST on a variety of items. Is this still part of the province’s future fiscal plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: When it comes to revenue tools, I think the NDP leader has to have a conversation with her caucus members. I would urge that she have a conversation with the MPP for Parkdale–High Park, the MPP for Trinity–Spadina, the MPP for Davenport, the MPP for Toronto–Danforth. I think these members of her caucus are owed a frank and open conversation with the leader of the NDP about whether or not they want more transit built in Toronto.

The NDP have been supporters of public transit for as long as I can remember, but now when it comes to actually figuring out a way to pay for it, they seem to have lost their courage. So I’m just asking the member, have that chat with your caucus members.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, that’s a lovely piece of advice. I talk regularly to my caucus members, and we also listen to the people of Ontario—something this government doesn’t do.

The Minister of Finance knows that New Democrats don’t want this tax loophole to be opened, and we don’t think it’s fair. Now, he has indicated to the House very clearly that he’s looking into the issue. Does he have a progress report for us on what he’s seen since he started looking?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question and, again, I appreciate the involvement and the engagement of the third party in providing some assistance and some advice.

A good idea is a good idea. I don’t care where it comes from, as long as we’re working for the benefit of the people of Ontario. The issues around tax avoidance and tax compliance and tax loopholes are something that we are taking very seriously, and we have addressed it with the federal government. You may well know that Minister Flaherty also introduced some of that in his federal budget in response to the very issues that we as Ontario, together with the NDP, have asked for. We’ll continue to do our bit to close those loopholes.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This new tax loophole will give Ontario’s largest corporations and financial institutions an opportunity to get the HST taken off their heat and their hydro, their company vehicles, their telecommunication costs, their meals and their entertainment. In tough economic times, does the minister really think it’s fair to set aside over a billion dollars for tax loopholes like this one?

Hon. Charles Sousa: I appreciate the question. As I’ve said repeatedly, we are addressing those concerns around tax avoidance and also around tax credits and the way we’re going to address them. Dr. Drummond, in our commission, also reported on some of these issues, and we’re taking them seriously. We’re going to address it, and I again thank you for your involvement.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: To the Deputy Premier: We’ve been pretty clear that there are better ways to create jobs and promote investment in this province. The minister says that he wants a budget that’s fair and balanced. The government is scrambling for money: They’re building casinos, they’re laying off nurses. Does he think that while households are struggling in this province, in tough economic times, that we should actually make it a priority to give an HST bonanza to Ontario’s largest corporations by opening a new corporate tax loophole? That’s their plan. Are they going to go forward with it?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: We have gone out of our way to make our taxes more competitive than most jurisdictions in North America and the OECD countries. We’ve reduced personal and consumer taxes. We’re reducing taxes, and have reduced them, for corporate and, especially, small businesses that are hiring more people and investing more in Ontario. That’s the key: trying to make all those decisions to promote more jobs so that the people of Ontario are working. We will continue to do what’s best in the interests of the people of Ontario. As I said, we’re addressing any issues of tax loopholes that would prejudice that issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, gee, Speaker, we don’t have very many good jobs left in this province, and we don’t have any money for infrastructure, so I guess their plan has worked out pretty darn well, hasn’t it?

The average household budget in this province has taken some hits in recent years. They are paying some of the highest electricity bills in the entire country, the highest auto insurance in the nation and an HST that leaves them paying a new tax on gasoline, home heating and more, and now the Premier is indicating that she may be asking them to dig even deeper.

Does the minister think it’s fair to ask everyday households to continue to pay more and more and more while telling Ontario’s largest corporations that it’s “HST off everything” for them?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I can’t believe that the leader of the third party is disparaging Ontario, saying that we don’t have good jobs for the citizens of this great province. In fact, since the bottom of the recession, Mr. Speaker, we have created 415,700 net new jobs. That’s better than the United States and better than the United Kingdom. In fact, in this global downturn, it’s one of the best records across the globe.

I want to just mention as well, because I think the leader of the third party will be interested in this, that Hamilton in particular has benefited from our investments and has attracted more industrial and commercial development than any other city in Canada over the past year—and this is not according to the government; this is according to Site Selection magazine.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Speaker, maybe the government hasn’t travelled to Windsor lately—or London, where unemployment is 9.1%. Maybe they don’t realize that it’s the government of Ontario that’s making it worse, because they’re laying off people at casinos, they’re laying off people throughout the horse racing industry, they’re laying off nurses and front-line health care workers. They’re making the problem worse.

People are feeling like they’re the ones being left behind. They’re feeling like they’re being ignored. They see casinos being forced on their communities. They see their bills that continue to climb higher and higher. They see their government asking them to get ready to dig deeper again. They’re paying more, and they see Ontario’s largest corporations—which is the point—getting more than a billion dollars in new tax breaks, new tax loopholes opening up for them.

When is the minister and this government going to admit that this is not fair and is completely unbalanced?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I referenced Site Selection magazine a moment ago, and I want to say as well that not just, in particular, with regard to Hamilton—but Site Selection magazine has actually ranked Ontario as the most competitive province in Canada for the last three years, and that’s because we have all the fundamentals of a sound and strong economy. We have a competitive workforce. We have a competitive infrastructure. We have a competitive tax structure. We have the presence of innovation in research and development. We encourage local job creation.

And we have a reliable, clean and modern energy system to support business. Of course, we’re focusing more and more on our export and trade opportunities.

In sum total, Mr. Speaker, we have a province to be proud of. We’re working hard as a government to create jobs, and we’re showing the results.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Ms. Sylvia Jones: My question is to the Attorney General. In the last Parliament, you quietly passed an omnibus bill naively named Open for Business that included repealing

section 12.3 of the Professional Engineers Act, known in the manufacturing sector as the industrial exception. This change is of serious concern to 25 associations representing over 700 employees across Ontario because you’ve not consulted with the industry on what will qualify as professional engineering under the new rules. The manufacturing sector is worried that by removing the industrial exception, you are once again imposing additional red tape and overhead costs on manufacturers when they can least afford it.

Under your government in the last decade, Ontario has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs. How can you justify repealing the industrial exception and adding more red tape on our manufacturing sector without a full analysis of the cost implications?

Hon. John Gerretsen: I appreciate the question from the member. As the member well knows, we are the only province that has an industrial exception for engineers. You may also be interested in knowing that, yes, there was a regulation passed, but we put it on hold for at least another six months so that we can continue to consult with the manufacturing industry and so that we can continue to consult with the individuals that are affected by this. We are still looking at it. It’s not a fait accompli, and we will get back to you in due course on this issue.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, you may—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’ll just take a pause for a second. Thank you.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Minister, you may also know that Ontario is the only province that has lost 300,000 manufacturing jobs under your government. It is an implication that if you remove

section 12.3 you are, in fact, handcuffing innovation and creativity with our manufacturers that they use every day to create jobs and successfully compete around the world.

Will you commit today to leave the industrial exception in place, which, by the way, has been in place for 29 years, and let our manufacturers get on with the business of creating jobs and building our communities?

Hon. John Gerretsen: As I mentioned before, Speaker, one of the reasons why we are still continuing to consult is that, quite frankly, we weren’t happy with the result that was reached in changing the regulation. We will be consulting with industry, we will be consulting with those individuals that are going to be involved, and we will be consulting with the professional engineers as well.

Just for the record, as she well knows, we are the only jurisdiction in Canada that has the industrial exception. We are looking at it right now, and a decision will be made within the next six months on the issue.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Last October, New Democrats requested documents from the Premier’s office related to the gas plant scandal that came under the code name Project Vapour. We were told that no such documents existed, in spite of the fact that we held some of them in our hands.

This morning an executive assistant in Cabinet Office confirmed that Project Vapour meetings were held with the Premier’s chief of staff and that she saw correspondence in Cabinet Office with the title Project Vapour. It’s clear that you had Project Vapour documentation flying around the Premier’s office, yet we’re told they don’t exist.

Can the Premier square the circle?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: I know that the honourable member would never want to leave the impression that he’s talking about a request from the committee. He’s talking about a freedom-of-information request. As the honourable member is aware, there’s a process by which members of this House or members of the public can ask for documents under freedom of information. If they are dissatisfied with the response they get, there are appeal mechanisms that are available.

When you go back as a committee context, what I find very strange is that the government went forward to the committee and offered to provide all documents government-wide, far beyond any of the scope of anything that had been requested in the past. To my astonishment, to my surprise, that member, along with the opposition colleagues, raised their hands to vote against that very motion which would have given him all the documents that he had requested.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: Speaker, there’s a big difference between saying you’ll be open and actually being open. Ontarians want a little more transparency from their government.

Deputy Premier, will you commit to releasing today the documents we requested under freedom of information and that in fact we had testimony today saying exist?

Hon. John Milloy: As I said, I’m sure the honourable member is aware, as are all honourable members, that if they have made a request under freedom of information and are dissatisfied with the response, there are appeal mechanisms and avenues they can follow.

But again, I listened very intently to the honourable member’s question, and I heard no explanation why he and members of the opposition—when government members put forward a motion to produce all gas plant documents across the government, including the offices of the Premier and the Cabinet Office, those individuals put their hands up and voted against it.

As I’ve said in the past, I actually called the legislative television service to say there was something wrong with my television coverage because I could not believe that they would vote against something that would have benefited them.

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

I may or may not be right about this, but there is a possibility that someone is using props in this House. It is my duty to remind all members that props are not allowed in this place; nor is it my responsibility, if I don’t see it, to guess that it happened, but if it does happen again, the props will be removed and the member will be admonished.

New question?

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the minister responsible for the 2015 Pan/Parapan American Games. The upcoming games are a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to showcase Ontario to many tens of thousands of athletes and visitors. In my riding of Ajax–Pickering and across the province, it is important to have world-class sports facilities for our athletes to compete in and for us to showcase to the world. As one of the world’s largest multi-sports events, I understand the games will attract 10,000 athletes and officials from 41 countries and will host competitions in 51 high-performance sports.

Speaker, through you to the minister: What types of facilities can we expect in my riding and in other ridings in Ontario?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the member from Ajax–Pickering for his question. The member is right that there will be 41 countries and 10,000 contestants coming to Ontario in 2015. On top of that, there will be 250,000 visitors, plus Ontario will train 20,000 volunteers. Again, we will stimulate economic growth as well. It will create and support about 15,000 jobs and invest more than $700 million in new and improved sports facilities and legacy support.

Other facilities like the new Markham Pan Am and Parapan Am centre, where badminton, table tennis and water polo competitions will be held, will ensure that our next generation of champions and contenders can compete.

I’m pleased to advise that the town of Ajax has been selected to host softball and baseball competitions—

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

Mr. Joe Dickson: It is good to know we are investing to ensure that Ontario will have world-class sports facilities for generations to come. I can tell you how enlightening it is to see how sports can inspire our creativity and our sense of identity. That is why it is also important to prepare for the games with special events leading up to them, much like our government has done with the War of 1812 bicentennial, so that Ontarians everywhere can get a chance to celebrate the upcoming Pan Am milestone.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can the government indicate what special events are being hosted to promote the upcoming Pan Am and Parapan American Games?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question again. I’m pleased to say that this past weekend, I had the opportunity to welcome the renowned sport artist David Arrigo to the Ontario junior A badminton championships for a special celebration of the Pan Am Mural Experience. The unveiling of this artistic mural was a great example of capturing and celebrating the cultural sporting history of communities hosting the 2015 games. Inspired by images and themes sent from venue locations, the mural and others will visit their municipalities for planned celebratory events, allowing community members to add their personal paint stroke.

Much like the Olympic torch, these travelling works of art will capture the diversity that the games represent.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Deputy Premier. Deputy, on September 25 last year, you stood in this very House and talked about the gas plant documents. You stated, “The request has been complied with. The documents have been tabled. The work is done.”

But at that very time, you knew that no Project Vapour documents had been released to the committee. Yet this morning at the justice committee, Tiffany Turnbull from the Cabinet Office told us she was aware of Project Vapour as early as 2011.

Deputy, how can you tell us we had all the documents when even the staff of the Cabinet Office were aware of Project Vapour documents nearly two years ago?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I think we’ve been through this before, but let me just quote what Peter Wallace, as secretary of cabinet, told the committee on March 19: “It is my belief that the Ministry of Energy acted in good faith in searching for and producing documents in their possession that they understood were responsive to the committee’s request.”

But the more interesting question, Mr. Speaker, is why did the honourable member and members of his party and members of the opposition vote against a government motion that was put forward to go beyond the scope of anything that had been asked for before and have the entire government look for gas plant documents and make them available to the committee?

As I said, Mr. Speaker, I sat in my office watching it on television and was beyond astonished to see members of the opposition voting against the production of the very documents that they’re asking for.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: We are also very grateful to Mr. Wallace, as he told us there are indeed more documents coming.

Deputy, the so-called new government looks and sounds a whole lot like the old government. At the justice committee hearings this morning, Tiffany Turnbull testified there was weekly email traffic on Project Vapour-lock, which now refers to Mississauga. Speaker, that shocked the committee, considering there were no Project Vapour-lock documents turned over in the 56,000 documents that we have—not one Project Vapour-lock document.

This is even more proof today there are documents that exist that you don’t want us to see. What there is no proof of, Speaker, is that this government is any different from the last. Deputy, when are you going to end this charade and finally turn over all the details of this gas plant scandal?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, listen. This is what the honourable member voted against: “The Standing Committee on Justice Policy directs the government of Ontario, including ministries, ministers’ offices, the Cabinet Office and the Office of the Premier; the Ontario Infrastructure and Lands Corp.; and the Ontario Power Authority to produce … any and all identified paper and electronic files and records, including but not limited to correspondence, briefing notes, emails, memoranda, issue or House book notes, opinions and submissions, and including any drafts of or attachments to those records….”

Mr. Speaker, he and his colleagues sat in their chairs and raised their hands in the air and voted against that very motion. If anyone has some explaining to do, it’s that member of the opposition.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: My question is to the Minister of Finance. In 2010, this government made changes to the auto insurance industry, which slashed benefits for consumers by 50%. As a result, this saved the industry $2 billion annually, yet in the past two years the premiums that auto insurance drivers pay have gone up 5%. On Wednesday, tomorrow, this House will have a chance to pass on part of these savings to the drivers of Ontario by voting for a motion which would direct FSCO to pass on, in a gradual increment, 15% reductions to auto insurance premiums for the drivers of Ontario.

Does this government finally plan to give drivers in Ontario a break by voting in favour of this motion to reduce auto insurance by 15% in this province?

Hon. Charles Sousa: We share the same concerns that our members from the third party have—and I’m sure members of all parties in this House and the people of Ontario—to ensure that we have very competitive and affordable insurance premiums. We also recognize on this side of the House, as I’m sure you do, that the cost of insurance has gone up even more dramatically than it should have. We need to get at those root causes and address the fraud.

I appreciate you taking the opportunity to do it on a gradual approach so that we can resolve those matters and work in conjunction with the industry to ensure that we reduce the cost and reduce the premiums over time. It’s in the best interests of all concerned.

One more thing, however: We actually decreased auto insurance last year by a small percentage and it has actually gone up below the rate of inflation. But we need to do better, and I appreciate what you’re doing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jagmeet Singh: The issue is that the industry has actually saved; the costs have gone down. Over two years, the industry has saved $4 billion. The savings have already occurred.

What I’m asking the government today is, is the government finally prepared to be on the side of drivers in Ontario by reducing auto insurance premiums by 15%? Tomorrow, they have a chance to vote in favour of a motion which would direct FSCO to encourage 15% reductions in a gradual manner to reduce rates for insurance for drivers of Ontario.

Is the government prepared to be in favour of auto insurance, to be in favour of drivers for once instead of insurance companies, and to pass on some fairness to drivers here in Ontario?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, we share those concerns. In fact, we share the concerns of all Ontarians, especially those who aren’t affected by the same degree of auto insurance hikes as they are, say, in the 905 region, in which the member opposite and I reside. But we recognize the implications that may have on the north and other parts of the province, so we’ve got to be fair to all people of Ontario.

I should also say that it was this side of the House that implemented the Anti-Fraud Task Force so that we could get at those root causes to ensure that we do the right thing.

I appreciate what the member is saying. I appreciate what you’re putting forward, which I believe is tomorrow. We will look at your proposals and we will work with you, together, to ensure that we reduce auto insurance premiums for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

HYDRO OPERATIONS

Mr. Kim Craitor: My question is for the Minister of Energy.

Niagara Falls is one of the greatest natural wonders of the world and we’re lucky enough to have it right here in Ontario. One of the biggest benefits is its ability to generate a constant source of clean hydroelectric power, and it has been doing so for over 100 years.

Over the past few years, this government has been working on the construction of the Niagara tunnel to increase the capacity of the falls for hydroelectric power and to provide clean, renewable energy for thousands of homes. Last Thursday at the Sir Adam Beck generating plant, the Niagara tunnel in-service announcement took place.

Could the Minister of Energy update the House and the people of Ontario on the status of this project?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: I thank the member for the question. The member has been a very strong advocate for this project.

Our government’s commitment to renewable energy is unparalleled. That is why I was pleased to announce the completion of the Niagara tunnel project last week in Niagara Falls. This 10-kilometre Niagara tunnel will harness the power of Niagara Falls, channelling water from the Niagara River to the Sir Adam Beck generating station. Water will travel through this four-storey tunnel at a rate fast enough to fill an Olympic swimming pool in seconds.

This is the largest hydroelectric project to come to Ontario in the last 50 years and it will provide clean, renewable, affordable energy for the next 100 years. We’re looking to the future and building on our government’s strong record of investing in renewable power across the province.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kim Craitor: Thank you, Minister, for the update. The Niagara tunnel is truly a landmark project for the province. and it reaffirms our commitment to renewable energy. As my good friend the mayor of Niagara Falls, Jim Diodati, said, “The renewable capital of Canada is right here in Niagara Falls.”

I know that this government has made numerous investments in wind, solar and hydroelectric power across the province. In fact, we are the renewable-energy leader in North America.

I know that the Niagara tunnel is just one of the many hydroelectric projects across this province. Minister, could you please inform the House and the people of Ontario on other projects and what is going on to expand hydroelectric power in Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member is right. Our government’s record investments in renewable energy have made us a leader in North America. I’m proud to say that we are proceeding with projects to redevelop and expand some of our aging hydroelectric fleet. This will increase the amount of clean, renewable energy we provide across the province.

By 2018, we expect to have 9,000 megawatts of hydroelectric capacity in place across the province. The Lower Mattagami River project will have 800 jobs at its peak and will be the largest hydro project in northern Ontario in 40 years. It’s also a partnership with the Moose Cree First Nation.

In fact, most of Ontario’s water power potential comes from the north. Hydroelectricity is affordable and emission-free, and we look forward to working with our First Nations partners in developing viable and appropriate hydro projects.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is to the energy minister. During testimony this morning, yet another employee privy to the inner workings of cabinet and the Premier’s office delivered the latest blow to a government badly damaged by the gas plant scandal that continues to spiral out of control.

Tiffany Turnbull testified that she received at least one email per week on Project Vapour-lock, yet we haven’t seen any of those documents. In fact, in the document dump of the 56,000 pages, the words “Project Vapour-lock” don’t appear at all. So, in seeing that the Premier has thrown down the gauntlet on transparency and claims that she has opened up her government for all to see, how is it possible that witnesses are still testifying that we don’t have all the requested documents on your gas plant scandal?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: To the government House leader.

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I have here in my hands, since the honourable member wants to continue, some of the 56,000 pages that were tabled with the committee. Here is an email from Joseph Silva at energy to Jesse Kulendran. Let me quote: “The crowd from this morning’s Vapour-lock briefing know about this briefing to be set up. Rebecca—could you find time with Maria,” etc., etc.

Here’s one from David Lindsay to Joseph Silva: “Subject: Vapour-lock.”

Here we have one from David Lindsay to Joseph Silva: “A meeting has been scheduled today that will take place in Shelley’s office, main Legislative Building. Would you kindly ensure your DMs are in attendance?” Wait for this: The subject is “Vapour-lock.”

I think the honourable member had better reread the 56,000 pages that were given to the committee before he stands in this House and makes these false allegations.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: Back to the energy minister. Just as disturbing as the fact that there are still more documents out there, are the steps that this government has taken to take the Premier out of this scandal.

Further to Ms. Turnbull’s testimony, she told the committee that she had “received direction” from members of the Cabinet Office on how to answer questions. She initially claimed that she did not know what the acronym “PO” stood for in the document that she in fact authored herself. Then, reluctantly and through intense questioning, she changed her story and told us what every government employee making over $100,000 on the sunshine list should know: that PO actually stands for the Premier’s office.

Why would a former employee be told not to be forthright about the involvement of the Premier and her office in this scandal?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s one thing to have the cut and thrust—I must say, in this job my skin is as thick as an elephant’s. But I’ve got to tell you, when a citizen of this province comes before a committee and we witness the drive-by smear that we just heard—do you know what the woman said to the committee? Mr. Leone said, “What kind of direction did you receive from legal counsel?” Ms. Turnbull said, “Really, that I just had the five minutes for my opening statement and what to sort of expect for the set-up of the room. There was no discussion about content.” Mr. Leone: “Did they advise you of things not to say in committee?” Ms. Turnbull: “No. They advised me of process-type things.”

Mr. Speaker, what that member has just done is reprehensible, and he should stand on his feet and apologize to a private citizen who came forward before a committee this morning to give of her time and give testimony. The fact that it didn’t comply with what he thought is not her fault; it’s his problem.

CASINOS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question’s for the Deputy Premier. This government’s all in on modernization plans for the OLG, even as 38 people got dealt right out of their jobs yesterday at Windsor’s Caesars casino. That’s 38 families who’ve just lost a regular paycheque; 38 families who face agonizing choices in the coming days. How many more Windsor families will go bust because of this government’s big gamble?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The question begs this response: You’ve just highlighted the concerns that are happening in those border towns and casinos that are being affected. We need to do something to transform and modernize the system.

OLG has tried to provide another $1.3 billion more in revenue and access. It’s also going to employ an additional 6,000 employees, I believe it is. These are the kinds of things that we need to do in order to strengthen our system. That is what we’re aiming for.

We also take note that it is unfortunate that this is occurring in those border facilities, and that’s why we have to take stands to protect those jobs.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, the government’s plan is actually going to kill the border casinos. This is no game of chance. Livelihoods are at stake here. Some 38 people have already lost their jobs at Windsor’s Caesars casino. Odds are this number goes up if the government goes ahead with its OLG modernization gamble.

Will the Deputy Premier stop rolling the dice with jobs in Windsor until people can have a real say about new casino development?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Mr. Speaker, it’s terribly unfortunate that’s what’s happening. I know that the increased competition coming from Ohio is having a huge impact on Windsor. That’s why we have to take the steps necessary. These are very difficult decisions, but they’re being made to support Windsor, to support the employees and the staff that are there. We need to take these steps.

Your response is, “Do nothing.” Doing nothing is creating the situation that we have before us. We’re taking the steps necessary to modernize, to transform, to build those jobs and protect the industry.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is to the Minister of Education. Many of my constituents have been coming to me with questions about our government’s work on child care. For my constituents, child care is essential for their child’s development. It offers our children an opportunity to be social and learn important interactive skills. For many of our young ones, child care is the first step in their pursuit of lifelong learning. For many families, child care provides parents with the security of knowing that their child is safe and cared for while they are at work. It’s important that my constituents know what this government is doing to provide quality and accessible child care in Ontario.

To the Minister of Education: Please inform this House on the work that is being done to provide sustainable child care in Ontario.

Hon. Liz Sandals: Thank you to the member from Ottawa–Orléans for this important question, and thank you to the member for his advocacy on behalf of his constituents and for access to child care.

That’s why, in July 2012, our government launched a questionnaire which gathered important information from licensed care facilities. The survey asked important questions about child care operations, fees, wages and finances. My ministry has posted a

summary of the results from this survey on the ministry website, and the information will inform policy—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I agree that gathering information from our licensed child care operators is an important way to get a better understanding of child care in Ontario. I’m quite happy to hear as well that our government has important data that will help us continue to improve child care in Ontario.

According to a recent TD Economics report, investments in early childhood education help improve a child’s development. I know that many of our child care operators are adapting to the implementation of full-day kindergarten. Full-day kindergarten is such an important tool that will give our young students an essential start to their education, including my two grandchildren, who have just completed it.

But child care also plays a significant role in early learning. Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please elaborate on the government’s programs that will make sure that child care continues to play an essential role in early learning?

Hon. Liz Sandals: Speaker, since 2003 our government has increased funding for child care by almost 90%. In that process, we’ve helped create nearly 90,000 licensed child care spaces.

Our government is committed to working with our partners to stabilize and modernize child care to ensure that families and children have access to high-quality programs and care. One of the steps we’ve taken was the release of our discussion paper Modernizing Child Care in Ontario: Sharing Conversations, Strengthening Partnerships, Working Together. This was released in June 2012. We’re seeking input on strengthening.

We have also changed the funding model to a funding model that now reflects the demographics of a community.

WIND TURBINES

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The Liberals’ throne speech talks about suddenly wanting to work with municipalities. It talks about respecting local decision-making when it comes to energy infrastructure development like wind turbines. It stresses the need to have willing host communities. Well, Minister, the Premier is visiting a non-willing host community as we speak. My community is definitely not a willing host community.

Minister, will the government do anything to make good on its throne speech promise and place an immediate moratorium on any further wind farm development?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, the question was asked a week or so ago as well. I indicated at that time that the Minister of Energy, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the Minister of Rural Affairs are working on some changes that would allow municipalities to have much more control over the siting of energy projects in the community.

Wind power is a part of our long-term energy plan. It will continue to be part of our long-term energy plan, but it will be with a lot more control by municipalities.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Again to the Minister of Energy: It sounds like the Liberals forgot to include the fine print in the throne speech, which states, “Applies only to gas plants in the GTA where Liberal seats are at risk.”

Minister, across Ontario, including Perth–Wellington, there are proposals for industrial wind turbine projects that are strongly opposed by the host local communities. Your government has dragged its feet on calling the throne speech to a vote; however, you do have a choice to respect local decision-making. Minister, will you respect communities in rural Ontario and support the PCs’ call for a moratorium on all wind turbine projects immediately?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. How about some quiet?

Minister.

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Mr. Speaker, I respect the fact that the member is speaking on behalf of his community. He’s hearing from his community.

The reason why that statement was in the speech from the throne is because the Premier is listening to communities across the province of Ontario, and we are responding. We are working diligently with the three ministries. We are creating some options that will be brought forward in the very near future. We are committed to having more control in the hands of local communities. I appreciate the question from the member.

ONTARIO NORTHLAND

TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Minister, you know that people in northern Ontario have been upset at your government for the move to privatize the ONTC. People across the north—be it municipalities, be it workers, be it shippers, be it passengers—don’t agree that privatization is the option.

There was a Liberal leadership race in which a number of your leadership candidates said that they were prepared to put a pause on privatization and consult with northerners when it comes to what we do with the ONTC. We see that you formed the committee, but according to your particu