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

February 28, 2013

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2013-Feb-28 (PDF)

L007 - Thu 28 Feb 2013 / Jeu 28 fév 2013

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 28 February 2013 Jeudi 28 février 2013

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

POWER PLANTS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

NORTHERN ONTARIO

IMMIGRANTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

SENIOR CITIZENS

SKILLED TRADES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

FIRE SAFETY

POWER PLANTS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

CONSUMER PROTECTION

BIRTH OF MEMBER’S GRANDCHILD

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

HAMILTON CENTRE FOR CIVIC INCLUSION

CYCLONE MANUFACTURING

JURY DUTY

HOMELESSNESS

ALZHEIMER’S DISEASE

CURLING CHAMPIONSHIP

COMMUNITY SAFETY

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FIRST RESPONDERS DAY ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE JOUR

DES PREMIERS INTERVENANTS

MUNICIPAL AMENDMENT ACT

(ELECTION OF CHAIR

OF YORK REGION), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MUNICIPALITÉS

(ÉLECTION DU PRÉSIDENT

DE LA RÉGION DE YORK)

WORKPLACE SAFETY AND

INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(ALTERNATE INSURANCE PLANS), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ PROFESSIONNELLE

ET L’ASSURANCE CONTRE

LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL

(RÉGIMES D’ASSURANCE CONCURRENTS)

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2013 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2013

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

REPETITIVE STRAIN INJURY

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

ASSURANCE CONTRE LES ACCIDENTS

DU TRAVAIL

HOSPITAL FUNDING

SPRINGWATER PROVINCIAL PARK

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

AIR-RAIL LINK

WORKPLACE INSURANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LANDFILL

INDOOR TANNING EQUIPMENT

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT (SERVING LIQUOR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PERMIS D’ALCOOL

(SERVICE D’ALCOOL

DANS CERTAINS LIEUX)

JAYESH’S LAW (WORKER SAFETY

AT SERVICE STATIONS), 2013 /

LOI JAYESH DE 2013

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRAVAILLEURS

DANS LES STATIONS-SERVICE

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

LIQUOR LICENCE

AMENDMENT ACT (SERVING LIQUOR

IN CERTAIN PLACES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES PERMIS D’ALCOOL

(SERVICE D’ALCOOL

DANS CERTAINS LIEUX)

JAYESH’S LAW (WORKER SAFETY

AT SERVICE STATIONS), 2013 /

LOI JAYESH DE 2013

SUR LA SÉCURITÉ DES TRAVAILLEURS

DANS LES STATIONS-SERVICE

COMPREHENSIVE PUBLIC SECTOR

COMPENSATION FREEZE ACT, 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 SUR LE GEL GLOBAL

DE LA RÉMUNÉRATION

DANS LE SECTEUR PUBLIC

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order.

Mr. Randy Hillier: Yes, Speaker, I seek unanimous consent that, in order to expedite the check-in process and make our Legislative security services job easier, members of the public gallery be allowed to wear work-related apparel in the galleries of the Legislative Assembly today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member has asked for unanimous consent. Do I hear unanimous consent? I heard a no.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

AMBULANCE AMENDMENT ACT

(AIR AMBULANCES), 2013 /

LOI DE 2013 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES AMBULANCES

(SERVICES D’AMBULANCE AÉRIENS)

Ms. Matthews moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 11,

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

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

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member from Oak Ridges–Markham.

I’m pleased to address the Legislature today at this second reading of our proposed amendments to the Ambulance Act. I rise to speak to legislative amendments that will entrench greater oversight for Ontario’s air ambulance service, ensure best value for taxpayer dollars and, above all, provide the highest possible quality patient care.

I want to start today by extending my most heartfelt thanks to the paramedics, the pilots and the front-line staff at Ornge. These are the people who work tirelessly every day to provide life-saving care to Ontarians across the province, and it is vitally important that we recognize them. I’ve had the opportunity to visit a number of Ornge bases in Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Toronto and London, and I can tell you that the paramedics, pilots and front-line staff are as committed as ever to providing safe and high-quality care for the people of this province.

I’d like to acknowledge that this has been a very difficult time for front-line staff at Ornge, and yet their life-saving around-the-clock work never stopped. They never lost sight of their responsibility to patients. I want them to know that I am tremendously proud of their work, their passion and their dedication to the people of Ontario, and so I’d like to thank each and every one of them.

There are also a few others I would like to recognize. Ontario owes a great debt of gratitude to board chair Ian Delaney and board members Barry McLellan, Maneesh Mehta, Patricia Lang, Patrice Merrin, Charles Harnick and Trish Volker for their work. I’d like to emphasize that, unlike in the past, this is a voluntary board of directors. Their expenses are posted online.

I’d like to thank Ron McKerlie, former interim president and CEO. Mr. McKerlie was tasked with driving transformational change at Ornge, and I thank him for his dedicated efforts in doing so.

I’d like to thank Dr. Andrew McCallum, Ornge’s new president and CEO. Dr. McCallum comes to Ornge with experience as a medical officer and flight surgeon in the Canadian Forces, chief of emergency medicine and chief of staff at Hamilton Health Sciences, and chief coroner of Ontario, amongst many other positions. Dr. McCallum is exceptionally qualified to serve in his new role.

I’d like to thank Rob Giguere, who was appointed COO—chief operating officer—in December 2012. Mr. Giguere is overseeing aviation operations in the operations control centre to ensure that all teams are working together. I know that the experience he brings to his position will serve him very well.

I would also like to thank Bruce Farr, the acting vice-president of operations, who comes to us from Toronto EMS.

There is a very strong leadership team in place now at Ornge, and I know that the 600-plus members of the Ornge team remain committed to Ornge’s core mission of providing life-saving care to Ontario patients at a very critical time.

Their commitment is showing results. Nowhere is this more evident than in the many improvements that have taken place at Ornge over the past year. To begin, we now have a fully amended performance agreement with Ornge in place. We know now that the original performance agreement simply did not provide the accountability, oversight and transparency needed by government. This amended performance agreement safeguards patient care and ensures better value for taxpayer dollars.

Under the terms of this agreement, ministry approval is required for any changes to Ornge’s corporate structure, including the sale of assets. It requires detailed financial planning, monitoring, control and reporting obligations to increase accountability. It ensures compliance with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act and the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It increases audit and inspection powers by my ministry and introduces debt control provisions to prevent debt increases without ministry approval. Finally, it introduces quality improvement provisions based on the Excellent Care for All Act.

This includes linking executive compensation to performance improvement targets in an annual quality improvement plan.

Ornge is well into a new

chapter and is on the right path forward. Ontario now has a culture that puts patients first, that respects taxpayers and that values transparency. Further, over the past months, Ornge has continued to take significant steps to renew its organization.

As part of its patient-centred focus, Ornge has introduced a new patient relations process, making it easier for a patient or family member to express complaints or concerns or to ask a question or to give feedback. This new process also includes a more accessible patient relations

section on the Ornge website.

Ornge now has a new patient advocate, Denise Polgar, who acts as liaison with patients and families, works to resolve their concerns about patient care and who can also suggest operational improvements based on what is learned from the patient relations process.

These changes demonstrate that Ornge takes concerns about patient transportation very seriously and is committed to working with families and patients to address complaints and resolve issues.

As part of its commitment to promote integrity and trust at all levels of the organization, Ornge has also introduced a new conflict-of-interest policy to further improve transparency and accountability. The new policy includes rules about real or potential conflicts in hiring, outside business interests and the disclosure of confidential information. The policy was approved by Ornge’s volunteer board of directors, and it requires that all current and new employees declare potential or actual conflicts of interest.

In December 2012, Ornge introduced a new whistle-blower policy. The policy encourages employees at all levels of the organization to act with integrity. It also protects those same employees to come forward without fear of reprisal. It will help to ensure the highest standard of ethics and professionalism. Ornge is also making significant strides to improve its operations.

As part of its commitment to patients in northern Ontario, Ornge has taken important steps to increase staffing levels at the Thunder Bay base. Ornge is adding a third team of paramedics dedicated to performing transports on helicopters, which will complement the two fully staffed and medically equipped airplanes that operate out of the Thunder Bay base. This change means that each of the three Ornge aircraft in Thunder Bay will have its own dedicated crew of paramedics to support 24/7 operations in Thunder Bay.

In September, Ornge also announced a new dedicated patient flight service for the Sault Ste. Marie-to-Sudbury corridor. This service provides airplane flights for patients with scheduled appointments for hospital treatment. To meet the needs of patients requiring this service, an advanced level of medical care will be offered on these flights. The program will allow Ornge to free up its dedicated airplanes and helicopters for urgent and emergency cases.

The new leadership at Ornge has also addressed concerns brought forward by front-line paramedics with a new interim interior for its fleet of AW139 helicopters. The new interim interiors will allow paramedics to perform CPR at any time during flight. They were approved by Transport Canada in January and are similar to the medical interiors used in other AW139 emergency helicopters around the world. The new interim interiors have been installed in 100% of the AW139 helicopters.

Finally, Ornge recently submitted its first quality improvement plan to my ministry. It highlights recent successes at Ornge and outlines areas for continued improvement. I’d like to highlight a few of those recent successes. From October to December 2012, Ornge confirmed its ability to respond to a call for on-scene service within 10 minutes of the start of a call 90% of the time. In 96% of the time, Ornge was able to meet their target of verifying their ability to service a call for an inter-facility transfer within 20 minutes.

Success in recruiting new helicopter and airplane pilots means that from October to December 2012, Ornge was able to staff their aircraft at the Ontario air ambulance standard of two pilots at all times 97% of the time. During the same period, there was a 97.3% base aircraft availability. Finally, in September 2012, Ornge scored 90% on the quality-of-care metric, an indicator that reviews care against industry standards in eight key critical care areas. These many accomplishments mean that Ontario patients and Ontario families can count on the highest possible quality of patient care.

As I mentioned, the quality improvement plan also includes a road map for Ornge’s future, with specific and measurable targets for improvement. Speaker, these accomplishments outlined above represent just some of the important changes Ornge has made as it works to restore public trust in Ornge’s air ambulance system.

I’m now very pleased to speak to amendments to the Ambulance Act being proposed today. I want to be very clear that these amendments are the most important step we can all take to further entrench stronger oversight and restore public confidence in Ontario’s air ambulance service. It is absolutely critical that employees do not feel intimidated when raising concerns. Ornge understands how important this is, and I’m pleased that the organization has introduced its own whistle-blower policy.

Our proposed legislation would entrench protection for whistle-blowers at Ornge who disclose information to an inspector, to an investigator or to the government. These amendments would allow the government to take control of Ornge in extraordinary circumstances through the appointment of a supervisor, just like we can with our hospitals. It would allow us to appoint special investigators where it is in the public interest to do so.

The new legislation, if passed, would also give the government the power to appoint members to Ornge’s board of directors and it would allow the government to make changes to the performance agreement. While improvements have already been made, these proposed amendments are important because they will further entrench this progress.

Speaker, I’m also taking another step to enhance transparency at Ornge. I know how important transparency is to ensuring accountability and restoring public trust in Ontario’s air ambulance system, and I know this is a commitment that the new leadership at Ornge shares.

In addition to this legislation, our government is proposing to make Ornge subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, through regulation. This regulation has now been posted for public commentary. It would allow for freedom-of-information requests to be made of Ornge retroactive to the organization’s foundation. The step is consistent with our government’s commitment to increasing transparency across the broader public sector, including the health care sector.

For example, we’ve expanded freedom-of-information provisions to cover Ontario Power Generation, Hydro One, universities and Cancer Care Ontario. Local public utilities were brought back under freedom of information in 2004, and we have made hospitals subject to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, effective January 1, 2012.

The amendments we’re proposing today are also part of our broad government commitment to raise the bar on accountability and transparency in Ontario. Since 2003, our government has taken a series of steps to improve oversight of Ontario’s tax dollars. When we were first elected, we were told by the previous government that there was no deficit in the province of Ontario. As it turned out, there was a significant deficit. That will never happen again because we’ve given the Auditor General the responsibility of signing off on our books prior to an election.

We introduced the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, which prohibits the practice of hiring external lobbyists with taxpayer dollars in hospitals, other large public sector organizations and publicly funded organizations that receive more than $10 million in government funds.

We brought in stronger expense and procurement rules for broader public sector organizations. We require all hospitals and LHINs to report on their use of consultants and to post online the expense claim information for their senior leadership. We also require all hospitals and LHINs to sign attestations that they’re in compliance with the new procurement requirements.

The amendments to the Ambulance Act that we’re proposing today are very much in keeping with our government’s commitment to refocus our health care system on the patient. By centering care around patients, we’re improving Ontarians’ experience with the health care system and achieving better value for money.

For example, through our Excellent Care for All Act, we’ve ensured that the quality of the patient experience is measured in a standardized way and reported publicly. We also now hold executives accountable for the quality of care they deliver. We listen to patients and ensure that quality committees in each health care organization use the results of patient surveys to create benchmarks for improving the standard of care. Further, patients have a formal mechanism to have their questions and concerns addressed through a patient advocate process.

We focused health care leadership on the task of changing the culture so that quality care for patients is the most important job that every single person in the organization has. Hospitals now have quality improvement plans, which are publicly posted, and executive compensation is linked to the achievement of outcomes identified in these plans.

I’m very proud of these improvements, and I’m proud they were achieved in an atmosphere of transparency and accountability. This action is all about respecting the hard-earned money of Ontario taxpayers. I’m determined to deliver the best value for our health care dollars. It’s why we’re driving quality and value into every corner of the health care system, and it’s why we’re bringing in these legislative amendments today.

From patients to doctors, fronts-line paramedics to hospital administrators, personal support workers to those in LHINs and the front-line staff and new leadership at Ornge, we all have a role to play in improving our health care system. I stand in the House today with full confidence that we’re leaving no stone unturned to improve Ontario’s air ambulance service.

Almost a year ago, the Auditor General of Ontario brought forward his value-for-money report. He had a number of specific recommendations to improve oversight, accountability and, above all, patient safety at Ornge. I’m pleased to say that we have acted on virtually every one of those recommendations. Because of this, I know that Ornge is now well into a new

chapter and is on the right path forward. I’m confident that Ornge’s new team, led by Dr. Andrew McCallum and board chair Ian Delaney, will continue the remarkable progress which has already been made. Thank you.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Thank you. The member for Oak Ridges–Markham.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m very pleased to address our government’s proposed amendments to the Ambulance Act. I want to make it clear that our government is absolutely dedicated to ensuring that Ontario’s air and critical care land ambulance service is focused on its core mission of providing life-saving care to Ontarians.

The amendments that our government is proposing are very important because they would, first of all, entrench accountability and transparency in Ontario’s air ambulance service; ensure that Ontario patients and families are getting the highest possible quality patient care; and ensure that Ontario’s taxpayers receive the best value for their taxpayer dollars—Ontario taxpayers have every right to know how health care dollars are spent—and restore public confidence in an organization that provides life-saving emergency medicine. Our government’s commitment to these proposed amendments demonstrates our unwavering commitment to implement the Auditor General’s recommendations.

Before I speak to today’s proposed amendments, I want to commend Ornge on the significant progress they have made over the past year. There are too many achievements to cover fully, but I’d like to speak about a few.

First of all, in regards to leadership, Ornge has a new leadership team in place. Dr. Andrew McCallum is now the president and CEO. Dr. McCallum was trained as a military flight surgeon and is the former chief coroner of Ontario. He has also held senior posts at hospitals in Toronto and Hamilton, and will certainly help us in our efforts to improve oversight and accountability at Ornge. Former Skyservice president Rob Giguere is now the chief operating officer. There is a newly appointed board of directors led by Ian W. Delaney, chairman of Sherritt International.

I’d also like to point out that members now serve on the board as volunteers. Ornge has also appointed a quality of care committee under the direction of Dr. Barry McLellan, president and CEO of Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, and executive expenses and salary ranges are now posted online.

Mr. Speaker, I want to be very clear, and I know that members on both sides of the House will agree: We have very high expectations of our health care leaders. We trust them not only to provide excellent patient care, but to manage public money in a way that Ontarians expect and deserve. We expect them to stay true to their responsibility to others and to ensure that their service to patients and taxpayers is at the core of their operations. I’m so pleased that the leadership team led by Dr. McCallum is demonstrating this commitment to Ornge’s core mission day in and day out.

Turning to transparency and accountability: Led by the new leadership team, Ornge has taken some very significant steps to improve transparency and accountability. First, we have a new performance agreement in place, which will provide greater accountability and oversight over Ornge. Second, in February of this year, Ornge submitted its first quality improvement plan to build on achievements of the past year.

Third, Ornge has introduced several new policies and procedures, such as: a conflict-of-interest policy; a whistle-blower policy, which includes the appointments of an independent ethics officer to receive, investigate and track employee disclosures as part of this new protection plan. They’ve hired a patient advocate, who works with patients and their families to address concerns and also to advocate for operational improvements, and they’ve developed an online patient relations portal and have guaranteed feedback to patient complaints.

Turning now to operational achievements: The Auditor General’s report highlighted some significant concerns related to operations at Ornge, and I would like to speak to some of the very substantial improvements that have been undertaken through Ornge’s operations over the past several months. New and improved interim medical interiors have been installed in the fleet of AW139 helicopters after extensive consultation with front-line staff. Transport Canada approval for the interior of the AW139 aircraft has also been acquired.

Steps have been taken to introduce a third line of paramedics at the Thunder Bay base to help ensure seamless 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service for northern Ontario, and dedicated flight service for the Sault Ste. Marie-to-Sudbury corridor has been created, increasing patient access to out-of-town treatment.

A pilot project in Ottawa on the use of critical care land vehicles has been launched in place of a helicopter for certain calls when deemed appropriate for patient care, and three operations divisions have been consolidated under one chief operating officer. All operational scheduling functions have now been combined into one team for improved coverage and service effectiveness. Certification material for the operations control centre has been developed and implemented.

Speaker, none of these improvements could have been possible without the complete dedication of paramedics, pilots and front-line staff. We thank them for their unwavering commitment to providing the best possible care to our families, our friends, our loved ones and our patients. I know that the minister was pleased to have heard first-hand about the impact of these improvements during her visits with the front-line staff at Ornge bases.

And now, what are these legislative changes that we’re making? Mr. Speaker, these amendments are the most important thing we can do to help Ornge focus on their core mission, which is providing life-saving care to patients, now and in the future. That’s why Minister Matthews has introduced proposed legislative amendments to the Ambulance Act to further entrench oversight and prevent future abuses of power at Ontario’s air ambulance service.

The proposed amendments, if passed, would:

—give cabinet the power, upon the recommendation of the minister, to appoint one or more provincial representatives to the board of an air ambulance service provider;

—give the minister the power to issue directives to an air ambulance service provider;

—give the government the ability to include provisions in an agreement between Ontario and an air ambulance service provider;

—provide cabinet with the power to appoint a special investigator to investigate and report on certain activities of an air ambulance service provider;

—prohibit individuals from obstructing a special investigator or from withholding any information required by the special investigator;

—require a special investigator to provide a report to the minister upon completion of their investigation;

—provide cabinet with the power, upon the recommendation of the minister, to appoint a supervisor to exercise the powers of the board, officers and members, and other corporate powers of an air ambulance service provider;

—provide a supervisor with the same rights as the board of an air ambulance service provider. The supervisor would report to the minister;

—prohibit retaliation against a person who has disclosed information that relates to an air ambulance service provider to an inspector, investigator or special investigator. Air ambulance service providers and other persons would also be prohibited from doing anything to discourage the making of such disclosures; and

—allow the continuance of a provider of air ambulance services that is incorporated under the laws of any jurisdiction, other than Ontario, as a corporation under the Corporations Act.

Speaker, we know that it is extremely important that employees do not feel intimidated when raising any concerns. That’s why our proposed amendments to the legislation would protect whistle-blowers at Ornge. In the past, we did not have the authority to make the necessary changes at Ornge when problems came to our attention. To remedy this, our proposed legislation, if passed, would allow the government to take control of Ornge in extraordinary circumstances through the appointment of a supervisor, just like we can do at the province’s hospitals when trouble arises.

In the past, if we needed to make changes to the government’s performance agreement with Ornge, we could do so only with Ornge’s consent. This was simply not feasible when changes needed to be made to protect public interest. That’s why the proposed legislation would allow the government to change the performance agreement with Ornge at any time.

Now, to look back a little bit at the history of this rather troubled organization—we need to understand where we’re going in the future. I think it’s important for the members in this House to understand where we were and where Ornge started.

Ontario’s air ambulance program was established in 1977 by the then Ministry of Health with a single aircraft based in Toronto. In essence, the service had three main elements: funding, dispatch and oversight provided by the ministry, and a base hospital system at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. They oversaw the practice of paramedicine and air ambulance services—both helicopter and fixed wing—that were contracted out.

In June 2005, the government transferred and consolidated the air ambulance program to the Ontario Air Ambulances Services Co., known as OAA, a federally incorporated non-profit corporation.

In November 2005, our government finalized a long-term performance agreement with the OAA. It had an indefinite term and governed all aspects of air ambulance services. The performance agreement with Ornge was then established. This agreement outlined responsibilities and expectations in the services to be delivered by Ornge; for example, base hospital, air contracting, organ recovery services and other aeromedical services and so on.

It also covered compliance with: grant funding and government accounting requirements; data tracking, retention and reporting; quality assurance and education and training of flight paramedics and flight dispatch staff; a complaints and incident reporting process; documentation standards; and ministry evaluation and monitoring.

By January 2006, the OAA became responsible for all operational functions of the province’s air ambulance program. In September 2006, as the newly renamed Ornge, the corporation took over the management of the air ambulance dispatch. In 2007, Ornge signed an agreement for expanded critical care fixed-wing air ambulance services, and in 2008 Ornge took over responsibility to provide critical care land ambulance services. In

summary, Ornge had full control of the province’s air ambulance program.

Both land and air ambulance services are governed by the Ambulance Act and regulations and standards made under the act. The act sets out the responsibilities and expectations of the minister and other parties related to the delivery of land and air ambulance and related services.

The government provides Ornge with funding, through a contractual agreement, to deliver air ambulance services as part of the minister’s obligation under the Ambulance Act to fund and ensure the provision of air ambulance service. The province also provides Ornge with funding to operate the critical care land ambulance service.

Now, looking at the Auditor General’s report, our government certainly thanks the Auditor General for his thorough and insightful review of Ornge. His advice has guided many of the actions that are now being undertaken to improve operations and restore confidence at Ornge.

I’m pleased that the Auditor General acknowledged that our government has—and I’m quoting from the Auditor General—“taken substantive action to address many of the issues raised in this report.” We are certainly striving to move even further.

I am confident that the concerns raised by the Auditor General are being addressed through the actions that our government and Ornge have already taken and through these proposed legislative amendments. I’m very proud of our government’s decisive action to address the Auditor General’s recommendations to establish a new standard of accountability at Ornge and to restore Ontarians’ faith in the important service it provides.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak a little bit more to the amended performance agreement with Ornge. Hindsight imparts perfect vision, and in hindsight it’s clear that the original performance agreement with Ornge was insufficient and did not go far enough. The original performance agreement simply did not give us the power to regularly access information from Ornge, or to verify it. The amended performance agreement raises the level of oversight far above that which is normally required of organizations receiving public funds. Under the former agreement, the past leadership was able to avoid accountability.

We simply did not have the power to regularly access financial information and monitor operations at Ornge. It also became apparent that the limited operational and financial information that was provided to the ministry was insufficient and often inaccurate. The old performance agreement did not require ministry approval to create for-profit entities. In the past, Ornge also had no restrictions on assuming debt, and the old performance agreement gave us no say in major acquisitions.

Under the amended performance agreement, all of those shortcomings have been fixed. The enhanced provisions of the amended performance agreement can be grouped under two general headings: greater accountability and transparency, and the safeguarding of patient safety and care.

On accountability and transparency, the amended performance agreement raises the level of oversight with the following measures and obligations: tougher funding conditions based on key performance indicators; increased audit and inspection powers by the ministry; more detailed financial planning, monitoring, control and reporting obligations; a committee to advise the board on quality improvement initiatives; a new patient advocate and complaints process to ensure patient safety, like the one used in Ontario hospitals; mandatory public reporting of expenses, and restrictions on meals, travel and hospitality; quality improvement provisions that link executive compensation to performance improvement targets in an annual quality plan; and mandatory approval by the minister for any changes to Ornge’s corporate structure or the sale of assets by Ornge.

On safeguarding patient care and safety, the auditor also highlighted some concerns around dispatch and response times for air and critical care land ambulances, which our government took very seriously. The amended performance agreement places a much greater emphasis on performance standards and requires increased reporting of dispatch information, including cancelled and declined air and land ambulance calls. The performance agreement is closely aligned with the Excellent Care for All Act, which guides the province’s hospitals.

Quality improvement and key performance indicators are now linked to both Ornge’s funding and executive compensation. To ensure patient safety remains paramount, Ornge has created a new patient advocate and a new formalized complaints process which is publicly posted and which ensures patient safety similar to what we have in our hospitals.

The amended performance agreement also deals with enhancing the quality of Ornge’s services based on objective, evidence-based performance indicators. Under the terms of this agreement, the minister’s approval is required for any changes to Ornge’s corporate structure, including the sale of assets. It also requires detailed financial planning, monitoring and control, and reporting obligations to increase accountability.

The new agreement also ensures compliance with the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act and the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act. It increases audit and inspection powers by the ministry and introduces debt control provisions to prevent debt increases that do not have ministry approval.

In addition, the performance agreement also provides for tougher funding conditions based on key performance indicators, and a committee to advise the board on quality improvement initiatives.

We are pleased that an amended performance agreement is in place. It represents a critical step towards an improved air ambulance system.

To conclude, I’d like to take a moment to address each and every member of this House. The amendments that our government is proposing today, coupled with the improvements at Ornge that have already been made, will entrench accountability and transparency at Ornge, as well as restore the public’s confidence in our air ambulance services.

I am completely confident that every member of this Legislature, regardless of political stripe, can support these amendments. I know that each and every one of us wants to ensure that public dollars are spent appropriately and responsibly and are subject to the strictest scrutiny possible. I also know that every one of us wants to ensure the highest possible standard for patient care across our great province. These proposed amendments will not only ensure that we meet these goals; they will ensure a culture of continual improvement for years to come.

I’d like to say to each and every one of my colleagues that supporting these amendments is the single most important thing we can do. I know that these proposed amendments represent a significant common ground between our parties and our communities.

There is no question that the new leadership and the front-line staff continue to do their utmost to deliver safe, reliable air ambulance services. They are putting their full efforts towards their core mission of providing life-saving care to Ontario patients. I’d like to echo the minister’s sentiments and thank the dedicated paramedics, pilots and front-line staff at Ornge, who work so hard every day to save lives.

I am confident that the auditor’s advice, combined with the actions that we are taking, as well as the amendments we are proposing today, will contribute to a better air ambulance service and the highest standard of care for all Ontarians.

I sincerely hope that every member of this House will agree that our proposed legislative changes are necessary and that they will support these proposed amendments. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I was listening to the minister in her remarks earlier, as well as the member from Oak Ridges–Markham. I want to put on the record that I’m very pleased with the member from Oak Ridges–Markham, and I’ll tell you why. She’s a medical doctor. Minister Matthews is a PhD doctor, and quite a bright lady, I guess. But I’m surprised that the member from Oak Ridges–Markham isn’t in cabinet. With the talent that she brings to that file—

Hon. James J. Bradley: You’re just being mischievous.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, I’m trying to stay as neutral as possible. The remarks on this bill—

Hon. James J. Bradley: You have to be sincere in your remarks in here.

Mr. John O’Toole: They are sincere remarks, for sure, because I did speak with her and I’ve watched her over the years. I’ll leave that alone there.

I want to also, out of respect for our member—Christine Elliott, our critic, spoke in response to the minister introducing Bill 11 the other day and, I think, summed up quite categorically our position on this bill. The bill was introduced, as people would know, in the last session, before Premier McGuinty resigned and prorogued the House.

But I can only say as well that our members on this side—Frank Klees being the lead on this when it was in committee—have the highest respect for the front-line people in the Ornge organization, some of whom were so disheartened and displeased with the shenanigans that were going on.

But even if I look at the paper today, there’s another

article about Chris Mazza. How disheartening is that? He was given a payoff

whereas another doctor’s career has now been decimated. I don’t say that to characterize these people. They were probably encouraged by the government to be involved in those sorts of things of money. He apparently made about $1.6 million, if you can imagine.

So there’s a lot to be said on this bill, which I’ll reserve for my remarks in the future.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): Questions and comments? The member for Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too, wanted to thank the minister for being there in the first hour of this bill, and I appreciated that she started her talk with thank yous to the front-line staff. They’ve had it tough; they’ve had it really tough. If you think of the number of paramedics, the number of pilots, the number of staff at Ornge that knew things were wrong—they tried their best within the confines of Ornge to ring the alarm bells, but nobody was listening.

Then they started to blow the whistle and go to the Ministry of Health and tell them—for weeks, for months, for years they were telling the ministry, “Things are not good at Ornge. People are using money in ways they shouldn’t be using money. Services are not improving in quality; they are going down, going down quickly.”

There were corporations being formed for the reason of hiding monies and nothing else, but it didn’t matter how many times they went to the ministry, how many times they went to the minister’s staff, how many times they rang the alarm bells, it always ended the same way: Those employees lost their jobs. Employees got punished; employees were put through the wringer, and the ministry never, never moved. They never used any of the accountability methods that they had, they did not use any of the oversight mechanisms that were open to them; they never looked into transparency. So, yes, for all of you that have lost your jobs, that have had a tough time, thank you.

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’m happy to speak to

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services, the minister’s address and also the member for Oak Ridges–Markham, who presented the case for Bill 11 and how it should be taken forward so quickly.

The air ambulance issue started—I think Dr. Mazza was with it in 1997 or 1998-99, in that time. He came in and it was established in 2003, and it continued as an air ambulance service that was not satisfactory. The Auditor General got in there; when his report came out, we had the minister taking action. And we’ve seen since 2011, around Christmas when the OPP went in and the minister before that, a big change in the air ambulance.

We see that the report on how it is operating—they are dealing, and the new management team is dealing with all the issues that were raised during the public accounts hearings, hearing from the Auditor General and hearing from countless people who worked within Ornge and worked outside of Ornge as consultants.

The minister has taken the steps necessary. This bill is extremely important to reinforce the air ambulance, to put in the same provisions as the Excellent Care for All Act in health care and to make this operate like a hospital, with the same oversight and transparency. All those issues have been very quickly brought forward. We have a management team in place. We need this Bill 11, and I just ask all members here to support it.

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

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: I rise today to address what we heard with regard to this bill. Unfortunately, just in the headlines today proof has shown that the story continues.

When we look back to last year, when this piece of legislation was introduced for debate, it was cobbled together in haste. It was to provide cover for the lack of capacity that the Ministry of Health and the minister had with regard to this horrible, horrible event whereby we had an executive totally misusing Ontario taxpayer dollars. It’s a travesty. There was absolutely no oversight, as my friend from Burlington mentioned.

We need to take a look at how to do things better, and that’s why our caucus feels very, very strongly that we need to continue to examine what went wrong, because enough is enough. Ontario taxpayers deserve so much better. When you hear that there’s an executive spending literally double digits on a bottle of water, taking trips across the world on the taxpayers’ back, it goes to show that this oversight—this ministry has been totally benign and turned a blind eye to the issues at hand.

You know what? In rural Ontario, when we’re seeing hospitals crumble, when we see election promises broken—the list goes on and on and on—you just have to shake your head, because this whole Ornge fiasco has been a totally mismanaged affair. Those dollars could have gone so far in terms of addressing health care across this province. We need to do better.

Another esteemed college of mine mentioned: Where does the buck stop? Well, ladies and gentlemen of the House, it has to stop now. We can’t let minimal legislation provide a cover-up.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): The member for Oak Ridges–Markham, you have two minutes to respond.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, and to those who have responded to the minister’s and my remarks. First of all, to my neighbour from Durham, I always appreciate your compliments and I accept them at face value.

To the member from Nickel Belt, I too share with you the concern for paramedics. In my position as commissioner of health services for York region, I was charged with the responsibility for, in fact, amalgamating the six land ambulance services we had in York region into one publicly funded and publicly delivered service in York region, when the former government downloaded land ambulance to upper-tier municipalities. I’m extremely proud of York region EMS.

To my colleague from Ottawa–Orléans, who clearly has been very involved with the public accounts committee previously and now, I think what we’re talking about here is definitely moving forward on proposed legislative amendments. We on this side of the House are as distressed as the rest of the members as to what occurred at Ornge and we are determined that we put in place mechanisms so that agencies or arm’s-length bodies—this was, of course, a federal corporation—do have the type of oversight so that they are charged with their fiduciary responsibility to the taxpayer in a way that we can ensure that it is maintained.

To the member from Huron–Bruce: The stories continue but the actions have stopped. As soon as the minister was aware of the findings of the Auditor General, it is absolutely clear that she took immediate steps to look into the situation at Ornge and to take remedial steps.

This proposed legislation is needed. I urge everyone to support it.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m pleased to have the opportunity, on behalf of Tim Hudak and the opposition, to address Bill 11,

An Act to amend the Ambulance Act with respect to air ambulance services. I’m very pleased to have this opportunity and hopefully will have enough time to make all the remarks that I want to make.

This bill was introduced and debated to a very limited extent in the last session of the Legislature under Premier McGuinty. Now, in context—I don’t want to be offensive to anyone—we start by saying that people working in Ornge ambulance and those trying to make the system work are to be respected. What was missing was the governance model set up by Premier McGuinty. That’s really what was missing.

I’m quite surprised—I look back at the history of Dr. Chris Mazza. He was a highly regarded medical person—absolutely no experience at all in the helicopter and that side of the business. There were other people that should have been appointed. At least, that’s my understanding. I’m surprised now that we’re introducing a bill again when public accounts—the Auditor General hasn’t really put together the final report. I think it would have been important to finish off those hearings and then come up with a report that was a consensus.

I’m sure our leader, Tim Hudak, was trying to do the right thing, as our critic Christine Elliott said as well. I believe that the NDP—and I have great respect for the member from Nickel Belt, I believe it is; I believe that she’s a highly regarded member here. Their input at these committees would have served well to build the consensus that Premier Kathleen Wynne is trying to portray, shall I say, portraying it now with the teachers by promising them some payoff at the end of the day.

When I look at this Ornge ambulance thing, I have correspondence in my possession that was brought to my attention. Now, I’ll relate this as a story, one of the pieces of how poorly the system of setting up Ornge worked. There was a company in Peterborough that had been in contact with Chris Mazza and Ornge, and this company was expert in the interior dimensions and in building and designing the interiors of helicopters and ambulances. The company was more or less given the brush-off, and I have the correspondence. I’m going to share it with Frank Klees in committee.

The company wrote to Mr. Leal, now Minister Leal, from Peterborough. In fairness to Mr. Leal, Mr. Leal did write to the minister. I think it was David Caplan at the time, who has since resigned.

Hon. James J. Bradley: —some pictures.

Mr. John O’Toole: In fact, there are a couple of pictures. The Minister of the Environment is chirping in there.

But the point I’m saying is that the minister responded back to Mr. Leal, and said that there was a process. It was put up on the purchasing website for bidding on projects. The person went through all the application and all this kind of stuff and still was not even responded to. So, out of frustration, they wrote a rather technical letter. When I read it, I thought, “Gosh. This is a small business in Ontario being brushed aside.” No political connections at all: That was the problem. No connections, the inside. He should have gone to a couple of the fundraisers.

Here’s the deal: Eventually, the business went to Italy. None of the helicopters were properly suited for the delivery of the service. In fact, they bought extra helicopters thinking they could make money on them. Those two helicopters are still in storage, and paying rent, maintenance and the rest, because air equipment can’t just sit around in some warehouse.

Honest to God, in this whole fiasco I believe in fact it’s important for the viewers to know that the minister already had the authority to intervene on the independent health facilities legislation. This excuse of—I can’t use the word “cover-up,” so I won’t, but the issue was that this was a way of getting around the responsibilities of the cabinet itself. Once again, in its own case, one could overlook or accept the apology of the minister, which I don’t think she ever did. It’s the same minister, by the way.

But when you look at the context of what was going on in eHealth, the same ministry is fraught with unaccountability and lack of transparency and the waste of taxpayers’ money, money that’s denying children treatment for autism. It’s denying people that have cancer the proper drugs. That waste of money is really, at the end of the day, what’s most disconcerting.

Whether or not the lawyer language, both in this bill or the debates that will go on—what about the patients? What about the young person who had an accident at the side of the road where the ambulance couldn’t accommodate the patient on transfer? The patient was transferred by land ambulance. There were several cases cited during the hearings in public accounts and others. Mr. Klees did a marvellous job, along with, I believe, the Toronto Star, in bringing this to light.

At the end of the day, the real casualties here are the families and the individuals whose lives were put at risk, with no sense of compassion or caring from the government of the day. They were busy trying to put out the fires around the air ambulance and the fires around the gas plants that they were moving or not moving, and all of the other inquiries that were ongoing.

To me, this bill here—I put to the minister, because the minister’s here, that really, I think starting off with a humble apology is not an admission of guilt, but it would be a good way to start to build bridges. I honestly think that she probably would like to do that.

But I want to refer back to my colleague from Huron–Bruce, who said that the story’s not over. In fact, in the Toronto Star—the viewer today, I want you to read the Toronto Star. It’s on A1, so it’s a lead story. Here’s just a little bit of the disintegration or—I don’t want to say “corruption,” because that’s not a very nice word either. Here’s what it said: Founder Chris Mazza was paid, “$256,000 in public money—with no proof Mazza did some of the work” he was paid to do.

Not only that, it goes on to say that, “Over a similar period of time, Mount Sinai paid Mazza $256,000.” This other person he was working with was Mount Sinai’s Dr. Stewart, who was paid “roughly $75,000 annually over seven years (a total of $436,000) to advise Mazza and Ornge on medical issues—work that the air ambulance firm’s new managers said they could not confirm was done because the relationship was primarily between Mazza and Stewart.” There’s a transfer of a quarter of a million annually between two people with no work being done. Now, I’m not an investigator, but there’s a case of $265,000 for nothing.

It’s sinful. It’s more than just criminal; it’s sinful.

If you go on in this article—and I commend the Star. It’s been quite a good lead on this article. Usually I don’t read the paper, but sometimes I have to. “Between 2009 and 2011, Mount Sinai paid Mazza $148,000 ‘for a variety of advisory services to the critical care response team and the department of medicine.’”

Now, there’s no doubt that Dr. Chris Mazza once was a very compelling doctor. I think what happened is the leadership group, i.e., the Ministry of Health and the minister herself, made it very clear: “Just get it done. Here’s a box full of money.” And they did. They took the box full of money and they went to Italy and spent a lot of it.

Here’s the deal: I know first-hand that in one of the quiet private lakes in my riding there’s a very expensive Ornge boat that was part of the organization.

Mrs. Jane McKenna: Really?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, it was one of those high racing boats. Two motorcycles, one of which I believe was auctioned off—this kind of evidence, and I can’t believe for a moment that somehow we’re all hushed up here; it’s something we shouldn’t be talking about or be critical about. There’s the evidence, and if it was an ordinary person, not connected, they’d be in jail. I go back to first principles here.

On top of that, there was another case—and the member from Nickel Belt probably will tell the story. In northern Ontario there was an accident that occurred. There was an air rescue called for. At the end of the day, they had to take the individual by land ambulance, and I think they may have perished on the way. I think all of this glitz and glamour with the helicopters and the fancy headquarters and the $1.9 million, all this kind of stuff is a distraction. They didn’t get the job done. We still talk about health care as if—and there are still problems in health care.

Every hospital, almost, is in an operating deficit. They’re cutting off nurses, and they’re—honest to God, the whole file is in a mess, and it’s the number one part of the budget; 50% of the entire budget is health care.

I want to say at this point in time that I want to share my time, because I’m not the lead on this. I want to share my time with Christine Elliott, probably.

Hon. James J. Bradley: She was in the photograph.

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, Christine Elliott was—we actually were quite co-operative as members. We were working with—the city of Oshawa wanted Ornge to be one of the bases. Had we known all this corruption was underneath it all, we would have been taking pictures and sending them to the Premier.

I myself did attend, and tried to—with Christine Elliott, who’s a highly regarded figure in Durham region—out of respect for making this work. We weren’t there for political reasons. We were there to actually endorse the city of Oshawa’s bid to host the air ambulance station. In fact, when they closed the station for air ambulance, I believe it was—what was the other one in west Toronto? The other airport that closed.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: Buttonville.

Mr. John O’Toole: Buttonville. Oshawa was the logical recipient of the business. So on that basis alone—and Mr. Bradley says that we—we were there to endorse our community, as you would in St. Catharines. You’d be there as well.

In fact, Christine Elliott is a beautiful, talented person and a beautiful, talented representative from the riding of Whitby, and a great critic. To me, she said rather respectfully—I was looking through her remarks, and she said here, “What’s even more troubling is, the legislation was put together before the public accounts committee heard from all the relevant witnesses and before we understood what the conditions were that led up to this air ambulance mess at Ornge.... How can you possibly expect to develop a piece of legislation when you don’t really even know what the problem is yet? And this is, despite the amendments—that’s what this amendment bill is purporting to do.”

Now, the clearest thing—we support certain aspects of the bill. Certainly, our leader has been talking about the whistle-blower protection from the very beginning. That’s part of transparency and accountability. So there’s a section. But there are issues in here which exempts the member—the minister, in fact—from any accountability.

I think, quite honestly, to me—it’s getting very close to quitting time here, and I don’t want to use up all the time on Christine or Jim Flaherty.

It has been less than a year since Christine stood in the House and pointed out that nothing really has changed. The same thing exists today. The story goes on. In the Toronto Star this morning, I see “Top Doctor Quits Amid Ornge Scandal.” The scandal continues, despite all of the protestations and the remarks.

At the end of the day, I put on the table this: I believe that patients are still at risk, and that’s until we apologize and have almost a full inquiry. Now, I don’t think that’s going to happen. Do you know why? Because right now we have so much evidence on the two gas plants that there’s been a call for a select committee. Every question has been asked to the minister and to the Premier, and it—

Hon. James J. Bradley: It was offered. You turned it down.

Mr. John O’Toole: Minister Bradley, from St. Catharines, is saying that it was turned down, because there were conditions—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member to stick to the topic that is being debated, rather than drifting off.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you. The issue there was that the contempt motion was supposed to be withdrawn as a condition to having the select committee.

But we still are going ahead with the committee, and the hearings aren’t finished. If you tie the pieces together here—why, in this bill, why on earth would they not have listened to the comments and public input and explanations by the staff, some of the staff, having the protection of whistle-blower and coming forward and—remember, Mr. Speaker, the point of all of this is, and our leader, Tim Hudak, has said this many times: Let’s put the patient first. Pretty much what he was saying yesterday in the opposition day motion on education is put the student first, not the union leaders.

And so they’ve got it wrong. The Working Families paid money for Ms. Wynne to meet with them. Now, this morning in the paper, the front headlines here: $5,000.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, Tim Hudak had one of those.

Mr. John O’Toole: That doesn’t make it right.

Here’s the deal. Here’s what it says: “Dinner with Wynne Worth $5,000.” What’s the price of getting this right? What’s the price, for the people of Ontario, of making sure we get the gas plant right? What’s the price of accountability?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I would ask the member one more time to debate the bill that’s in front of us.

Mr. John O’Toole: What’s the price of admission here? What’s the price of admission? Why would we be paying—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bas Balkissoon): I’ve provided you with one warning. I would like you to debate the bill that’s in front of us rather than stray.

Mr. John O’Toole: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I will try. I get so emotionally entangled in this. There are so many scandals going on that you almost have to have a scorecard. But I will stick to it.

What’s the price for getting this right? That’s what I’m trying to leave with the members today. Let’s put down the swords and the accusations and try to focus on the patient. Let’s put the inquiry back on track, led by Frank Klees and others, and let’s have the public talk to us about this and teach us a little bit about putting patients first. My intent this morning is not to delve into certain aspects of the bill that sort of encourage more transparency and accountability and more protection. Assigning the minister the ability to put in a supervisor—that should be an ongoing relationship.

Health care is half the budget. It’s half of the $120-some billion, and this province is borrowing most of that money. Right now our operating deficit—even Don Drummond said quite honestly that we have a structural deficit, and I don’t see any bright lights on the horizon. Health care is very dependent on having a strong economy.

Now, if you look at the paper today, Mr. Speaker—this does relate to the inability to fix this problem without the money—there’s a bunch of high school teachers being laid off in Toronto. Why? It’s the same issue with the health care problems: not enough money. I hear in health care there’s broader—exemptions for access to certain medications. Now there’s wait-lists for certain treatments. All of this relates back to the minister who, quite frankly—I don’t say this in any personal way; I want this very clear now.

All the time, there’s the member from Oak Ridges–Markham, who was the medical officer of health for York region, sitting on the backbench, reading some prepared speech when she could be taking the lead in the Ministry of Health. I put that one of the ways here to show some contriteness is to ask Minister Matthews to take another portfolio and have the member from Oak Ridges–Markham sort of take over, clean slate. I’m sure that the opposition would be more than accommodating in trying to work with the new minister.

The minister has to at least say she’s sorry or apologize or say, “Look, I didn’t know what I was doing. It happened when I wasn’t paying attention. I was looking at the issues going on in eHealth, trying to get that to work.” The diabetes registry is not even working. They’ve spent billions of dollars on trying to get the electronic health records, and in fact, it’s shameful.

Honest to God, I think it’s shameful, but at the end of the day, I really believe—

Mr. Jim Wilson: Didn’t you split your time with Klees?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes, I have, yes. I’ve split my time with Frank Klees and I knew for sure that he would prefer to be making—he will be making the technical remarks; I’ve been making the generalized remarks—

Hon. James J. Bradley: The partisan attacks.

Mr. John O’Toole: No, the generalized remarks—about trying to tie wasteful, scandalous spending in Ornge, in eHealth, in gas plants to this one issue. Let’s try and solve this issue.

I do suggest that they should proceed with haste in the public accounts committee on the Ornge hearings. I believe that Ms. Wynne, the Premier of Ontario, said that she’ll appear before the gas plant hearing. I think she was in the very same cabinet that dealt with some of these scandalous outcomes of Ornge, and she should probably appear before that committee too. Not only that, she’s not—Mr. Speaker, I don’t believe that the Premier, with her responsibilities in agriculture, is going to have enough—

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

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Steve Clark: It gives me great pleasure to introduce a guest in the west members’ gallery: Robert Koci, who is editor of Canadian Contractor magazine. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m here to stand to welcome all of those—and there are many in the galleries—who came to witness the release of Campaign 2000’s report on child poverty.

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’m joined today by, in the east members’ gallery, two people from Oakville. They’ve joined us to see how the Legislature works. Please welcome Carie Reed and Alaina Tennison.

Ms. Sylvia Jones: Please join me in welcoming Cathy Jonker. She is the mother of a page, A.J., and I’m happy that she’s able to join us at Queen’s Park today.

Miss Monique Taylor: It’s my pleasure today to welcome my aunt-in-law, Ms. Cathy Bozzo, to the House, and to also welcome Tom Cooper, who is here on behalf of Campaign 2000 and is from the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction—and the other members.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome the family of page Jenna Hirji of Richmond Hill, sitting in the gallery: Tazim Hirji, Habiba Hirji, Gulzar Hirji and Adam Hirji. Please welcome them.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: I’d like to welcome some contractors visiting from Northumberland–Quinte West this morning: Michael and Esther Schuilenberg, Joe Dibbits and Frank Bremen. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: It is my great pleasure and honour to welcome, in the west members’ gallery, for the first time to view live question period, my best friend, the love of my life, the mother of my children: my wife, Jenny.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That’ll get you points.

The member for Scarborough–Agincourt.

Ms. Soo Wong: I want to welcome two students from my riding of Scarborough–Agincourt, Terah Bakeerathan and Fiza Malik, and their teacher, Denise Colby, from the Girls’ Leadership Academy. They are going to be the junior MPP for the day. Welcome.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Please join me in welcoming a couple of my friends from the Windsor-Essex area: Mr. Garry Fortune and Kim Lewis. Mr. Lewis is the chair and CEO of Liquiforce. Good morning and welcome.

Mr. Frank Klees: I have the privilege of welcoming students from Sacred Heart Catholic School in Newmarket this morning. They’re making their way up to the gallery and will be observing question period today. With them is Mr. Vic Digiovanni; he is a grade 12 politics teacher. Ms. Jocelyn Roberts’s grade 10 civics class will be joining them, and Ms. Alice Boyle’s ESL class will be joining us. They’re looking forward to seeing how business is done here in the Legislature, and they’re looking forward to ministers answering the questions that members of the opposition will be putting to them.

Mr. Randy Hillier: It’s my pleasure today to welcome hundreds of contractors from across Ontario to the “Fix the WSIB” rally. I’d like to make special mention of a few people that are here joining us in both the west members’ gallery and in the public galleries who have been instrumental in helping to fix the WSIB: Juliette Forgues, Marc Brisson, Walter Pamic, Justin Dokter, Roger Tickner; Steve Hamilton and Joe Vaccaro from the Ontario Home Builders’ Association; Doug Leitch and Steve Sell from the Ontario Electrical League; Plamen Petkov from the CFIB; and all those hundreds of others who are here to help us out in democracy.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On behalf of the Minister of Finance, the member for Mississauga South, regarding page Jessica Seifried: mother Kathryn, father Edward, sister Julia and godmother Cynthia Seebach are here visiting as well. Welcome.

I would also like to introduce the former member for Brantford, in the 32nd and 33rd House, Mr. Phil Gillies. Welcome.

Interjection: He was a progressive.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will reserve comment to a later date.

Another introduction?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Point of order, member?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Speaker, today I seek unanimous consent that in order to expedite the process for the hundreds of contractors who are here today, they be allowed to wear their work-related apparel in the Legislature today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member has asked for unanimous consent to wear their material. Is it agreed? I heard a “no.”

It is now time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Victor Fedeli: My question is for the Premier. Today in your scrum and in the justice committee, you and your Liberal colleagues admitted that there are more gas plant documents. The mere premise that you are asking for more proves that you have been withholding documents you’ve been ordered to release.

Contrary to your gracious offer to look for more documents, Premier, we actually don’t need your permission. You were ordered to turn over all the documents, and by “all documents,” we mean all documents. You don’t need a new directive, Premier; you just need to comply with the Speaker.

Premier, will you just release all the documents now?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Just to be clear—and I know the House leader is eager to jump in on this—the member opposite needs to understand the scope of previous requests. The May 2012 motion only requested documents from the Minister of Energy, the Ministry of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority. What I did this morning was, I said that I thought it was appropriate that the justice committee would have the opportunity to ask for documents from across government.

So actually, Mr. Speaker, what I did this morning was to suggest that the justice committee, as the mechanism that was chosen by the opposition, should be able to do what, in effect, a select committee would have been able to do and ask all those questions and get all the documents that I thought the member opposite was interested in seeing.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, you now form the four corners of this scandal. You were in the cabinet when these decisions were rendered. You were the campaign co-chair when Liberal operatives cancelled the Mississauga plant. You are now the leader of the Liberal Party and the Premier of Ontario. You can’t run, you can’t hide from this, and you can’t spin your way out of this mess.

You have admitted to us that this was a political decision, yet you’ve offered all the documents from your ministries. But will you order your Liberal Party to release all the campaign documents of this terrible scandal?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think we’ve agreed in this Legislature that this was a political decision. It was a political decision that was made by a government after a campaign. It was a political decision that both other parties said they were going to make if they formed government, Mr. Speaker. The Liberal Party won, and we acted on that political promise that we had made during a campaign.

I have said consistently that I am open to making sure that all the documentation is available. That’s what my announcement this morning was about; that’s what the unanimous consent motion will be about.

I think that if the committee wants to ask for other documents from parties—they can ask from the Liberal Party, if they want to ask for information from the Conservative Party and from the NDP—they can ask for all of that information. They actually did need the motion in order to be able to do that.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It’s really not helpful when the question is being asked and somebody is still saying from the same side—yelling out, and, when somebody is answering, somebody from the same side yelling out, because it becomes a little more difficult for me to do my job when I want to tell somebody to be quiet over here when somebody’s heckling on this side when the answer or the question is being put. So, please refrain.

Final supplementary.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Premier, I realize you’d rather be talking about anything other than this gas plant scandal. We can see why; you’re in pretty deep in this one, Premier. Look what happened last time you spoke. You said, “All of the documents that have been released are the documents that were available.” Even when you knew we did not have the Oakville Project Vapour documents at that time, you said that.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of the Environment, come to order.

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Now you’ve admitted, after three document dumps, that you still haven’t released all the documents. Ontarians need a Premier who will tell them the facts, unprovoked. Today proves you’re not that Premier.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I didn’t hear a question in that, but I’m just going to answer anyway.

Mr. Speaker, I really hope that the Progressive Conservatives will support the motion that we put forward today; I really hope that they will. Just to be clear on what I have asked today: I have asked my House leader to work with the opposition to broaden the mandate of the justice committee to look at the tendering, planning, commissioning, cancellation and relocation of the Mississauga and Oakville gas plants. The reason I’ve done that is that, as you know, last year’s request for gas plant documents pertained only to the Ministry of Energy, the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority.

So, Mr. Speaker, quite the opposite to what the member opposite is saying, I am working as hard as I can to make sure that all of the information is available and that the justice committee has the mandate to access all of that information.

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE

Mr. Peter Shurman: Premier, you appointed a finance minister who, like me, has a significant background in private sector business. In private business, he knows and I know that there are controls on spending or it is goodbye. We also know that salaries, the largest cost to the province, are key, and that unions talk about levelling the playing field, about doing well for their union members. So what happens when that playing field tilts the other way, when it favours unions on the public’s back? My experience and Mr. Sousa’s experience in former actions are, you exercise control or you’re out. I’d expect you to agree with that, Premier.

So we have a new hiring elite in our public sector, and it’s your finance minister’s job to control that. I know you’d agree.

Your government has frozen non-union wages so you’re on board with the principle of freezing wages to control costs. Will you support collaboratively our conclusion that we need a two-year breather? Will you support my legislation, Bill 5, for a two-year mandatory wage freeze?

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I won’t. We’ve always been clear that there is no room for a wage increase. We’ve been working with our public sector partners to implement that; we’ve negotiated agreements with AMAPCEO, with the OMA and with OPSEU. We have had good results in working in partnership with our public sector partners, and I think that that is the course for us going forward. We’ve been very clear: There is no room for a wage increase. We’re having success in negotiating those agreements, and we’re going to continue on that path.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: With respect, that is not an answer to Ontarians, Premier. Most people know what has to be done when the money just isn’t there, and the StatsCan figures used by the Fraser Institute and CFIB don’t lie. Government workers have five times the job security, 76% of them have pension plans versus only 25% in the private sector, and salaries are about 14% better in government. So if unions are correct and we need to actually level the playing field and if we’re desperate to balance a budget, why won’t you admit that a two-year wage freeze is fair and just and completely in order?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: What the member opposite is arguing for is an outcome. He’s arguing that there should be wage constraint. We are making the same argument. We have different methodologies to get there, but the outcome has to be the same.

I agree that we need wage constraint. That’s why we’ve been on the path that we’ve been on for the last year. That’s why we have negotiated the zero-zero agreements that we have negotiated. We are working to the same goal, but we are not going to use the same mechanism as the member opposite is suggesting, because we really believe that working in partnership, working with the public sector employees, we can get there, and we’re demonstrating that that’s possible.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: This is somewhat frustrating. The Premier has seen first-hand what happens when you continue on a path of reckless spending. I ran a small business for 10 years; a larger business longer than that. I thought you were a reasonable and fair person. She is stonewalling, Speaker, on a pressing issue, and she knows it. When I stand on that side of this chamber with a Tim Hudak government, we’ll control spending and there will be a level playing field.

So, back to the Premier: Is it so important to buy union peace that you will continue on a path to destruction? If you are not prepared to support our wage freeze bill, it is imperative that you explain right here and right now what you intend to do to save $2 billion a year that you desperately need. Please do that.

Applause.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is—oh, they’ve got to do their standing ovation.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that we are on track to balance the budget by 2017-18. We said that was the plan. We have overachieved our targets for the last three years. We’re ahead of

schedule on that balanced budget target. So, contrary to what the member opposite is saying, we have found a way to constrain wages. We will continue to do that.

The other issue is that we wanted to introduce some changes and some transparency to the interest arbitration process, because that’s one of the issues that I know the party opposite has raised. They took those mechanisms out of the budget; they took those mechanisms that would have put more transparency in place in interest arbitration out of the budget. If we reintroduce those, I hope that the party opposite will support them.

POWER PLANTS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Last fall, a legislative committee asked for documents related to the cancellation of private power contracts for gas plants in Mississauga and Oakville. My question to the Premier is a simple one: Does she really think that process worked well?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think what I did today was to ask that we broaden the mandate of the committee so that the committee could ask for all of the documentation across government. It’s the exact reason that I gave this morning, because I think that the justice committee should have the mandate to ask a broader range of questions and that all that information should be available, and could in fact have the effect of a select committee. That’s exactly why I asked my House leader to work with the opposition this morning, to find a way to broaden that mandate.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, here’s what people saw: The private power deals were cancelled for partisan purposes. The cost to the public was buried until after the election campaign, and when the government was finally compelled by committee to release information, the public watched as the government released documents, insisted that everything had been disclosed and then released more, and insisted again that everything had been disclosed and then released more again. Does the Premier think this is a process that works?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want the process to change. I want the questions to be broader. I want all the information to be available. That’s why I made my statement this morning. That’s why I’ve asked the House leader to work with the opposition to broaden the mandate of the justice committee.

Part of the problem with the process up to this point is that the mandate has been narrow. So, documents from the Ministry of Energy, the Minister of Energy and the Ontario Power Authority were all that were available. I have said clearly, I don’t think that’s broad enough. I think that we need to broaden the search, we need to broaden the questioning, and that’s why I’ve asked the House leader to work with the opposition to do that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While we appreciate the government’s intention to bring forward a motion to expand the powers of the committee, there’s some well-earned skepticism about the committee’s ability to get to the bottom of this.

We’ve proposed a much better alternative: Take this issue away from the Legislature and send it to an affordable public inquiry so we can focus on creating jobs, we can focus on improving health care, and we can focus on making life more affordable for the people of this province, here in this chamber.

Will the Premier reconsider her opposition to our simple proposal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand the reason that the leader of the third party has added the word “affordable” in front of “public inquiry,” but I think that it is a contradiction in terms. I think that we have the mechanisms within the legislative process to get to the bottom of this, but I think that those mechanisms can be improved.

I had suggested a select committee; the Legislature chose the justice committee. So what I’ve said is, let’s broaden the mandate of the justice committee. Let’s give them the mandate to ask all of the questions around all of the issues surrounding these decisions, because I want us to know how to avoid having this kind of situation in the future. Siting energy infrastructure is a very complicated process, and I want to make sure we understand what happened, where we went wrong. We need to make sure that we find a way to avoid this kind of situation in the future.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. The Liberal government decided in 2010 that auto insurance companies needed a break, and so they changed the rules to help those companies save over $2 billion a year. The Premier said that she wants to combat fraud, which will save them even more money.

I guess my question to the Premier is, at what point do drivers deserve a break in their auto insurance rates?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The leader of the third party is right that over our term, we have made a lot of changes in the auto insurance industry. When we first came into office in 2003, there were many changes that were made that actually reduced—I think at one point, if my memory serves me, there was an 11% reduction across the board in auto insurance premiums. They have gone up again and there is more work to be done, although they went down slightly last year.

I have said repeatedly that I want to work with the third party on this issue. I think we do need to work with the industry. We need to implement the recommendations of the Auto Insurance Anti-Fraud Task Force, to make sure that whatever fraud is in the system, we can get it out, and the money, the savings there need to be passed on to the premium holders.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Tomorrow I’m going to be meeting with the Insurance Bureau of Canada and I’m going to be keeping my ears open for good ideas. But I am going to be clear with those folks: My goal is to see insurance premiums drop by 15%, and I’m frankly not all that interested in working together unless drivers actually get a break, a break that they’ve been waiting for, for far too long in this province.

Will the Premier back our efforts or will she keep backing a status quo that keeps leaving people paying more and more and more for their insurance rates?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not big on the status quo in this instance. I think that there are improvements that need to be made. To that end, actually, last year I had a panel of people from the industry—brokers, the insurance bureau and folks who deal with this issue on a daily basis. I had many of my constituents come and talk to them about not just the issues of fraud, but some of the other issues of geographic distribution of premium rates and so on.

I know that there are a lot of issues that we need to talk about on this front, and I am absolutely willing to engage both with the industry and the third party on this issue.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If the Premier went through a panel process this last year, I don’t know why the heck the rates still keep going up. She certainly can’t seem to get to the action. A lot of talk; no action.

I know the Premier is going to be in the Soo tomorrow. Nancy Bailey lives there, and she wrote to us to say that even with no accidents, her rates keep increasing. She says it’s “making it impossible for some people to even use a car.”

Ronda wrote, saying, “[R]ates generally go up every year with the insurer I currently use. I contact them to try to understand why, but am always left with vague answers.... Insurance companies are some of the richest corporations in the country ... yet rates continue to climb.”

These women deserve some answers. The Premier has made life a hell of a lot better—sorry; excuse me. I withdraw that.

The Premier has made life a heck of a lot better for insurance companies. When will she make life more affordable for the drivers in Sault Ste. Marie and the rest of Ontario?

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In this case, I appreciate the member taking care of herself.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Initiative.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. In fact, overall insurance rates went down very slightly last year. But I do not deny that this is an issue, which is why I have said consistently that there is money, I believe, to be found in the system. I think implementing the anti-fraud task force report—their recommendations—is a very important step that we have to take.

But the associated issue there is that there has to be a conversation with the industry that ties those reductions to premium reductions, as a result of the implementation of the recommendations, and that’s the piece I want to work on with the leader of the third party.

I’m happy to have that conversation. I, too, will be sitting down with the industry. The Minister of Finance will be sitting down with the industry. We need to find a way through this, because there are real needs and people are struggling with the costs of auto insurance. I absolutely accept that and look forward to working with the member on it.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Jeff Yurek: My question is to the Premier. Talking about the dismal state of our province’s finances yesterday, your finance minister said there are a couple of things to put in perspective. Then he said, “We have now reduced our spending dramatically.”

Premier, your government hasn’t reduced spending at all. In fact, you’re spending more than the previous government ever. Spending went from $121 billion in 2010 to $122 billion last year, and it’s now projected to be $125 billion this year.

You and the finance minister are responsible for the largest province in Canada, so I think it’s very important to ask you this question: Premier, can you explain how going from $121 billion two years ago to $125 billion this year is a reduction in spending?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I know the member opposite has paid very close attention to all the discussions around the fiscal situation and the budgets and the economy over the last few years, and he will understand that what’s really critical at this juncture is that we decrease the rate of growth in terms of our spending. That is the key factor in terms of what Mr. Drummond said to us. It’s the key factor in terms of our staying on track to balance the budget by 2017-18.

And as I just said to one of his colleagues, we are actually overachieving on that front. We have a plan, and we have met the targets, and we will continue to meet those targets.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Yurek: Back to the Premier: Premier, if this is overachieving, I’d hate to see if you underachieved.

Premier, we can’t afford to kick this can further down the road with your same policies that your cabinet has embraced. The Fraser Institute reported last month that Ontario’s fiscal position is worse than California’s. Our debt-to-GDP ratio is 37%, the same as Greece in 1984. We spend $11 billion on interest charges. Every day of inaction digs us deeper in debt, and you’re mortgaging our children’s future.

The PC Party has put forward a number of ideas that would save money: for instance, an immediate, across-the-board public sector wage freeze. It would save $2 billion. Today we will debate and vote on legislation to implement a wage freeze for the entire public sector. Premier, will you stand up with us for the Ontario people and support this bill?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As I spoke to your colleague, the outcome in terms of constraining wages is exactly what we are achieving, and we will continue to work on that.

But we’ve held spending growth to 0.9%, which is in line with what Mr. Drummond suggested that we do. I know that the party opposite is exactly in favour of what Mr. Drummond suggested that we do. I think it’s really important for the people of the province to understand that, as Don Drummond said in his report, “Ontario is neither a high-tax nor high-spend province.” So he—

Interjections.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, that’s what Mr. Drummond said.

The reality is that we have said—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have said clearly that we understand that we have to constrain our spending increases. That’s what we’re doing. That’s why we’re on track to balance the budget by 2017-18, and we’re going to stay on track.

NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. John Vanthof: My question is for the Premier. Premier, tomorrow will be one year since I introduced a motion on the creation of an all-party committee to examine all legislation relating to northern Ontario. This motion passed with support from all three parties. Yet here we are a year later, and the government has failed to act on the establishment of the all-party northern committee. Instead, this government seems more interested in a photo op in Sault Ste. Marie with just a select few Liberal MPPs as your northern caucus.

Premier, will you establish an all-party northern committee to discuss northern concerns?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We’re holding a cabinet meeting in Sault Ste. Marie. I made a commitment that we would do that within 30 days of my becoming the Premier and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —following through on that. We’re also creating a cabinet committee on the north so that, as policies come forward, they will be looked at through a northern lens.

The time in Sault Ste. Marie tomorrow will not just be about the cabinet meeting. My ministers are meeting with stakeholders; they’re going to be engaged with the community members. I think that’s very, very important.

We are rededicating ourselves to making sure that we understand the issues of the north and that we engage with people in the north so that we can make sure that policies are sensitive to the issues in the north.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. John Vanthof: Once again, my question is to the Premier. It’s been a year since the northern committee motion was passed by this House. Since then, your government has decided to dismantle the ONTC, cancel the Ontario Ranger Program, close northern provincial parks and cut jobs at the MNR, and continues to fail to react to issues that are killing jobs in the north, like high energy prices, faulty forest tenure policies and delays with the Ring of Fire.

Northerners are justifiably concerned that your government will only continue to pay lip service to the north’s concerns. Once again I ask you: Will you do the right thing and create an all-party legislative committee and give northerners a real voice in this Legislature?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I have spent a lot of time in the north over the last nine and a half years as a minister—

Mr. John Vanthof: So have I.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: And you have, too—absolutely. I appreciate the perspective. A lot of the issues that you’ve raised are issues that I have heard a lot about.

One of the reasons that we want the Northern Policy Institute to be real is that it will have people from the north on it, who will be able to advise the government, will be able to develop a policy perspective that will be real and that we will be able to tie to the policies that we develop here at Queen’s Park.

I look forward to working with the member opposite on the issues that he raises. As I’ve said, we are setting up a number of mechanisms to make sure that we hear from and that we are able to put that northern lens on the policies that we develop here at Queen’s Park.

IMMIGRANTS

Ms. Dipika Damerla: My question is to the brand new Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. May I say, Speaker, what a fantastic job he’s doing.

As we all know, Canada is a country of immigrants, and my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville is no different. People from all over the world call it home.

I hear first-hand the challenges many newcomers face, whether it’s finding a job, learning a new language or finding a place to live. I am indeed fortunate that my community is served by organizations like the Peel newcomer centre, Dixie neighbourhood, Employment Access and India Rainbow. They do such a fantastic job.

Minister, my question to you is, what is the government doing to support newcomers so they can become effective members of our society and our economy?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I want to thank my colleague from Mississauga East for the question—thank you so much. She recognizes the vital contributions that newcomers make here in Ontario, and I thank her for her advocacy.

Mr. Speaker, on November 5, our government set a new direction for immigration in Ontario, introducing Ontario’s first immigration strategy. The strategy has three key objectives: first, to attract a skilled workforce in Ontario and to build a stronger economy. Also, we’re helping newcomers and their families achieve success here in Ontario, and maximizing the diversity that we have here in this province to ensure that we continue to have prosperity.

This is a comprehensive plan, one that will attract the newcomers that our economy needs to make sure that they’re successful. Implementing Ontario’s immigration strategy is a critical step towards growing an economy that benefits all Ontarians. We know when newcomers succeed in this province, Ontario succeeds.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Dipika Damerla: Minister, in my riding of Mississauga East–Cooksville, there are a number of employers who are having a hard time finding skilled workers they need for specialized fields and high-skilled sectors. But federal changes—and, may I say, Conservative federal changes—to immigration policies have resulted in fewer economic immigrants coming to Ontario. A growing labour shortage could negatively hurt our economy here in Ontario.

On top of that, for a third year in a row, the federal government has cut funding to Ontario settlement agencies. These Conservative federal cuts now total $85 million. Even though we remain the number one destination for newcomers to Canada, Ontario has an immigration challenge. Minister, what is our government doing to address the concerns of employers in my riding?

Hon. Michael Coteau: We know that some employers are having a hard time finding workers for jobs that require post-secondary education, and also making sure that they have—

Interjections.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: The fact is, without immigration, Ontario’s aging population would begin to decline by 2014, and that’s why our plan calls for the following: We want to make sure that our economic immigrants who are coming here to Ontario move from 52% to 70%. We also want to make sure that our provincial nominee numbers go from 1,000 to 5,000. The third thing: I want to make sure—and this is something I’m really proud of—that our francophone immigrants here in Ontario rise by 5%, and that we reach those targets—sorry, sets a target by 5%.

It’s also crucial that we remind the federal government that immigration here is a shared responsibility. I encourage all members in this House on both sides to pick up the phone and talk to the federal Conservatives to make sure that we reach these targets.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, today hundreds of contractors from around Ontario are joining us in this House because of Bill 119. Your government has used Bill 119 to force contractors to pay for mandatory WSIB premiums. These contractors already pay for private insurance because it covers them 24/7, because if they slip or fall at work or at home, their livelihood depends on their ability to work. Now they’re being forced to pay WSIB premiums, insurance that costs six to seven times more than their existing private insurance that they will continue to need.

Minister, can you explain to the contractors here with us today why your government believes they should pay for inferior, redundant WSIB coverage? Enough is enough for these—

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

Minister of Labour?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Labour?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. I want to thank the member opposite for the question. I had the opportunity to meet with the member yesterday and also the member from Essex, and I look forward to working with both of them to ensure that we continue to improve the working conditions of all the workers in our province.

I also want to welcome all the hard-working construction workers and employers who are here today in the Legislature as well.

I think we all will agree that we collectively have the desire to improve the health and safety of all workers in the construction industry and to reduce the underground economic activity, and that’s exactly what Bill 119 is doing. Ever since this legislation was brought forward in 2008, the WSIB has worked with construction stakeholders to ensure that we have a system that balances the concerns of workers and businesses.

We listened to the concerns of the stakeholders and we’ve given a four-year transition period to implement this legislation—

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

Mr. Randy Hillier: Minister, there’s a 25-year-old Hamilton contractor who’s here with us today in the House. His name is Justin. He has a wife and a 6-month-old daughter. Your government is forcing him to choose between paying $5,000 a year for redundant WSIB coverage or saving money for his family and his daughter’s future. Your government is forcing him to pay for this pointless insurance instead of saving $150,000 for his daughter’s education. He wants to play by the rules, but these rules just aren’t fair and won’t let him.

Minister, can you explain to Justin why you are forcing him to choose between his family and his daughter’s future, feeding that monstrous WSIB monopoly with another tax grab or choosing between staying legal and going out of business or having to join the underground economy?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated, please. Stop the clock. I will repeat what many Speakers have said in the past—that we absolutely invite and want our guests to be here to watch, and that’s it: watch. We do not allow any participation whatsoever from the galleries—all galleries. I would just remind us to please observe those rules. We would deeply appreciate it.

Minister of Labour?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. This is a very valid question. I really appreciate the member for asking this because there are some very significant differences between WSIB insurance versus private insurance. WSIB coverage not only deals with an injured worker at the time of their injury but also provides benefits to assist them in their post-injury state.

The WSIB provides a competitive but different no-fault insurance product that protects employers from costly lawsuits and has predictable rates, tax-deductible premiums and reliable benefits. The benefits paid by WSIB—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. I think the member from Oxford is going to get a warning if he doesn’t watch it, especially when I get quiet. That’s not the spot to start to inject.

Minister of Labour, finish, please.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Speaker. Benefits paid by WSIB can be more comprehensive and cover a broader range of services—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound, second time, I’ve named his riding.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, this is very important—such as WSIB pays up to 85% net wage loss; benefits include loss of retirement income paid to injured workers from age 65; a special allowance for severely impaired workers, including independent living allowances; and, most importantly, work reintegration and retraining services, if needed. These are important differences between private insurance and WSIB.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Today, Campaign 2000 released its annual report on child poverty. The report states that the government’s 2012 budget “derailed effective anti-poverty measures.”

Will the government promise to help, not hurt, low-income families in the 2013 budget by, among other steps, at the very least, allowing social assistance recipients to keep the first $200 of their monthly employment earnings?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I really appreciate the member’s question, and I totally appreciate the work of Campaign 2000. In fact, I did some work for that organization before I was in elected office and I know that it’s very sound work that they do. In fact, they were one of the poverty groups that called on the government (

a) to have a poverty reduction strategy and (b), to put the Ontario child benefit in place, which has made a difference to tens of thousands of children.

Is there more to be done? Absolutely. Is the issue of the ability of people to keep more of the money that they earn when they’re working in the workforce, people with disabilities—absolutely. That’s something that we need to look at, Mr. Speaker. It’s something that we signalled in the throne speech that we believe needs to be addressed. It’s one of the things that the Lankin-Sheikh report identified. I look forward to working with you on that.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Again back to the Premier: Campaign 2000’s report states that “policy decisions … in the 2012 Ontario budget made survival even more difficult for the over 383,000 children living in poverty.” That’s one in seven children in Ontario. As the report points out, the Liberal government has cut housing and health benefits, delayed child benefits, and frozen minimum wage below the poverty line.

Will the government help low-income families get back on their feet in the next budget—specifics now—or will it once again push them deeper into poverty?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the premise of some of the issues that the member raises I would have to question, in terms of some of the housing benefits, which we actually have combined and have changed. But we have continued to invest in affordable housing and will continue to do that.

I have said very clearly, and our throne speech outlined that one of the issues that we want to look at is how we can work to make sure that people who are earning—people who are on disability, on ODSP, and work can keep more of the money that they earn. I think it’s an important issue, as well as some of the other social assistance issues that are raised by the Lankin-Sheikh report. I think that there is a lot of work to be done there, and I look forward to working with the member on those issues.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr. Joe Dickson: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. It has been one year since the minister released her action plan for health care. In this plan, the minister promised to provide Ontarians with the right care, at the right time, in the right place. Many of my Ajax–Pickering constituents, especially seniors, rely on community services as part of their everyday health care.

Speaker, through you, can the minister please tell this House what this government has been doing to improve access to community services for seniors?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I welcome the question from the member from Ajax–Pickering because I think all of us in this House recognize that we need to do whatever we can to support our seniors to stay healthy and to stay home as long as possible.

Speaker, that’s why in our last budget we prioritized community supports. We have a 4% increase in the community sector—that includes community care, home care and community services.

Each of the LHINs went through a process—and I would urge everyone here to check with their LHIN to find out what specific investments were made with this 4% increase in spending. The LHINs were tasked with the responsibility of reducing emergency department and ALC rates, reducing avoidable hospital admissions and increasing access to mental health and addiction services. The Central East LHIN, which is represented by the member, has done a fantastic job.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Joe Dickson: Thank you, Speaker, and through you back to the minister: Demographics in Ontario are changing. In just four years, Ontario will be home to more people over the age of 65 than those under 14 years old. In 20 years, the number of seniors will double in the province. I’ve heard from many Ontarians that as they grow older, they want to maintain their health and independence. I know I certainly do.

Speaker, can the minister tell us how she plans to address the pressures that the health care system will face as the number of seniors grows, while allowing them to live independently?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: One way this increase—this 4% increase—will address the priorities is by providing home care for 90,000 more seniors. It enhances supportive housing, palliative care, caregiver respite programs, day programs for people with Alzheimer’s, in-home respite—a range of programs with one goal, and that is to keep people at home, where they want to be, as long as possible.

We’re also expanding house calls: 30,000 more people will receive house calls this year. We’re increasing access to personal support workers—250 more short-stay beds for people who need a little bit of care after they’re ready to leave hospital but they’re not quite ready to go home. We’re going to take care of them in short-stay beds. It will help 1,500 more seniors get that appropriate transition from hospital to home.

SKILLED TRADES

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, and I welcome everybody here today in the audience, all the contractors etc.

In Ontario, we have over 600,000 people out of work. Each and every month the job losses continue to rise—48,000 in January alone. Over and over again, your government finds new ways to tax and squeeze scarce dollars out of the private sector while at the same time harassing these hard-working Ontarians. Two examples: your Bill 119 is a new WSIB tax on small business. It impacts small construction companies at an average yearly rate of about $5,500 while at the same time giving them nothing. Your new trades tax on journeymen and apprentices is the same.

It is a 600% increase over previous fees and offers them absolutely nothing. It is apparently—get this—covering the cost of hiring 150 new trades cops. Can you believe that?

So, to the minister: Can you explain to me what the 150 new trades cops that the College of Trades is hiring will be doing that Ministry of Labour inspectors aren’t already doing?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Speaker, I say this as charitably as I can in this place: The member’s description of the College of Trades and the membership fee is grossly, grossly inaccurate. It does an absolute injustice to all tradespeople and, in particular, all 44 other professional sectors with similar regulatory bodies.

It’s shameful that the member opposite does not think that the tradespeople of Ontario deserve the same respect and professional profile that teachers get, that social workers get, that architects get, that accountants get, that nurses get, that doctors get.

Well, on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we believe in our skilled trade workers. We will stand up for them and their right to govern themselves and make the important decisions that have to do with their industries, rather than have politicians like the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I hope we avoid trying to outshout each other.

Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Why didn’t you ask them?

Minister, as I said, the new trades tax will see journeymen’s and apprentices’ fees raised by 600%. But yesterday in the House, in your statement on the College of Trades, you said, and I quote, “Not one cent of the registration fees collected by the College of Trades will go to the government.”

Minister, we have correspondence directly from your College of Trades confirming that, “HST will be charged on top of the membership fee.” So that is $15.60 on top of the $120 trade tax. That’s $11 million more on top of the $84 million that the college will collect on the new trades tax. So, in effect, a journeyperson who is currently paying $20 per year for their C of Q will now see their fee increased to $135.60, or 676%.

Minister, did you know about the HST or is the staff at the College of Trades incompetent?

Interjections.

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

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s always about character with these guys, Mr. Speaker. It’s always about character, whether it’s about our character or whether it’s about character of hard-working skilled labourers in this province.

Why do the PCs think—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Simcoe North asked the question and I would hope he would give the courtesy to listen to the answers, because I can’t hear.

Minister.

Hon. Brad Duguid: Why do the PCs think that decisions on compulsory trades, on apprenticeship ratios, on standards should be made by politicians, lobbyists and bureaucrats? I think that’s pretty arrogant that the PC Party thinks that they know more about the skilled trades than our trade workers themselves. The College of Trades will empower this sector to make its own decisions. Why would he be opposed to that? The College of Trades will enhance consumer protection. Why would you be opposed to that? The College of Trades will better protect certified skilled workers from unfair competition from the underground economy. Mr. Speaker, I have no idea why they’d be opposed to that.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Over the last two weeks, New Democrats have been raising the alarm about cuts to front-line care workers, hospital beds and services in Windsor and London. Today, we’re learning of another 35 cuts to staff and services at Bluewater Health in Sarnia. The people who live in Windsor, London and now Sarnia are justifiably concerned, but when questioned about this disturbing trend, the government says everything’s hunky-dory.

Can the Premier please explain to Ontarians why her health minister thinks cuts to front-line services care is “okay”?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said earlier in this House, our health care sector is in a time of transformation. We are changing how we deliver care. We’re changing for two reasons. One is that we have a demographic shift well under way. As our population ages, we need to deliver care differently.

The other reality is our fiscal reality. We simply don’t have the luxury of the 6% or 7% annual increases to our health care budget that we used to have. As we transform our health care system and as we do things differently, we will be increasing supports in the community sector and there will be some reductions in our hospitals.

But we will always look at what’s important to patients. That’s the only thing that matters to me: Are patients getting better care? Are we able to serve more people? Is it higher-quality care—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think if you ask Ontarians, the answer would be no, Speaker. They’re not getting better care. I’ve heard from concerned residents in Windsor and in London, and judging by media reports, I think I’ll be hearing from people in Sarnia very soon. Patients are definitely not okay with cuts to their front-line hospital care, and front-line care workers have a hard time understanding how closing hospital beds is “not a bad thing,” as the minister claims.

New Democrats have suggested a more balanced way to fund better home care by capping hospital CEO salaries and finding savings in administrative costs of the LHINs and the CCACs. Will the Premier please explain to the people of Windsor, London, and now Sarnia, why her government prefers to cut hospital beds and front-line workers instead?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I think it is enormously important that we do measure how our health care system is doing, and we have entrenched metrics within our health care system that measure the quality of care and that measure access to care.

What matters to me is that people are getting access to care in a timely way. That’s why we’ve invested in our wait time strategies and brought down our surgical and diagnostic wait times dramatically.

Speaker, it matters to me that people get access to primary care. That’s why we now are committed to making sure all our seniors, for a start, have access to primary care. We measure quality in a way we never did before. These are metrics that matter to patients.

The NDP might choose to ignore our fiscal reality. The Conservative Party wants us to slash and burn. We have found the right spot. We’re improving quality, and we’re getting better value for our health care dollars.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will continue to use expressions that some Speakers have used in the past, and I think they’re appropriate. If there’s another conversation going on in between the question and the answer, take it outside.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: That means you, Bradley.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That means the member from Nepean–Carleton will not speak when I’m finished.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I’m sorry.

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

FIRE SAFETY

Ms. Soo Wong: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. One of my constituents in Scarborough–Agincourt recently contacted me about fire safety in long-term facilities and retirement homes. She recalled from the 2012 fall session that the minister spoke about expediting the technical consultation which will identify fire safety improvements in residences for seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable Ontarians.

I know that the technical consultation is a vital step and builds on preliminary consultations which identify some of the key areas of improvement, including enhancing inspections, training for owners and operators and staff, installation of automatic sprinklers and other fire safety retrofits.

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please tell the House the status of the technical consultations?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to thank the member from Scarborough–Agincourt for asking this very important question. Given the importance of this issue, I’ve asked the technical advisory committee to accelerate the technical consultation by four months, and they did, Mr. Speaker. In fact, the technical advisory committee completed initiatives ahead of time. I’m pleased with the progress and want to thank everyone involved, including officials in the ministry and the Office of the Fire Marshal.

Over 45 days, Ontario has been seeking public input on proposed changes to the fire code and building code that will improve fire safety in residences for seniors, people with disabilities and other vulnerable individuals. Today is the last day for the consultations, and I want to make sure that everybody knows about it and everybody has their input.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Soo Wong: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My constituents will be pleased to hear about these new developments. But, Minister, were these public consultations necessary when we already had gone through two sets of consultations?

Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please tell the House the reasons why we are going through this process?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes, it’s a good question, because public consultation is required when making regulatory changes. Our proposed changes include: a phase-in of mandatory sprinklers for all existing care residents and retirement homes with more than four occupants over the next five years; annual validation of fire safety plans by local fire services; enhanced fire inspection and staff training; and fire safety enhancement for all new retirement homes.

Input from the public and impacted stakeholders enables us to strike the right balance. We’ve taken strong action, and Ontario is on the way to being the only province to make retrofit sprinklers mandatory. The safety of our most vulnerable citizens is a priority.

Mr. Speaker, all of us have someone like my mother who is looking to go to a residence; I’ll make sure that there are sprinklers in the residence that she will go to.

POWER PLANTS

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the Premier. We began asking questions about the gas plants last April. We requested documents by way of motion in the estimates committee in May. The committee agreed to report to the House about the documents in July, which it did in August. It took a motion of contempt to see any documents come forward. Then McGuinty prorogued the Legislature for 127 days so this government could avoid answering questions and accountability. Then this House resumed to move contempt again in February, so that the justice committee could order an investigation on the gas plant scandal. Now, we finally have