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

November 24, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-24 (PDF)

L073 - Wed 24 Nov 2010 / Mer 24 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 24 November 2010 Mercredi 24 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

NUCLEAR ENERGY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

ENERGY POLICIES

CHILD POVERTY

ENERGY POLICIES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ROAD SAFETY

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS

JUSTICE SYSTEM

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EMPLOYMENT AND EDUCATION CENTRE

COAL-FIRED GENERATING STATIONS

WALTER BAKER

ORNGE

FOOTBALL CHAMPIONSHIPS

LOIS HARTE-MAXWELL

ENERGY POLICIES

CANADIAN CANCER SOCIETY

NUCLEAR ENERGY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON ESTIMATES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CLANDESTINE DRUG OPERATION

PREVENTION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA PRÉVENTION DES OPÉRATIONS

DE STUPÉFIANTS CLANDESTINES

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

JOHN YAREMKO

PETITIONS

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

HYDRO RATES

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

CEMETERIES

OAK RIDGES MORAINE

HYDRO RATES

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

DENTAL CARE

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

HYDRO RATES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

HYDRO RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

HELPING ONTARIO FAMILIES AND

MANAGING RESPONSIBLY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AIDE

AUX FAMILLES ONTARIENNES

ET LA GESTION RESPONSABLE

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by the Buddhist prayer.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 17, 2010, on the amendment to the motion relating to negotiations with the federal government on a comprehensive new agreement to provide funding, planning, and governance for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s a pleasure to be here this morning.

I seek unanimous consent to wear the daffodil, which is with respect to the Canadian Cancer Society, to work today.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. John O’Toole: I was going to say it’s lonely at the top here on this side, and leave it at that. There’s a lot of work to be done.

I’ve been waiting anxiously to speak to this particular motion by Minister Hoskins on the government side. I’ve been disappointed two or three times because it keeps getting pulled off the order paper and replaced by some less important issue, like tax cuts for electricity and things like that.

When our caucus reviewed this motion—under the five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, COIA, $207 million in funding was not applied for and therefore not allocated as part of the negotiations in a new motion. Our leader, Tim Hudak, amended the motion to force the provincial government to provide a “fully-costed plan including accountability and performance measures” for the $207 million.

That can easily be explained. When I look over the last while, they throw million-dollar bills around like we would throw feathers. They spend a million dollars a day on consultants. So I think it’s only appropriate at this time in Ontario’s history, when we’re falling off the cliff in debt—they’ve doubled the debt. Yesterday, the government forced a bill through here that would spend another billion dollars a year on a program that was to fix something they had broken, which was the electricity problem. We simply feel that it’s fine and noteworthy that the McGuinty government keeps promising, promising, promising, but all of that eventually has to be paid for.

All of us here want a good environment, a good health care system and safe, clean, affordable electricity; all of us want that. How we go about doing it is the issue. This is one more example that simply—respectfully, Mr. Speaker, we don’t think that this government is on the right track.

It reminds me, quite honestly, of the past several years that we’ve been here. Every once in a while, there’s a little flare-up on the eHealth scandal, the consultants scandal. On the scandal that I’m drawn to, which deals with this immigration issue, the Auditor General, Jim McCarter, slammed spending controls on the grants as among the worst that we’ve ever seen. In fact, it ended up with Mike Colle’s resignation as the minister after giving out a million dollars to the cricket club, and some others unaccounted for.

This is very clear: When you’re going to allocate money that’s all taxpayers’ money—I don’t care what level it’s from—let’s start to build in the controls of accountability. This isn’t intimidating or critical, really. What it’s saying is, “Let’s slow it down here.” Don’t make so many promises that you can’t fund and that you probably have no intention of keeping. I become very saddened when I look around, because most members on all sides here want to do the right thing, and that’s the time in Ontario that we can all make the turn together. We’re all for it.

In fact, I’ve got the privilege of moving an amendment by our leader, Tim Hudak, and the motion should be amended. Now, I should clearly put the motion on the record. Here’s the motion. It says, “That the Legislative”—this is the current one, what we’re debating this morning, in case some of those at home aren’t paying attention, because this goes on and off—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I would remind the member that we’re debating an amendment now.

Mr. John O’Toole: Yes. That’s good. The amendment is that—I want to get the motion on there so I know what we’re—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): It is an amendment that we’re debating right now. You’re proposing another amendment?

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, no. This one is already on the record. Thank you for that clarification. I think that’s a worthy interjection. Well, the Speaker has the right to stand at any time, so I respect that, and I respect the current Speaker as well.

The motion, originally, was: “That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario acknowledge that about two-thirds of Ontarians do not have a workplace pension”—no, that’s not the one, either. Okay, I’ve got the wrong one.

I’m going to stick to it here.

It says: “That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognizes that Ontario receives, welcomes and benefits from the contributions of nearly half of all new immigrants coming to Canada and calls on the federal government to support the integration of newcomers and the economic recovery in Ontario by investing in services for newcomers and therefore asks the federal government to fulfill their commitment under the recently expired five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement to spend the outstanding $207 million promised to Ontario’s newcomers and immediately commence negotiations on a comprehensive new agreement that provides the adequate funding, planning, and governance necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.”

Mr. Hudak’s amendment here is, “That the motion be amended by removing the words ‘and the federal government to support the integration of newcomers and the economic recovery in Ontario by investing in services for newcomers and therefore asks the federal government to fulfill their commitment under the recently expired five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement to spend the outstanding’ and ‘promised to Ontario’s newcomers and immediately’

“And substituting the words:

“‘[A]nd calls on the provincial government to’”—this is what’s really important; it’s subtle but important.

We’ve talked about this in our caucus, and we certainly have full, full agreement. I would hope that the government side will see the simplicity of this. The simplicity and sincerity of it all is like this: “[A]nd calls on the provincial government to support the integration of newcomers and the economic recovery in Ontario by promoting the investment in services for newcomers through a fully costed”—there it is—“plan including accountability and performance measures, which will allow the federal government to spend the”—and that’s the end of that. That’s implied.

What it really does—we agree. This thing should be a no-brainer. Adopt our amendment. All it does is provide the accountability mechanisms and the costing. What could anyone possibly find unacceptable about that?

This becomes the real test. If this doesn’t, then is that to say that there shouldn’t be accountability for all of the money, $200 million? I’m looking at the young pages here. We’re tossing million-dollar bills around here like they’re feathers.

Hey, I think some of these programs are absolutely critical—do you understand?—to allow people who come to this province and this great country to assimilate, accommodate or be accommodated. I really think it’s important. There’s second-language training for them to become part of this great province. I mean this great province under the many Premiers that we’ve had for the last 100-plus years. It isn’t political.

This is about building a country with open, accessible, accountable rules that we all respect. I can almost ask now for unanimous consent, and I think I’d get it.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Go for it.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’m feeling such a good spirit this morning—I’m feeling it. I’m starting to feel the spirit is alive here—honestly. That’s a good way to start the day.

I spent this morning at breakfast with the cancer society, and I actually met one of my own constituents, Kendra Chopcian—I’ve met her a couple of times; she’s very, very committed—and her biggest issue is trying to accommodate persons and families suffering with cancer. She said to me that the most important of their top five priorities, besides indoor tanning and smoking cessation and all that, is access to drugs.

Quite honestly, Minister Deb Matthews was very respectful; she thanked the volunteers for being here for MPP education day. But I was so impressed: Our health critic is not as new and experienced on the job, but you could just sense her compassion in her remarks. The member for Whitby–Oshawa—Christine Elliott, if we’re allowed to say that—was very good. It does tie to this, because it’s accommodation of people and settlement grants and other things.

Our key concerns here are: Yes, we agree; yes, the agreement should be for the $207 million; it should be a fully drawn up program with accountability mechanisms. That’s what our leader is saying here. The money is there. It has been allocated, in the budget sense. It needs to be spent appropriately.

We do not need another cricket club or another boondoggle. We don’t need the Auditor General to come in here and say, “You’ve squandered another $1 million.” That’s not what we want. We need settlement programs that both respond to the needs of newcomers and reflect the needs of Ontario. That’s important. Just rethink that again. This says, “. . . respond to the needs of newcomers and reflect the needs of Ontario.” That’s pretty straightforward. I can’t find any implied edginess to that.

The second point: In 2007, citizenship and immigration minister Mike Colle was forced to resign during the slushgate scandal. We don’t want any more of that; that’s for sure. I don’t say that—that’s been dealt with; the minister had to be removed from cabinet, and it’s too bad. He’s a nice fellow, but there you have it.

Number three: Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak proposed an amendment to the motion that would help create programs for newcomers and provide accountability measures so that scandals like slushgate don’t happen again. All of us would agree with that—all of us. I think we’ve learned our lesson. I know it’s unacceptable on our side; I retain the right to be suspicious about the other side.

Newcomers to Ontario believe in a level playing field. They believe they will get a fair shake based on their skills, not their connections to a particular government. That should be completely expunged from any access to government programming at any level for any reason. That being connected has its privileges is simply wrong. We need a level playing field. We need everyone to come here with the right opportunities: the right programs in the right place at the right time for people who are trying to become strong contributors.

Our recommendation speaks only to the amendment and not the motion, and accepts the motion as amended. That’s the whole deal. We’re just asking you to do something in common practice here today: Accept our amendment, and then we accept the motion.

We put it in such a way that it really does not alter the $207 million or the direction of the program spending. What is does is build in accountability, and that program deliverers and program recipients comply. I think that all of us would agree with that. Again, I’m feeling very optimistic.

I think about my own riding of Durham. I have quite a nice mix of people who have chosen to live in Bowmanville or wherever. I think of the Greek families in my riding. I go to their restaurants: Massey House in Newcastle as well as Zante in Bowmanville—very excellently prepared food, family-oriented. When they came here, they had a pizza place called the Three Brothers—there were three brothers. They came to our community and made our community a better place. I’m also very familiar with Derek, another new Canadian who settled in the culinary arts field. His restaurant is Chanterelle.

This fellow is a marvellous cook. I think he was trained in Toronto, but he and his family work hard and have a wonderful restaurant, which is now under construction.

In fact, that’s why I bring—Mr. Speaker, you probably do as well. Next to my riding office, which is on King Street in Bowmanville—my riding is quite large; it’s about an hour to get to the other side, and yours is probably the same. Next to me there is a St. Vincent de Paul, and we are often accommodated with them. St. Vincent de Paul is—people of faith work there; it’s mostly staffed by volunteers. They accommodate new Canadians, new Ontarians and new citizens in my riding of Durham with clothing and furniture and stuff like that. I commend those people who work through the churches.

In fact, just this past summer we moved and a lot of our stuff went to those places so that it could be picked up. That’s the kind of accountability that this bill and this program does.

Now, here’s the deal. It would be nice to be able to assign some of that $207 million as part of the accommodations of new Canadians, along with those volunteer groups that might provide language training or help them do the job search thing and skills training and help them through what I’d say is the labyrinth or the maze of all these red tape things that become barriers for people to get on with their lives with their children and perhaps other members of their family.

It’s very easy for us to think about it in our ridings in terms of real, practical things that would help them and make it easier for them to become productive residents, and hopefully citizens, of this great province and this great country. But that’s just a couple. There are more that I could take my time for.

If I move down the little shopping strip on the main street, King Street, where I am, right next to it is a 7-Eleven or a convenience store. This is another success story. There’s a young family there; I think they came from Vietnam. I speak to Paul all the time; this fellow works like no one I’ve ever met. I always tease him. I say, “You and I are the only two guys who work 365 days a year.” That’s what I tell him. The only time he gets a day off is Christmas.

Now, here’s the irony. My wife just retired from teaching. Their son, who was born—I saw him in the convenience store with the mother and the father, running the store. I’ve been doing this for 16 years; you’ve been here longer, so you see these stories. This young boy is now in grade 12. This young boy, who basically grew up in the convenience store, is the top student in school. This is a story about accommodation, but they didn’t really ask for much. I believe they give more than they take.

Quite frankly, I’m convinced, when I think of Paul in the convenience store next to my riding office—I’ve learned a few Vietnamese words, but I can’t use them here because people would criticize my pronunciation. He is bilingual now, his child is bilingual, and the two of them still work. They do not have any help except their own family. It’s either Paul or his wife in the store. They have their grandmother the odd time; she comes over and helps a bit.

I’ve heard—I can’t confirm this—that they actually own the building now, after 16, maybe 20, years; these people are so focused on sustainability and their own sense of responsibility. This ties in to this small amount of money spread among the right people at the right price in the right programs to accommodate them to come and live in Ontario, and in fact in Durham region. It’s remarkable.

All this amendment from our leader Tim Hudak does—it’s quite a practical, non-intrusive, non-combative kind of suggestion—is build in a mechanism of accountability. That’s all it does. We agree 100% with the request, with the condition that the $207 million is handled appropriately.

Let the viewers and listeners here today think for themselves. This is not meant to be in any way edgy, belligerent, any of those things. This is about having the right rules for this amount of money in this time in our society, when Ontario is falling off the cliff in debt, so that these people actually get the $207 million—not some consultant, with all due respect; not some red-tape bureaucrat.

I see the minister on the other side there, Mr. Murray, the Minister of Research and Innovation, with his $30-million program, a huge program, to accommodate Ph.D. students. Even there, I agree, quite frankly, that we need to attract the brightest and the best, but we also have to accommodate those people who choose Canada for a lot of other reasons. We don’t need just elites all the time. What we need is to help the people who are here today. I’d put that down as priority number one, and I believe our leader, Tim Hudak, is saying the same thing.

This is $207 million. This is to accommodate people, through all the legitimate means, who are coming here. We need to find ways to accommodate them. All we’re asking for is to build in the one little condition. Some will criticize it. The amendment is entirely based on control—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I believe it’s questions and comments, Mr. Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): No, this is a resolution, so there are no questions or comments.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Fair enough. I’ll get right to the meat of the matter.

It’s always a pleasure to follow the member for Durham, no matter what he’s speaking about, because he’s entertaining, doesn’t read his notes and makes some extremely valuable points.

Let’s be frank: This is a government, the McGuinty government, that is failing in the eyes of the electorate. Seventy-six per cent of Ontarians say they want somebody else to govern this province.

One of the files they’re failing on is the newcomer/ recent immigrant file. I’m privileged and honoured to be the representative of Parkdale–High Park, where many of the recent immigrants and newcomers come when they immigrate to Toronto or Ontario. It’s one of the first places they come. In fact, Jameson Avenue, where all the high-rises are, is called the landing strip with some endearment, because a huge share of the refugees of the world comes to the south end of Parkdale when they first land in Canada.

I can tell you that I’ve been out speaking to them in various functions, and I hear a recurrent theme. It’s a recurrent theme whether they be Tibetan—we have about 5,000 Tibetans in south Parkdale—whether they be Roma, and we have about 3,000 Roma; whether they be Tamil; whether they be Hispanic, from a number of Hispanic nations etc. The recurrent theme is this: “We came expecting that our international designations, our work experience in our home countries and our schooling experience in our home countries would count for something.”

They’re not unrealistic. They also realize, as generations of immigrants before them realized, that we are all immigrants in this place. Only First Nations people do not come from immigrant stock. We all know from our grandparents, our great-grandparents, our parents—whoever was the first-wave generation that brought our family to this country—that the first generation expects to do less than their expectations for at least a given period of time.

But we’ve moved way beyond that now. We’ve moved way beyond that. When I hear from an Iranian surgeon in his 40s that it’s going to take him at least 10 years to get accredited even as a GP in this province, and he has to travel back to Iran for six months of the year, and work as a baker here for now $10.25 an hour to be able to sustain his family when a million Ontarians don’t have a family doctor, you know there’s a problem.

When we see Tibetans who have postgraduate degrees come here whose only chance of making a living that will get them out of an apartment and into a home is to open their own business—and that’s a precarious venture in a recession—because they can’t get jobs in their professions without putting in eight to 10 years, which is the average that I hear, in my riding, to be accredited in anything like their chosen profession, we have a problem. When, for the first time in Canada and in Ontario, we’re looking at a situation where our children are going to be worse off than their parents, this is a shock.

This is a shock because immigrants come here expecting that their children and grandchildren will be better off than they were when they came, and now we are looking at a generation that will be worse off.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Well, not the whole generation.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: And we don’t have to look very far. I know that I’m getting some—

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Minister of Consumer Services is heckling me on this. But let me point out to the Minister of Consumer Services, who doesn’t want to wait for his turn to have his say in this place but would prefer to shout down, yet again, a woman—

Hon. John Gerretsen: Oh, come on. It’s not—

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Let’s say to the Minister of Consumer—

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Okay, everybody’s going to sit down and relax now. We’re going to have a nice debate.

Hon. John Gerretsen: Don’t you shout down a man.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Minister.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): I’m not going to go there.

Further debate.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: As I was going to say, in my parents’ generation, and I’m a boomer kid, it was not uncommon for the second generation—that is, children of immigrants—to own their own home, to have a car in the driveway and to do it on one salary. Those who were very lucky would have cottages or camps as well. In my generation that’s less common and for my children’s generation, good luck, if you live in the city of Toronto, if even two people working full-time can afford a house and a car in the driveway. They can only do it in debt up to their ears.

God bless their children, who will be saddled with the highest university debt in Canada. We’re 10th out of 10 in per capita funding for university for our students. So you’re saddled with huge debt just to get a BA, and what does a BA grant you now? Virtually nothing, unless you go on to a professional degree. That is the economic reality into which immigrants come in this province.

Yes, we will support the amendment. Yes, we’ll support the meat of the matter. But very clearly, what the PC Party is speaking about here, and what the member from Durham himself spoke to, is that this government, when failing on a file, invariably points an accusatory finger at the federal government. Because what do you do if you’re failing yet again, when you’re in free fall in the polls? You try to point the blame somewhere else, and really, that’s what this original motion does.

The PC correlative to that motion, the amendment to that motion, simply brings accountability back to where it belongs, certainly in parts, and that is with the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration and the minister himself, and asking, what is the provincial government going to do about this? What is the McGuinty government going to do about this problem?

This government could take steps that are absolutely necessary to make unionization more possible. Right now, this government has made it impossible, made it outside of the law, for at-home caregivers to organize. We remind those who are watching that the number of at-home caregivers has tripled in the last number of years, many of them women, many of them from the Philippines. They’re not allowed to organize; they’re not allowed to unionize.

What about the scandals that have plagued our migrant farm workers? We heard a question in the House just yesterday from our leader, Andrea Horwath, about that. A scandal—just now, on the CBC this morning, I heard about Trinidadian workers who weren’t even paid by their farmers, who are going to be flown back to their home countries, to poverty yet again, and they’re not even going to be paid at all for the work they’ve done. Farm workers are not allowed to unionize. Clearly, if there was ever a group that needs the protection of organized labour, it’s them.

We witnessed the deaths of Jamaican farm workers—again, a serious problem, a serious lack. The Minister of Labour deflects this. We need action on that file.

We need in this province card-check certification and anti-scab legislation. That would help those who feel they don’t have a voice to have a voice.

I want to quote just a few stats from the Colour of Poverty report, which speaks directly to the immigrant problem. Between 1981 and 2001, the number of immigrants who are poor in Toronto—largely people of colour—grew by 125%. Every agency that works with immigrants—and I want to give a shout-out to CultureLink and Parkdale Intercultural Association, which was here yesterday—and many in my riding who work with immigrants all the time find they can’t keep up with the demand and they don’t have enough funding. They spend a lot of their time applying for funds when they should have stability of funding for what they do.

Certainly, we’re looking at about 200,000 to 300,000 immigrants in Canada, and many in Ontario, who aren’t legal; who are working on illegal construction sites; who are working under the table; who are, again, a problem that this Ontario government could do something about.

We still live in a province that will not extend OHIP coverage to the children and the refugees who come from other countries, who aren’t yet citizens or landed immigrants, for their first three months. This is dangerous, in fact. It’s a dangerous situation, where people might come without medical care and live in our communities, and, luckily, because of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in our schools, can send their children to school, but those selfsame children can’t see a doctor. This provincial government could do something about that.

Certainly, where small business is concerned, we know, as you heard the member from Durham speak about, that many of our recent immigrants go into small business. It’s an option for them. It’s a precarious option but it’s an option. Small business: When we had a small business delegation here from the Toronto Association of Business Improvement Areas that came representing some 30,000 businesses, this government would not meet with them to discuss their concerns over the application of the HST. Many of those store owners on our main streets are recent immigrants.

They work, as you heard, with their families, and they work hour after hour after hour. They just wanted a hearing; they didn’t get it. In fact, there is no ministry for small business anymore under the McGuinty government.

These are all areas where the McGuinty government, the provincial government, could act to help recent immigrants. Instead, what they always do, it seems, when they fail on a file—and they’re failing on this one; just ask anybody in my riding who has come from another country and is trying to get work—is they point their fingers at the federal government. We in the New Democratic Party say that there’s enough blame to go around. There’s no doubt that the federal government should do more, could do more, particularly in whatever they’re telling immigrants before they begin the immigration process.

Certainly they could do more, but we are not in Ottawa; we’re sitting and speaking and debating at Queen’s Park, the heart of the Ontario provincial government, and the Ontario provincial government has a responsibility to hold up its end of the bargain to make life easier for new immigrants and to listen to their demands. In every report that has come out, there are demands to do better.

First of all, on the good side, they find incredible social service agencies that are working above and beyond the call. They’re finding some phenomenal public schools, some phenomenal high schools, that are trying everything they can, working after hours, to meet the new need. But the schools and the agencies don’t have what they need. They don’t have enough ESL teachers. There’s a huge waiting list. They don’t have enough social workers to work on issues that plague new immigrants, particularly high-needs new immigrants.

At the Roma festival that we were pleased to hold in Parkdale, we heard all about the failings of the provincial government, not the federal government, in meeting its educational, its health care and other requirements, which only this government can address, that directly speak to immigrant workers.

In the few minutes I have left, I just want to recap what we’re calling for in the New Democratic Party. First of all, we’re calling for this government to step up on the labour file where recent immigrants are concerned. We’ve seen Jamaican and Trinidadian farm workers be absolutely abused in their jobs. Some of them died. We are asking the Minister of Labour to extend the ability to organize, to unionize, to them. It’s a simple Canadian right. To facilitate this, we need card-check certification. To facilitate this, we need anti-scab legislation.

We’re also asking that this government, through its power, speaks to the regulatory bodies so that new medical staff, new engineers, new accountants don’t have to wait for 10 years to be able to get accredited in this province but can very quickly get their feet on the ground. We need them. We’re desperate for them. Why aren’t they working in their given fields? We ask for that as well.

And, of course, we ask for some recompense for the small business owner. Many new immigrants are small business owners, who provide, by the way, 90% of the new jobs in this province. We’re asking for the government to at least listen to their demands around HST burdens and around other tax and regulatory burdens they face. This government isn’t listening to them.

We ask that this government read the Fairness Commissioner’s report done in 2010 and the Colour of Poverty report and address those issues, and they are myriad—from housing to social assistance to health care.

We ask this government, the Ministry of Health, to step up and provide health care for recent refugees, and we ask the Minister of Education to step up and provide the ESL and social work guidance that new immigrants and their children so desperately need.

That is provincial, all of it; that is provincial. That is something this government doesn’t have to wait on the Harper government for, doesn’t have to go pleading to another level of government for. That, they should be doing now.

In conclusion, does the New Democratic Party support the amendment put forth by the official opposition? Absolutely, yes. Absolutely we think that the share of the responsibility of delivering to new immigrants should be provincial as well as federal, and that it should be accountable. Do we also support the amended motion, the original one, by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, Mr. Hoskins? Yes. Amended, yes, we do. Will we vote for the amendment and the original? Yes, we will. But come on. Will that make the life of even one immigrant in this province one iota better, if passed?

The answer is a resounding and deafening absolutely not. Will it help? Absolutely not. Does this government have so much more it could do? Absolutely so. As the granddaughter of immigrants, as the daughters and sons of immigrants, which we all are, who came at a better time to better circumstances and to better assistance, I say we can do much better.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak on a very important motion. I think all members in this House will agree on how important immigration is, how important immigration has been to Canada, to the building and the development of our country, and how important immigration has been particularly for Ontario in its progress.

There is very little debate, at least in my eyes—I think there are those out there who will disagree with me, and fairly; we live in a free country and we can take our positions. But in my eyes, there is very little debate as to how important immigrants are going to be for the future prosperity of our country, and our province in particular, how important they are going to be—and I’m speaking purely from a labour force perspective—in terms of the kind of economy we want to develop, moving forward in the 21st century.

The numbers are very interesting. Let’s look at some numbers in terms of what immigration means to Canada and what immigration means to Ontario. Ontario, as we know, generates about 39% of the national GDP, produces 43% of total merchandise exports and is home for almost 50% of all employees in high-tech, financial services and other knowledge-intensive industries.

Successful immigration integration is linked to Ontario’s economic and social outcomes. Here are some more numbers. Immigrants account for approximately 30% of Ontario’s current labour force. In Toronto alone, nearly one in two—48% to be precise—of the labour force participants are immigrants. The aging population—and that, I think, is the key here—here in the province and across the country and the slowing pace of growth in the working age population could lead to slower economic growth.

That’s a very important point I always like to make. As many members know, I myself am an immigrant. I came to this great country 21 years ago—

Applause.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Thank you—and I am indebted not only to this country for every opportunity it has given me to grow, flourish and give back in my current position; I am also thankful to my parents, who made that very critical and important decision of emigrating to Canada when they were professionals growing in their professions and in their social circles and whatnot in the country they lived in before emigrating. But they decided to move to a freer, more just and equal country so that their children, my siblings and I, could have an equal opportunity to grow as well.

One big reason we attract immigrants to this great country of ours is because we are such a great country, because we do have the rule of law; we do provide freedom, equality and justice, which in many, many parts of the world, especially where our new immigrants come from today, is something that exists in concept only but not in reality or in practical terms. But we are lucky to have those freedoms available to us. We are lucky to have a Constitution, rule of law and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which are extremely integral to us.

Saying that, another very important reason that we have such an open immigration policy in this country, another important reason that we welcome immigrants to Canada, to Ontario, is because we need them. It is important for our economic longevity. It is important for our economic prosperity. It is something which is a necessity for us, because we do have an aging population; we do have a situation where—and I think we’ve debated this in this House—we are not producing enough babies to sustain our population. So we have a significant demographic challenge that we need to address.

If we take immigration out, our demographic line is this way: It’s going down. By bringing people in, what we’re doing is barely keeping the line straight. That is a big reason why we need immigrants coming to Canada and to Ontario: to ensure that we can continue to grow an extremely viable economy in Canada and particularly in Ontario. Something we need essentially is to maintain the quality of life we enjoy so much.

Let me just share some more numbers quickly, before getting to the other substance of my comments in relation to this motion. Ontario is the destination of choice for immigrants to Canada. We in Canada bring in roughly 200,000 or 250,000 immigrants per year—I think it’s closer to 200,000. In 2009, 106,867 immigrants coming to Canada landed in Ontario. This represents 42% of all immigrants; the total was about 250,000. So 106,000 of the 250,000 came to Ontario, chose Ontario as their home.

If you look at the number since 1980—and I will be part of that number—three million immigrants have arrived in Ontario since 1980. That’s very significant, which means that it is extremely important and incumbent on us to work hard to provide the necessary service when it comes to language services, when it comes to other settlement and integration services, to our newcomers so they can adjust quickly and well in our society.

It is only in our best interests—let’s be selfish for a minute; there’s nothing wrong with that—that those who choose Ontario as their home are integrated as soon as possible. The sooner they are integrated into our society and into our economy—they’re going to start working right away. They will start their businesses, as the member earlier was talking about; they will start paying taxes. If they have an income or if they have a business, that’s what they will do, and they will be contributing to our economy and meeting the labour force needs we have in our economy. These are very important elements. We need to make sure that those things are met by supporting and helping.

Let me inject a little bit of my own personal story. As I mentioned earlier, I, along with my family, came to Ontario 21 years ago, back in 1988. I was 15 years old. My parents, as you can imagine, were at their prime earning age. Both were lawyers by profession. In 21 years in Canada, they haven’t practised one day as lawyers in this province and in this country. And they were at their prime earning age.

When they were deciding to move from Pakistan to Canada, their friends thought and told them that they were being silly. I think they had kinder words than that, but they told them, “Why would you leave such a good life behind when you guys are doing so well and flourishing?” and they said, “No; we want to move somewhere where our sons and our daughter are equal. We want to move to a country where they have all opportunities available to them.” So they sacrificed their own careers in order to do so when they really didn’t need to do that. They could have come to this great province and been part of the economy.

Now, they found other ways to be part of the economy. They got into business, which was not their line of work. Were they successful doing so? Not really. But they still stuck, and they made sure that their children got the necessary education to prosper.

Here’s the effect: I like to consider immigration as brain gain. I think we spend too much time thinking about the brain drain of Canadians leaving for the United States and how we are losing the best of our talents, and we don’t think enough about the brain gain, the 252,000 people who came to Ontario in 2009. That’s a brain gain to our country. What we need to do is find ways as to how best to help them, to integrate them socially and economically and to make sure that they are contributing to our economy. It’s a selfish thing to say, but I think it’s absolutely the right thing to do, and that’s what immigrants want to do.

Most of the immigrants who come to Canada are not political refugees; most of them who come to Canada are economic refugees. They come to this country because they are seeking a better life to live. They are coming here because they want to do better than the society they left behind.

Nobody likes to leave home. Anybody who has immigrated in this room will know it is a very difficult process to go through. You’re just turning your life upside down and building brand new. It’s like learning how to walk again. I do remember my very first winters; it’s not easy to walk on snow or ice. It is literally learning how to walk again. But it’s a decision people make because they want to be part of a better society and they want to be part of a better economy, and they want to contribute.

We’ve got this great opportunity to get in there and to start working with these newcomers, with new immigrants, and get them integrated as quickly as possible in our economy. Instead of losing the brain gain, as was the case with my parents and many others, we have this great opportunity to capitalize on the brain gain. That is an opportunity, especially in this century where the competition is extremely tough and we have to be at our best when we are looking at the competition globally. We do not have the luxury of missing out on the talent that is coming to this province.

Therefore, we need to make the necessary investments. We need to work with the federal government to make sure that we’ve got the investment—call it whatever agreement; the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement—so that those services around language training, around settlement services and around bridge training and economic integration are available, no ifs and buts about it.

Look at it: One of our biggest challenges that we’re constantly dealing with is the shortage of family doctors. We have this great opportunity—and again, all members in this House have spoken about this in the past, about how we can get foreign medical graduates who are choosing Ontario as their home and make it as easy and quick as possible for them to practise medicine here so that they can serve patients, who happen to be our family members, neighbours and friends. A lot is being done in that regard, but more can be done.

Of course we want to make sure that standards are maintained. Of course we want to ensure that patient safety is paramount. Therefore, nobody is saying that any doctor who comes from another part of the world should just be given a licence to practise medicine and that’s it; of course not. We need to make sure that they’ve gone through some basic training to align their skills to standards that are offered right here in the province of Ontario, but for that we need bridge training.

We need programs which we can sort of—I like to think of it sort of as a pipeline, where we can get them from one side of the pipeline, get them trained; an assembly line is probably a better analogy—and get them out as quickly as possible on the other side so they can start performing their task. Again, dual benefit here: Not only are they serving the community—they’re helping in a significant challenge we have, which is ensuring that all families, all Ontarians, have access to a family doctor—but on the other hand, they’re improving their lives. They do well; we do well—right?

They’re better fully integrated right from the get-go.

I see this work taking place in my community, in Ottawa Centre. As you know, I represent a downtown part of Ottawa. My part of the riding attracts a lot of new immigrants who come; therefore, a lot of the immigration settlement agencies are located right in Ottawa Centre, and I have a really good working relationship with them.

When I see the work of the Catholic Immigration Centre, led by Carl Nicholson, in terms of various bridge training programs they do; when I see the work of the Immigrant Women Services organization, led by Lucya Spencer, the work they’re doing in terms of making sure that immigrant women have all the opportunities available to them—very, very important work. I was recently at their gala, talking about the example of my mother, who, as a lawyer, didn’t practise law when she came, but spent her time making sure that her kids were doing well and succeeding through school. When both—

Hon. John Gerretsen: And she succeeded.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Well, she succeeded, no doubt, Minister. She did succeed in that way. But I kind of look at her—she never got to pursue her career, right? And she was trained for that. We can achieve both.

I look at the work of the Ottawa Chinese Community Service Centre, led by Sharon Kan—on Saturday they just celebrated their 35th anniversary—serving 8,000 clients a year, primarily of Chinese origin. It’s incredible work they’re doing, in terms of economic integration. They have a really successful program dealing with information technology professionals, those who may be coming from China, helping them integrate into the IT sector in Ottawa. Ottawa, as you know, is a very significant hub for that.

It’s the same thing when I see the work of OCISO, the Ottawa Community Immigrant Services Organization, led by Hamdi Mohamed, in terms of various programs they run, especially language training programs and mentorship and menteeship programs, helping to integrate immigrants who come to Ottawa into the broader community. Also, LASI World Skills, under the leadership of Mengistab Tsegaye, is doing very similar work when it comes to bridge training.

All these organizations in Ottawa Centre rely on the funding from the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, and they’re all quite anxious. I’ve got to tell you, I speak with them quite regularly. They are quite concerned as to what is the future of that agreement and whether the federal government will be providing the necessary funds to ensure that all the important programs they provide are there.

Of course, we, the provincial government, will continue working with them, because it is our responsibility, but we need all partners at the table. It is not just the responsibility of one government over the other. It is our collective responsibility to ensure that we are providing the necessary services to our newcomers. Like I said earlier, it is in our best interest. It is in our best interest.

I say to CIC, OCISO, LASI World Skills, OCCSC and IWSO that we’re working really hard, and we need their help as well in ensuring that the federal government comes back to the table, renegotiates the agreement and provides the necessary dollars we need to continue their good work, because if you look at the results which have come out through the investments so far, they are very encouraging. They are extremely encouraging. We are helping our newcomers to integrate, because if we don’t do so, if we fail to do so, we are failing ourselves.

Forget that we are abdicating our responsibility—of course we are abdicating our responsibility—but we are going to be failing ourselves. If we fail to help the newcomers, we are not going to be putting ourselves in the competitive position we need to put ourselves in; and it’s not really help—I use the word “help” loosely—it’s to work with them. They’re all coming to this province because they want to work hard and they want to contribute; and we need to make sure that we enable them, that we assist them and make it happen for them to meet those challenges.

I can speak personally. It is not easy, and that is why it’s important—we’ve talked a lot about the international scholarship—that we get the best and the brightest talent from around the world to come and make Ontario their home.

I am extremely disappointed with the position the official opposition has taken in terms of the international scholarship, and it actually hurts personally. We need to make sure that the destination of choice for the Ph.D.s of the world is Ontario, because when they come here and finish their education, that’s where they will be contributing and benefiting society. That’s where their inventions are going to be on the front pages of the world. Who knows how many Nobel award winners will be within that group?

We need to support programs like that. We need to support our newcomers through making sure that we have enough investment through—

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Thank you. Further debate?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I’m really pleased to rise in the House today to speak to motion number 29, which has been presented by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Immigration is a topic that’s very near and dear and very personal to me. Some 57 years ago, not unlike the member for Ottawa Centre’s family, our family immigrated to Canada. The circumstances, however, were very different. We lived in Shanghai, China, where my parents had a business, and after the Chinese revolution there was no place for westerners in Shanghai or in China. So it became an almost impossible task to leave China as late as my parents left it, which was in December 1949, on a freighter in very choppy wintry seas, and we landed in Israel.

My dad was a Jew, and Israel was a place where he still had some relatives. It was a place where we could go and live in a refugee camp. We lived in that camp for three years. I can’t even imagine the hardship my parents endured. They had their children later in life, so they were well into their 40s when we were in the refugee camp in Israel. My mother actually had a baby, a son, who died right after being born, because I guess the conditions were so harsh there and at her age the pregnancy was tough.

So what I’m trying to say is that when immigrants come to Canada, they come with a story, they come with experience. And when they come to Canada and Canada embraces them and gives them opportunity, it is the most amazing light that’s shone down on these individual families, which is what happened in our case.

We had relatives and friends strewn all over the world, and my mother had her choice of picking San Francisco, where my father’s youngest sister was, or Toronto, where my father’s nephew was. Both could sponsor us. My mother picked Toronto. She had heard about Canada, she had heard about the opportunities and she wanted her daughters to have those opportunities. So we came to Canada 57 years ago. The rest is almost history.

My parents came with some challenges, because they came with very little, they were well into their 40s, but we had the advantage of speaking the language and understanding a bit more about the culture than perhaps people coming from places that didn’t have those advantages. So my sister and I integrated into school; my father, finally, was able to get a job. However, he did have to change his name, as a lot of immigrants did, because he couldn’t get a job with a name like Isaac. So we changed our name to Davies, and life went on.

We have learned from that experience that it’s really important as immigrants, as Canadians, first, to give back, to integrate and to have a personal responsibility for how life works in our communities, in our province and around the world. So I’m grateful that my parents provided my sister and me the opportunity by coming and settling in this absolutely amazing country. How fortunate that we actually live in Ontario. They provided a better life for my sister and me, and this gave me the opportunity to raise my own family now here as well, and they are raising their families in this wonderful province.

Times have changed, though, for new Canadians, and they’re faced with far more difficult challenges. This government has talked time and time again about how they will remove the barriers for new Canadians with respect to the credentials being recognized and allowing them access to the skilled labour market. As my colleagues have already pointed out, this motion is asking for more money. It’s asking for more money to be spent in Ontario but it doesn’t say where, it doesn’t say how, or it doesn’t say in which particular programs. It also doesn’t say what the results should be.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, has proposed an amendment, and the motion would read:

“That the Legislative Assembly of Ontario recognizes that Ontario receives, welcomes and benefits from the contributions of nearly half of all new immigrants coming to Canada and calls on the provincial government to support the integration of newcomers and the economic recovery in Ontario by promoting the investment in services for newcomers through a fully costed plan including accountability and performance measures, which will allow the federal government to spend the $207 million that was not applied for under the existing Canada-Ontario immigration agreement and will aid the province in commencing negotiations on a comprehensive new agreement that provides the adequate funding, planning, and governance necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.”

I think that adds that extra little credibility to what we want to do here in Ontario. This proposed amendment would help Ontario to focus on what is needed in order for newcomers to actually succeed here in our province.

Additionally, this proposed amendment would help the federal government to understand the programs it should be looking to provide. We need settlement programs that both respond to the needs of the newcomers and reflect the needs of Ontario communities. We need this to ensure accountability.

I’m pleased to have been able to speak to this motion today. I hope that the amendment passes, as does the motion.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve been listening quite intently to the stories that various members have brought to this debate here in the Legislature. I think what is clear is that we, like everyone else, were immigrants to this country at one time or another; some as recently as a generation or two ago, some others of us more than that.

I think we recognize that there needs to be something in order to deal with how we better integrate and how we better support those who immigrate to Canada into our communities because, if not, not only is it an injustice and a travesty to those individuals, but I think it’s also, from what I’m hearing from the stories told, quite difficult on them and what it means to them as human beings and individuals.

I was quite taken aback by the comments just made by the member from—

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Burlington.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Burlington—I’m sorry; we’re not allowed to use names. I always have to point, Speaker, because I don’t know the ridings—and I didn’t know that of her history.

It is always a little bit humbling in this place to hear other members talk about what their history is because it tells us that people have had to deal with fairly traumatic episodes in their lives or the lives of their families. I think it says a lot about who those people are, about how they overcame and about how they’ve been able to move on and try to do what they can in order to make life better for those who are here and those who will come after. I just wanted to say to the member from Burlington that I thought that was quite interesting.

In northern Ontario, people would think, “Well, you know, immigration: That’s really a big-city issue. That’s something we see in London or Hamilton or Toronto or Ottawa and those places.” But I’ve got to tell you, there are more and more people immigrating into Ontario and more and more of them are coming to northern Ontario.

I am quite surprised at the degree that our offices, both in Timmins and Kapuskasing, deal with immigration cases, not only because I’m co-located with our two federal members, both Charlie Angus and Carol Hughes, but also, I’ve been dealing with immigration issues since way back, when quite frankly I was on my own and it was a Liberal member who was holding that seat federally. As you know, it has now been redistributed federally; there are two seats up in my riding federally, and there’s one lone provincial member carrying the weight by himself, but that’s a whole other story.

But my point is this: There is an increasing amount of people who are moving into northern Ontario who have emigrated from different parts of the world, and it’s not as in the past where it was only particular parts of the world. For example, most of the immigration that we saw in northern Ontario back in the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s were mostly European immigrants—people from Italy, England, Scotland, Wales and from various countries in and around Europe, and the big immigration after the Second World War. But now we’re seeing it from almost everywhere—from India, Pakistan, China, Indonesia.

We have people coming from all over the world because people are choosing Canada. Why? Because it is one of the best places in the world to live.

I notice the Speaker is sort of leaning over and getting ready, because it’s almost that time.

Interjection.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’ve got two minutes? Okay. I was trying to time it in time for you to not cut me off.

My point is, there’s more that needs to be done in order to deal with how we properly support people once they do come back in and they do immigrate into our country. For example, for a lot of the people who I’ve dealt with in Timmins–James Bay, it’s an issue where their professional accreditation has not been recognized in Ontario and Canada. We have people who are physicians, electricians, engineers.

I’ve dealt with various professionals over the past number of years who had studied in their home country and gone to university or college, got their trade certifications, got their professional diplomas, and here they are, trying to get work in Ontario. They’re not able to get work in their own fields because their accreditation is not being recognized.

There’s good reason for that, I understand, because in some cases, the training in Ontario might be superior and our standards may be higher, but we should do something to upgrade those skills quicker and allow them to be able to get that certification they need so that they can go on with their lives. If we’re going to allow an engineer to move from Europe or from India or wherever it might be and say, “It’s good for you to come to Canada and use your engineering skills,” the least we should do is try to find a way to allow them to get their accreditation in a way that is a lot more user friendly when it comes to the ability of doing so.

Being about that time of the clock, I will adjourn at this point and pick up this debate at another date.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8(a), this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I’m pleased to introduce Sarah Mistak, the sister of Tony Mistak, one of our pages. She’s sitting in the west gallery.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Please join me in welcoming two Richmond Hill firefighters in the east members’ gallery: John Shillinglaw and Derek Hofrichter.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I’d ask all members to join me in welcoming a well-known, hard-working, dedicated constituent of mine and a person we truly love, my mother, Rose Ouellette.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It’s a privilege for me to introduce Anita Record, who is in the members’ east gallery today. She is head of the Peterborough branch of the Canadian Cancer Society.

Hon. Gerry Phillips: This is not an introduction, but I believe we have unanimous consent that all members of this Legislature be permitted to wear daffodil pins in recognition of Cancer Prevention Week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would like to recognize the executive board of the OPFFA and representatives of professional firefighters from across the province. Members of the executive include: Fred LeBlanc, president; Barry Quinn, secretary treasurer; and seven of the district vice-presidents. From St. Catharines, we have firefighters Terry Colburn and Ryan Madill; and from the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, Debbie Conrad and John McBeth.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I’d like to introduce Brad Grimwood and John Jetter from the professional firefighters.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to introduce, in the west gallery, our president of the firefighters’ association, Mr. Jim Holmes. Also, I believe you’ll be introducing the top people there in a few minutes.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I’d like to introduce to the House Fida Oleiche, who is the mom of our page Alexandra from Hamilton–Mountain. Welcome.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I am delighted to introduce Andrew Rogerson, Kevin Aitcheson and Brad McCann, who are part of the Stratford Fire Department. We are delighted they’re here for OPFFA Day.

Mr. Charles Sousa: It gives me great pleasure to introduce two individuals from the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance. Welcome to Queen’s Park Alexi White and Meaghan Coker.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I have a number of guests as well: Steve Barkwell, Paul Konarowski, Craig Baird and Peter Dyson from the Oshawa fire department. Welcome, gentlemen.

Mr. Dave Levac: I’m very pleased to introduce to the House today the president of the Brantford OPFFA, Mr. Tom Smith, who’s a great firefighter as well. Tom, thanks for being here today.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to introduce to you today members of the Ontario Professional Fire Fighters Association: Michael Gagnon from the Midland fire service, Glenn Higgins from the Orillia fire service—and I believe Kevin White is here somewhere as well from the Barrie fire service.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I’d like to introduce, from the Kingston firefighters, Ann Bryan and Jeff Olejnik. As well, I’d like to introduce Paul Gilmore, a former reeve of Loyalist township and Brian Pitts, who are here at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome all the Ontario firefighters but also, more importantly, I suppose, Kendra Chopcian, who is from the Canadian Cancer Society. We’re here today educating MPPs about cancer in Ontario.

Mr. Bill Mauro: I’m pleased to introduce to the assembly today, visiting from the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association, President Eric Nordlund and Phil Dzuba.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: It’s a great pleasure to introduce some guests from the Canadian Cancer Society in the east gallery: Jeff Brace, Sterling Johnston, Heather Gray and Carolyn Bourassa.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m pleased to introduce today the president of the Waterloo firefighters’ association, John Deitrich; and also Steve Mayer.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’d like to introduce Colin Hunter, who is here today from the Guelph fire service.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I also want to welcome Eric Nordlund and Philip Dzuba from the Thunder Bay Professional Fire Fighters Association, who I had a chance to meet with this morning. Also, I want to welcome Barry Quinn, who gave me some very good advice this morning.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: Speaker, it gives me, indeed, real pleasure to introduce to you the convenor of the Canada India Foundation, which is engaging Canada and India through trade. His name is Aditya Jha. Let’s welcome him.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It gives me great pleasure to introduce Ellard Beaven from the Timmins firefighters, who’s here visiting with us today. I would ask everybody to welcome Ellard.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I’m just awaiting the valiant members from the Mississauga Fire Fighters Association, who should be arriving any moment now: Mark Train, Chris Varcoe, Dave Rutka, Rob Ward and Ryan Coburn. Welcome to Queen’s Park, wherever you may be.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from York West and page Mahir Malik, we would like to welcome his mother, Farhat Malik; his father, Tahir Malik; and his sister Mahira Malik to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

I would like to welcome today in the Speaker’s gallery Phil King of the London Professional Fire Fighters Association; my good friend Warren Scott from the St. Thomas Professional Firefighters Association; Barry Quinn, the secretary-treasurer of the OPFFA; Ann Bryan from Kingston; Eric Nordlund, 7th district vice-president; Philip Dzuba from Thunder Bay; Fred LeBlanc, the president; and Jeff Olejnik from Kingston. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. You have made an absolute mess of hydro policy in the province of Ontario, and Ontario families are stuck with the bills. Rates are going through the roof and you come up with some new plan every other week. Now your latest, you claim, is going to cost $87 billion a year. You say it’s going to double hydro bills, but even your own Task Force on Competitiveness, Productivity and Economic Progress, your very own task force, says that you have grossly understated what Ontario families are going to pay for your expensive energy experiments. Premier, if your own advisers don’t believe you, why should Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to begin by thanking the thousands of Ontarians who helped lend shape to their plan. It’s a long-term plan. It’s the first of its kind in Ontario. We refuse to hide the details from the people of Ontario. We’re going to be very upfront with them in terms of the shape of the plan, the values that inform that plan and all the costs associated with that.

I would encourage Ontario families to take the opportunity to become more familiar with the plan. They can do so by seeing it online. I can tell you, it’s all about ensuring that over the course of the next 20 years, both our families and businesses have access to a clean, modern, reliable electricity system that will help us enjoy good-quality lives and help our businesses thrive. That’s fundamentally what this 20-year electricity plan is all about.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Oh, no, Premier. Ontario families have already seen what you’re all about. They’ve seen their bills going through the roof: Rates are up under Premier McGuinty by 75% already, and 100% or more if you have one of Dalton McGuinty’s smart meter tax machines. Premier, even industry observers do not believe your plan. They say, quite frankly, that your plan cannot be trusted to reflect the price tag you claim. It has not been accurately costed.

We all know that Premier McGuinty once said that bills will only go up 1%, and then he said, “Oh, I’ll correct the record, Speaker,” and the Premier said, “They’re only going to go up 3%.” Premier, they’ve gone up 75%. It’s bordering on incompetence, and families are stuck with the bill. How much more are rates going up in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: If my honourable colleague wants to argue figures, I would argue that he has to put some up. We’ve done that in our plan. We’ve been very specific, very straightforward and very honest with Ontarians.

We’ve also indicated that over the course of the plan, over 20 years, there is a real cost associated with this. It is, in fact, 3.5% a year that it’ll go up on average. I think it’s important to put that into some perspective. During the course of the past 20 years, our electricity costs went up, on average, 3.6%. So that’s 3.5% per year on average going forward and 3.6% during the course of the past 20 years.

In addition to that, we’re helping families. We’re going to give them a clean energy benefit that will last for the ensuing five years to reduce the cost of their electricity bills by 10%. We also have a seniors’ energy and property tax credit; it’s $1,025. Two thirds of Ontario seniors are in a position to qualify—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here’s your problem: Quite frankly, nobody believes you anymore. You told them bills would go up 1%. You told them bills would go up 3%. Now, they’re some 75% and climbing.

Even your own task force says that your expensive energy experiments, your sweetheart deals with foreign multinationals like Samsung or IKEA, cost way too much. The task force says that you are lowballing what families are going to pay for your expensive energy experiments. They say that you wildly overstate the number of jobs you claim you are going to create.

In short, Premier, you have a massive credibility problem when it comes to energy in the province of Ontario, and your mismanagement borders on absolute incompetence.

How much more are you going to raise energy rates for hard-working families who are saying, “Enough is enough is enough”?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my honourable colleague again, it’s time for him to put up. He’s been offering critiques and commentary from the comfort of the sidelines, but sometimes in life you actually have to put up.

I’m going to say this to Ontarians by way of reassurance: Not only have we put in place a thoughtful, responsible, 20-year plan, but I’ll tell you what we’re not going to do. We’re not going to be experimenting with deregulation and causing electricity price hikes to the tune of 70%. We’re not going to be putting an artificial cap on rates which cost our children $1 billion, as they did. We’re not going to be putting diesel generators into the hearts of our cities.

We’re going to deliver clean air. We’re going to deliver reliable electricity. We’re going to deliver thousands of new jobs. We’re going to become a global powerhouse in an exciting, revolutionary clean energy industry that’s good news for Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The Leader of the Opposition.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order. We have many guests here today who are very interested in hearing the questions and the answers.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew.

New question.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: It is obvious, Premier, that you have no clue whatsoever how to get Ontario out of the incredible mess you’ve created in our energy system.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Education, Minister of Agriculture and a number of other ministers will please come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And community and social services, and energy, and economic development.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, you’ve made an incredible mess of Ontario’s energy system, and senior citizens are paying for it with higher bills. Middle-class families are feeling the sting because of your incompetence. Small businesses are struggling to get by because of your expensive energy experiments. The Premier’s solution is, when he’s dug a hole, to keep digging it deeper and deeper.

It’s time for change in the province. It’s time for change in energy. The Ontario PCs will put consumers, the families and the businesses first in every decision we make.

Premier, why are you on the side of special interests who are getting fat and rich off these massive subsidies paid by Ontario families?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ve got a plan out now. It’s 68 pages in length. It’s very detailed, very comprehensive, very honest and very forthright.

They’ve been the official opposition for seven years. You would think that at some point along the way somebody over there might have said, “You know what? We think we owe Ontarians. As a matter of respect for Ontarians, we need to put forward a solid proposal when it comes to public policy.” All they have put forward to this point in time is a blank piece of paper. I think that’s unacceptable. We’ll let Ontarians be the final judges in that regard.

The other point I want to make is this: Their plan—and they’re not prepared to talk about this openly—is based on coal. It’s a fuel that we’ve been burning as a species for centuries. We didn’t move beyond the Stone Age because we ran out of stones. We’re not going to move beyond coal under them, because apparently there’s going to be still more coal coming. The plan that we’re putting forward is clean, modern, reliable, and it’s exciting.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Nepean will withdraw the comment she just made.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, I don’t think you know what “forthright” means anymore. You may as well take your so-called plan and put it on the fiction shelf at the local library like your last two campaign platforms, where you told people you’d do one thing before the election and you did the complete opposite once you were elected. We’re seeing this pattern over and over again.

You’re saying that bills are going to go up to $228 a month, on average, per family, that they’re going to double; and you know and I know that you’re lowballing these figures. Premier, $228 a month could be a car payment for some families. I know that you’ve lost touch after seven years in office, but do you ever pause to think about the impact this is having on average, hard-working Ontario families, who are saying that enough is enough?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Our plan is all about ensuring that we meet the needs of families, today and during the course of the next 20 years. We believe—and our plan has been informed by that belief and their values and their aspirations—that they’re looking for reliable electricity, they want a modernized system that they can always count on and they also want clean electricity. We don’t believe in burning coal anymore. We think that belongs to the past. I think we’re too intelligent a population to continue to burn coal in Ontario. They see things differently.

My friend says he’s concerned about the cost. Again, we should put these things in perspective. Electricity during the past 20 years, as I mentioned, has gone up 3.6% a year; natural gas during the past 20 years, 4.7% a year; cable TV during the past 20 years, 5% a year; fuel oil during the past 20 years, 5.2% a year; the average resale price of a home during the past 20 years has more than doubled. I think it’s important to put that in some perspective. We’re being honest; we’re being forthright. Let’s see their plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here is the difference between the Ontario PCs and the McGuinty Liberals. We believe energy policy—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): My apologies. Stop the clock.

Interjections.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Planless in Seattle.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can find a flight to Seattle for someone.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, here’s the difference: Ontario PCs believe energy policy is economic policy. It’s about attracting jobs—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I apologize. I just sat down, the honourable member just stood up, and suddenly the ministers start opening up.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Show some respect.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Well, no. The member from Halton should show some respect too when the Speaker is standing and speaking.

This is an issue that is of importance to the opposition, it’s of importance to the government, and that being case, it’s obviously very important to the citizens of Ontario. The citizens of Ontario want to hear this debate, the Speaker wants to hear this debate, the guests want to hear this debate, and let’s show some courtesy and allow good debate to take place in this chamber. Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Speaker.

Premier, here is the difference: Ontario PCs believe energy policy is economic policy. It’s about attracting good, well-paying jobs to the province of Ontario; and it’s about ensuring that Ontario families can pay the bills, can stay in their homes, can start spending again. Premier McGuinty believes energy policy is all about social policy and massive subsidies to multinational corporations and sticking Ontario families with the bill. Premier, when did you get so out of touch that you don’t understand that hydro bills are going through the roof and people want a change in direction—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We have a solid plan. It’s before the people of Ontario. We look forward to further discussing that with them. It’s about clean air, it’s about thousands of new jobs, and it’s about the peace of mind that comes from knowing the electricity is going to be there when you need it.

I would argue respectfully to my honourable colleagues opposite that the price of admission to this debate is that you’ve got to have a plan. You got to move beyond rhetoric. This is a matter of important public policy. You can’t just continue to offer criticism and commentary from the convenience of the sidelines. At some times you’ve got to step up; you’ve got to get into the game. You’ve got to put forward a plan.

We have a 68-page plan. It’s thoughtful, responsible, comprehensive and honest. It’s about building a bright electricity future for Ontarians. It’s about clean air, it’s about thousands of jobs, and it’s about peace of mind that comes from knowing you’re going to have electricity when you need it.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the government announced that they will be “proceeding with two new units at Darlington on a cost-effective basis.” How will the government determine what cost-effective is?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Well, I can say something for the two opposition parties: They’re very consistent. They are both plan-free when it comes to electricity. At some point in time—

Hon. Dwight Duncan: It’s a plan-free zone over there.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s a PFZ: a plan-free zone. There’s not a lot of thought going on over there, just lots of rhetoric.

My honourable colleague, the leader of the NDP, believes that we should eliminate nuclear generation in Ontario. That’s irresponsible. One half of our electricity that is generated today in the province of Ontario comes from nuclear. More than that, there are tens of thousands of jobs that are associated with that industry. We believe that it’s important to continue to maintain our 50% capacity.

More than that, we think there are some exciting global opportunities when it comes to Canadian nuclear technology to create even more jobs for Ontarians. I’ve been to India, I’ve been to China; they’re interested in our technology and we should get with the program.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Yesterday, the energy minister seemed to be pulling numbers out of thin air. But for families that were just told that they’re going to be paying $700 more a year for hydro within the next five years, this isn’t make-believe. Who will be determining whether this government’s nuclear plans are actually cost-effective, and when will they be doing that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We will be working as hard as we can when it comes to ensuring that we get the lowest possible cost for our nuclear investments. We’re doing whatever we can to place as much of the risk as we reasonably can on to those of the private sector.

But I think the point that I really want to make, and I’d encourage my honourable colleague to accept, is that there’s a cost associated to building new electricity generation. There’s simply no escaping that. I think we need to be upfront with Ontarians about that. Because they have no specific plan, I’m guessing that they believe that we can actually supply ourselves with clean electricity during the course of the next 20 years on a cost-free basis. That’s not reasonable. That’s not responsible. It’s hardly thoughtful. I think we owe more to Ontarians than just that.

That’s why we put out a very thoughtful, responsible 68-page plan. It details everything. It’s about doing what Ontarians want us to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier may not want to answer these questions, but they matter to the people who will be stuck with the bill. The Bruce refurb has cost $2.4 billion a unit so far and it’s not complete yet. The government’s new nuclear plan calls for 10 refurbished units. Where is the government’s evidence that those 10 refurbished units will cost less than $25 billion in total, and will it share that evidence with the people of Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let me tell you about one of the ways that we’re doing new business when it comes to the nuclear industry in Ontario. Bruce nuclear centre is refurbishing two of its nuclear units. There are some pretty significant cost overruns but, because of the contracts we’ve entered into, the private sector is responsible for all those overruns. I just think that’s the responsible way to go. That’s what we’re talking about now when it comes to investing in the nuclear industry.

The other thing I’d encourage my honourable colleague to remember is that there are some 50,000 to 55,000 jobs today tied up in the nuclear industry. What does she say to those families as she remains committed to shutting down the nuclear sector in Ontario? Those are a lot of families and a lot of taxes that are paid to support our schools, to support our hospitals and to support our quality of life.

NUCLEAR ENERGY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Ontario families have seen the cost of everything from private sweetheart deals to donations to the Ontario Liberal Party slapped on their hydro bills. They don’t want to write any more blank cheques. Does the government have any evidence whatsoever that all the 10 nuclear refurbishments are going to cost less than $25 billion?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I would encourage my honourable colleague—because we’re waiting here with bated breath on this side of the House for a specific proposal. It doesn’t have to be a concrete plan, just even a hint—something that might entice us or excite us to a modest extent to gain a better understanding as to the workings of the NDP brain when it comes to electricity. We’d like to better understand that.

Again, we’ve put forward a very specific, thoughtful, responsible plan, and it’s designed to ensure that over the course of the next 20 years, Ontario children have clean air to breathe. We think it’s important to shut down coal and move beyond the fuel that we should have stopped burning, frankly, a long time ago.

We also are very excited about the prospects of becoming a global powerhouse in the clean energy technology industry. We’re number one in North America when it comes to cars; we want to be number one when it comes to clean energy technologies.

Finally, we want to give Ontarians the peace of mind that comes from knowing that when you flick on the switch, the lights will come on because we have a reliable supply of electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Here’s some free advice for this government: When a contractor offers an estimate that’s too good to be true, it’s probably too good to be true. Right now, the Premier sounds like the guy promising to fix your leaky roof for half the price. It sounds good until he’s almost done; then, all of a sudden, the estimate goes way up.

Can the Premier break down the $33-billion nuclear estimate? How much of that is going on refurbishment and how much to build new units?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’d love to be able to enter a more specific debate with my honourable colleague, but she doesn’t have any proposals. There’s nothing that we can compare our plan to.

She says that she’s not happy with the $33-billion figure we put to our nuclear investment, but she’s not telling us how much she’d assign to her nuclear investment.

She says that she doesn’t like the fact that we continue to burn coal in Ontario, but on the other hand, she says she doesn’t like the cost associated with clean energy technology.

Again, we’ve put something out here. We’re proud of this plan. It has been informed by the values and the thinking of thousands of Ontarians. What we’re now asking on behalf of all Ontarians is, if we’re going to enter into an informed and intelligent debate, it’s time for the opposition parties to put up. They’ve got to put forward their plan so that we can have a good conversation about this. But until that point in time, we stand very much behind our plan. We’re very confident in our plan, confident it’s doing the right thing for Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This province has a long history of nuclear cost overruns, and Ontario families are still paying for it.

Darlington was supposed to cost less than $3 billion. The final bill was more than $14 billion. The Bruce refurb was supposed to cost less than $3 billion. The bill is now at almost $5 billion and counting.

The government says their nuclear plan will be cost-effective. Who will determine that? And before they proceed, will people get a chance in this province to compare the real cost of this plan with more affordable alternatives?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Ontario.ca/energyplan. That’s where Ontarians can find our plan. I would refer them to plans put forward by the official opposition and the NDP if there were such plans, but there are no such plans. I would have offered to advertise their plans here today for the people of Ontario, but those plans don’t exist. I say again, when it comes to the opposition, there is consistency there: They are a plan-free zone.

I think the price of admission for entering into this debate now, after seven years, is that you’ve got to have a plan. They don’t have a plan. I think they lose their credibility. I think they lose their capacity to comment intelligently, because we’ve got a plan and we’re proud of our plan. It meets the needs of Ontario families. It meets the needs of Ontario businesses. It’s about clean air, thousands of jobs, an exciting new industry and reliable electricity.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just would remind the honourable members from Her Majesty’s loyal opposition that the comments that I directed at the government members do go both ways. We do need to be respectful.

New question?

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Premier, yesterday I raised the sweetheart deal that you signed that pays Ikea, the Swedish furniture giant that had profits last year of 2.5 billion euros, $700,000 a year to produce power for maybe up to 100 homes. For Ontario seniors and busy families, that works out to $5,000 more per year than they pay for hydro at current prices; a $5,000-per-home subsidy for Ikea.

The plan that you released yesterday confirms that you have signed 16,000 contracts as part of your expensive green energy experiment. How many Ontario seniors and families can expect to overpay $5,000 a year or more to turn on the lights because of your expensive plan?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague talks about these sweetheart deals with some apparent revulsion. Let’s talk about these thousands and thousands of sweetheart deals.

John Sauve farms 2,000 acres in the Essex area. He grows corn, soybeans and wheat. He currently has one ground-mounted 10-kilowatt solar generator. That’s one of the sweetheart deals he’s talking about.

Stan Gillier farms 1,500 acres in Chatham-Kent. He grows tomatoes, peas, corn, soybeans and wheat. He has one ground-mounted 10-kilowatt solar generator.

Steve and Alice Uher operate a small farm outside of Blenheim with sheep and horses. They also run a successful Purina feed dealership for the area. They have constructed a 10-kilowatt solar generator on the roof of their barn.

Those are some of the sweetheart deals that he opposes in the province of Ontario, which is strengthening rural Ontario and is helping our farmers supplement their income. What has he got against farmers? What has he got against supplementing their income?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m hoping that if I let you keep going, you will shout it out of yourselves.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It might be more fun just to let the clock run.

Just imagine what our guests are thinking, what these students who are sitting up here, likely grade 5 students studying government right now, are thinking?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Premier talked about three. I talked about one that pays a Swedish retail giant that made over $2.5 billion in profit last year a subsidy of $700,000 a year out of your green energy plan.

The 16,000 contracts you’ve signed so far are 20-year deals. Ontario families will pay power producers up to 80.2 cents per kilowatt hour for power that costs five to six cents.

Ontario seniors and families are already getting up early to shower or staying up late to do laundry as a result of your smart meter/time-of-use experiment. They cannot afford to pay more than 10 times as much to turn on the lights generated by your expensive green energy experiments.

Will you give Ontario families a chance to catch up? Stop signing these deals that give away these massive subsidies to giants like IKEA, which makes $2.5 billion in profit a year.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I can understand why my honourable colleague doesn’t want to speak to rural Ontario and to Ontario farmers specifically, because they stand to benefit a great deal from our Green Energy Act and our electricity plan.

I talked about John Sauve, who’s growing corn, soybeans and wheat; about Stan Gillier, who’s growing tomatoes, peas, corn, soybeans and wheat; and about the Uher family, who have sheep and horses and are running a successful Purina feed dealership. There are thousands of farmers like them around the province who are benefiting under our plan. It provides them with a modest supplement to their farm income. At the same time, it’s providing all of us with clean energy.

I think it’s a win-win. I think it’s something that rural Ontario has been looking for for a long time. I think it’s something that our farmers in particular appreciate. So I’d ask my honourable colleague to stand up and—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

CHILD POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Campaign 2000’s new report card shows that child poverty has increased to over 15% in Ontario, and it’s growing and rising as I speak.

When the McGuinty government designed its 25 in 5 poverty strategy, was it intending to increase child poverty by 25% over five years? If so, you’ve succeeded brilliantly.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: To the minister responsible for poverty.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very pleased to have a chance to speak to this issue. We thank Campaign 2000 for their report and for being one of the groups whose input helped shape our government’s poverty reduction strategy.

Ontario’s strategy is the country’s most ambitious and aggressive poverty reduction strategy. I want to quote, if I can, the report today, where Campaign 2000 acknowledges the reality of the worldwide global economic recession. They say: “Despite tight fiscal times the 2009 and 2010 provincial budgets included a number of measures that have benefited low-income families, including increases to the minimum wage and the Ontario child benefit, stimulus spending on affordable housing, funding to save child care subsidies and implementation of full-day kindergarten for four- and five-year-olds.”

Campaign 2000 gets it. They understand that these initiatives are helping Ontario families—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Campaign 2000 also told you that you’re doing nothing on housing, that you’re doing nothing on the poverty rate, that you’re doing nothing to help the poor. They also said that. Quote that part.

Last week, we learned that food bank usage is up 28% in this province. Today, we learned that more Ontarians are falling into poverty. Even with the Ontario child benefit, a single mother with one child lives $10,000 below the poverty line.

Campaign 2000 says that the McGuinty government must implement a housing benefit and provide a healthy food allowance for social assistance recipients. When? Please tell us, when will this government do something, anything at all, to help the poor?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m very proud of the aggressive plan that we’ve put in place to reduce poverty.

I’ve learned a lot of lessons in my life from my grandmother, and one of them is: Actions speak louder than words. You voted against our six increases on social assistance, you voted against our creation of 22,000 new affordable child care spaces, you voted against stabilizing the rent bank and providing over 30,000 rent supplements, you voted against raising the minimum wage, and you voted against taking 90,000 low-income Ontarians off the tax rolls.

Everyone needs to be part of the solution. When will the NDP start being part of the solution, work with Ontarians and help Ontario families have a better future? That’s what we’re doing on this side of the House. We’re two years into a five-year plan. We’ll continue doing that work.

There’s a lot more work to do, but we’re proud of the steps that we take on this side of the House every single day. They’re action steps; they’re much louder than those words.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question today for the Minister of Energy. Ontario’s energy system presents a number of challenges, many of them due to the absolute shambles the system was found in seven years ago. A well-thought-out overhaul of the way electricity serves Ontarians is no small undertaking. It takes careful planning. Oakville and Ontario families want clean air, they want to stop burning coal, they want an economy that supports jobs and renewable energy, and they want to be sure the lights come on.

You presented Ontario’s updated long-term energy plan. It touches on a number of critical issues, but my question to the minister is, can Ontarians be assured that this plan fully addresses the issues of coal, jobs and reliability that I’ve just mentioned?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Absolutely. I’m pleased to be able to answer “yes” on all three of the items that the member has raised.

Our updated long-term energy plan fully addresses the concern of shutting down coal by 2014. In fact, I can tell the member that we’ll be shutting down two additional units before the end of 2011. That’s three years ahead of schedule. Further to that, just to give you an idea as to the impact of doing that, shutting down Ontario’s dirty coal-fired plants is like taking seven million cars off of Ontario roads.

Interjections.

Hon. Brad Duguid: The Tories are interjecting. The Tories don’t support us doing it. The Tories don’t respect the fact that taking seven million cars off the roads of Ontario—that’s almost all the cars in Ontario—would improve the quality of our air.

I haven’t run into an Ontario family yet—an Ontario mother, father or grandparent—who doesn’t want a cleaner, brighter, more healthy future—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable member from Renfrew that we need to hear these questions, and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: That’s the kind of certainty that we need in this province. Representing Oakville and the southwest GTA, I can tell you that the last thing that my constituents need is more coal pollution in the air that we breathe.

It astounds me, though, that planning for the future and consulting with Ontario’s industry, environmentalists, First Nations communities, organized labour and others is a relatively new process in Ontario.

I mentioned certainty of direction through planning at the beginning of my question. So, to the minister once again, will Ontarians be able to count on this certainty through open and thoughtful energy planning and consultation as we move forward?

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m very proud to be part of the only party in this province that’s being absolutely straight up with Ontarians when it comes to planning for our shared energy future.

What Ontarians need to hear from the Leader of the Opposition is, what is his plan? What is his plan for a strong, modern, reliable, clean energy system? I can understand why he doesn’t want to talk about his record on energy. Clearly, he left this province in an absolute shambles when he was sitting in cabinet—not enough power to meet demand and the use of coal going up by 127%.

The Tories have absolutely nothing to offer Ontarians except a trip back to those dark and dirty days when our energy system had to rely on cheaper—yes—but dirty, unreliable coal.

Ontarians need to know where the Leader of the Opposition stands. Ontarians deserve to know. Right now, we know where he stands. He will kill the thousands of—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is for the Minister of Health. York Central Hospital has had a chronic deficit problem, running a $4-million deficit last year and an $11-million deficit this year. Despite the mismanagement, $50,000 was diverted from front-line health care to pay the former CEO a bonus, and another $93,000 was diverted from front-line health care for a raise and bonus for her chief of staff. The bonuses were handed out by none other than Tony Genco, the former treasurer and chair of the hospital and current federal Liberal candidate for Vaughan, and they were approved by you.

How can you justify diverting almost $150,000 from front-line 905 health services to the people mismanaging York Central Hospital—those people being you and Tony Genco?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am very pleased to say that I was actually at York Central Hospital just yesterday. I was there with four of my colleagues and we were celebrating the tremendous work that is happening at York Central Hospital. I had the honour of meeting with the new CEO; the acting chair; members of the board; Dr. Grossman, the chief of the medical staff—a number of people—and they walked me through the changes that they are making at that hospital.

I can tell you that I was enormously impressed with their focus on quality and fiscal responsibility. I think everyone involved with York Central Hospital—and that would include the board chair, Tony Genco—should be very, very proud of the work that they have done.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: The former CEO, Minister, who received the $50,000 bonus, was undoubtedly grateful to you and Tony Genco for overlooking her mismanagement of the hospital budget. In fact, disclosure reports revealed that she donated $1,500 to the McGuinty Liberals.

The cozy relationship doesn’t end there. Yesterday, as you point out, you swooped into York Central and announced $12 million, clearing the hospital’s deficit and Tony Genco’s spotty management record just in time for a federal vote. Meanwhile, McGuinty Liberals, including the member for Vaughan, are packing the campaign office of Tony Genco, York Central Hospital’s former chair, in the lead-up to the by-election.

You spent $15 million in Toronto Centre saving a hospital the day before polls opened there. What makes you think you can buy Liberal federal seats?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I’m going to ask the honourable member to withdraw the last comment that he made in that question.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The party opposite might be focused on the federal by-election; on our side, we’re focused on improving health care. Let me tell you, I don’t think it’s very becoming of a member who represents a riding, who represents constituents who are benefiting from the extraordinary expansion at York Central Hospital. He owes it to the people of his community to at least get his facts straight.

Yesterday’s announcement: I was very pleased to be at York Central Hospital and met with the CEO, Altaf Stationwala, who is an extraordinary individual. What I announced yesterday is that we’re very pleased to provide PCOP funding, post-construction operating funding, so that they can put that great new space to work for the benefit of the people of that region, including the constituents of that member.

ROAD SAFETY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. On November 15, Nova Scotia introduced new bicycle safety legislation, the one-metre rule, which requires drivers to leave one metre of open space between the vehicle and cyclists when passing. The Nova Scotia government has taken steps to make roads safer for cyclists and motorists. Is the Ontario government also going to bring in the one-metre rule? If so, when?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I thank the member opposite because I know that underlying her question—in fact, explicit in her question—is a concern for making roads safer for cyclists and people driving cars.

I know she knows that currently the official drivers’ handbook advises motorists to allow at least one metre when they’re passing a cyclist, and the Highway Traffic Act requires vehicles meeting a person travelling on a bicycle to allow sufficient room on the roadway to pass.

But I also know she’s asking whether we’re going to go further. I want her to know we are reviewing the cycling policy. We’re doing a number of other things, including, this last summer and fall, paving a metre of shoulder along Highway 6, so that, for cyclists and drivers, that road would be safer. I’ll follow up in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The one-metre rule is in place in jurisdictions across the United States and in France, Germany and Spain. The city of Toronto bicycle and motor vehicle collision study found it was the number one cause of cyclist fatalities, and “motorists overtaking” was the number two leading cause of car-bike collisions. Why is this government not acting on road safety for all people?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are actually acting on road safety in a number of ways. I was just saying that we have worked on paving the shoulders on Highway 6, 23 kilometres on Manitoulin Island, 68 kilometres along the Bruce Peninsula. What we’re doing is, we’re working with the Ministry of Tourism, Ministry of Culture and Metrolinx to make sure that we have the criteria in place to make decisions about further paving of shoulders.

But, as I said earlier, we are reviewing our cycling policy. We’ve been working with the Share the Road folks. We’re looking at other jurisdictions like BC and Quebec. We’re looking at what we can do to facilitate the safe use of roads by cyclists and vehicles.

I think the member opposite is not asking a question that is really in opposition to what we’re doing. We’re working to increase safety on our roads for everyone.

GOVERNMENT INVESTMENTS

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Infrastructure. There are several important infrastructure stimulus projects under way in my riding of London–Fanshawe. Some of those projects are $400,000, $500,000, $1 million to widen streets, build bridges, build community centres or deal with some issues in our riding of London–Fanshawe.

As you know, those stimulus projects should meet the deadline of March 2011, but some people came to my office and raised concerns about those projects. As you know, some of them are not able to meet the deadline, so they’re wondering, what are we going to do with those people who are not able to meet the deadline?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: Thank you for the question. Ninety-eight percent of infrastructure stimulus projects are on track for completion before the deadline. Sometimes there are unavoidable delays, and I’ve taken the issue up with the federal government, asking them to give Ontario communities the flexibility they need. In August, the Premier said, “We can’t walk away from projects that are four walls waiting for a roof.” No, we can’t. We can’t walk away from 166 projects that may not be complete by March 31, or the 9,100 jobs they represent.

I call on the federal government to extend the stimulus deadline for these projects by one more construction season, and I ask the Leader of the Opposition to do the same: to stand up for Ontarians, including the YMCA in his own riding, who need more time; to stand up and ask the federal government to be reasonable.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I want to thank the minister for showing flexibility, and I hope the federal government will listen to his request and approach. As you know, and as many people in this province know, we invested more than $28 billion across the province of Ontario to create almost 300,000 jobs.

Beyond the creation of jobs, I think the minister and our government mean to support another initiative and goal. Can the minister explain to the people of Ontario and to us what he means by supporting more than job creation in Ontario?

Hon. Bob Chiarelli: The member is right. The infrastructure stimulus program isn’t just about investing in the economy; it’s also about making investments that will improve Ontarians’ quality of life.

For example, in about 50 Ontario communities, communities including Tweed, Markham and Larder Lake, the legacy of the stimulus program will be a new or better library. In about 450 neighbourhoods, including Mountain Gardens in Burlington, Riverdale in Toronto’s east end and Hintonburg in Ottawa, the legacy will be a park to help Ontarians maintain a healthy lifestyle.

We’re also building or improving 11 airports, more than 700 road segments and 40 fire halls. The list goes on and on, and the point is clear: Across this province, our stimulus investments are building the kind of Ontario we all want to live in.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Attorney General. Justice is being overshadowed by injustice in Ontario. Justice Nola Garton may declare a second mistrial in the case of Erika Mendieta, who allegedly beat her two-year-old daughter Emmily to death seven years ago. Why? Paul Alexander, assistant crown prosecutor during the first trial, was making faces at the jury and Ms. Mendieta during her testimony. Today, Alexander is still working while the chief prosecutor investigates his bizarre behaviour.

Today, Emmily would be 10 years old. Justice for Emmily’s horrific death has been delayed again. This is all happening under your watch, and the public is demanding answers. When will you hold Alexander to account?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Of course, our sympathies and our first thoughts are with the family, with those directly affected. We’re doing everything we can to get this prosecution proceeding as quickly as possible. I have to tell you that in 30 years with the criminal justice system, I’ve never heard of a case quite like this. The chief prosecutor is investigating this matter and will take the appropriate action.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Minister, a judge in Ontario threw this person out of court, and you’re waiting for a bureaucrat to make a decision. A disturbing trend is unfolding in Ontario justice.

Last week, charges were withdrawn against Tzvi Erez, who allegedly defrauded Willy Tencer of $1.2 million. Why? A lack of resources has created competition for limited trial time and this case was not deemed serious enough.

Under your leadership, crown counsel are visiting courtrooms to make faces at juries, causing mistrials, and courts have such a serious lack of resources that charges are being withdrawn. You said you don’t walk away from criminal cases, but in this case, are the facts not proving otherwise?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’ve never heard of a case quite like this in 30 years, and I’ve heard of a lot of cases—from this individual or anybody else, I’ve never heard of a case quite like this.

The chief prosecutor is the one who is directly responsible. He is doing what we all know characterizes every element of our justice system: He’s making sure that he has the facts before acting. No matter how egregious, or not, a situation looks, we all want to have the facts before acting. The appropriate action will be taken.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Minister of Health. Does the minister believe that private health care records of London hospital patients should be in the hands of an American corporation?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do understand that there are some changes under way at London Health Sciences Centre and that there have been concerns raised about the security of that health care information. What I can say absolutely is that anyone doing business in the province of Ontario simply must comply with Ontario privacy legislation. We have some of the toughest privacy legislation here in Ontario, and that legislation will be honoured in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: London Health Sciences’ IT department not only supports the health records of patients in this hospital, but also provides support for nine other regional hospitals. By outsourcing to an American company, the front-line staff and hospitals will be forced to call the US when something goes wrong.

This deal threatens patients’ privacy and hurts the local economy with yet more job losses in London. In the minister’s own hometown, why is she allowing patients’ privacy to be sold off to an American firm?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m afraid that the question doesn’t really reflect the facts in this particular situation. All of our hospitals across the province are working very, very hard to make changes within their organization to improve patient care. That is exactly what London Health Sciences Centre is doing. It is exactly what they should be doing.

As I said in the initial question, every organization operating in Ontario, no matter where they get that support, must comply with our personal health protection privacy legislation. There is no question that London Health Sciences and St. Joe’s will ensure the safety and security of their records.

SKILLS DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Education. There is an African proverb which states, “It takes a village to raise a child.” I think we can all appreciate the importance of that statement and the message it carries with it. It suggests that all members of society, including governments and businesses, have a role to play in ensuring that the next generation is equipped with the knowledge necessary to become engaged and productive citizens.

Constituents in my riding know that education can take many forms and that our communities play an important role in ensuring our youngest learners get the necessary experience in our schools, our community and the workforce. What can I tell my constituents our government is doing to help our students get the experience they need outside the classroom?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: It’s an important question, because I, too, have had constituents who have come to me with the same question. We have been working very hard with partners in business. Through Passport to Prosperity, an independent outside group made up largely of employers—they have also understood the benefit of working with school boards to provide students with those hands-on opportunities.

I’m happy to say that this actually marks the first-ever Experiential Learning Week. It’s an opportunity for us to recognize some 40,000 private sector employers who are looking to engage secondary school students, give them experiences so they understand the types of careers they might want to pursue when they graduate from secondary school.

This is an excellent partnership. It’s working well for employers and also for students. It’s enabling them to be successful and understand what careers might be available to them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: Like the rest of Canada, Ontario faces two trends that we must take into consideration: First, our workforce is rapidly aging, and there is an ever-increasing need for workers with higher levels of education, skills and experience. Parents in my riding want to know that their children are being prepared with the skills they need.

Statistics Canada estimates that in six years, workers about to retire will outnumber those workers entering the workforce around the same time. According to the Canadian Council on Learning, 70% of Canadian workers will require some form of post-secondary education. Our students are going to need to possess a higher level of skills than previous generations if our economy is to grow and remain globally competitive.

Minister, is this government doing enough to make sure our students will be competitive in tomorrow’s economy?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We are working definitely to support students. We very much appreciate the partnership of the private sector. Some levels of government as well have also participated to support students with work opportunities while they’re in school.

We have implemented a very unique, successful program in our secondary schools. It’s called the specialist high skills majors program. I visited many of these. I actually went to a school not so very long ago where students were working in the construction course, where they were understanding how they should plumb, how they should wire or how they should do drywall or tiling. These were skills which they were getting hands-on experience with, and they had professionals coming in to the workplace to support them.

We have specialist high skills majors in agriculture, hospitality, tourism, environment, health and wellness, so our students are getting—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: To the Minister of Agriculture: In July you announced the continuation of the grain and oilseeds business risk management program, stating that prices had dropped more than 25%. However, the chair of the Grain Farmers of Ontario recently stated that the crop has been excellent and that prices keep going up every day.

Grain and oilseeds farmers have benefited, but not everyone else. Livestock farmers continue to face low prices and high input costs. Hog and cattle prices have dropped well below the 25% that grain and oilseeds did, but they received no support.

Minister, will you commit to using some of the money allocated for grain and oilseeds to create a cost-of-production risk management program for livestock farmers who are suffering today?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very pleased to answer the question. I can say that we have worked very hard with our farmers and with our farm organizations. We recognize that the current suite of programs is not providing the predictability, the bankability and the stability that are needed in order to make our farms successful. So we have taken that message to the federal government, and for the first time, there is recognition from our federal government that the suite of programs is not working.

Multiple negative-margin years have not provided the stability, and the programs that are in place, with all three levels at the table—that’s our federal government, our provincial government and our farmers—this is the suite of programs—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. Supplementary?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Madam Minister, I’m disappointed that you’re back to being a lobbyist instead of a minister.

Recently, Alberta announced an extension to its cattle price insurance program. Soon, all Alberta beef farmers will have a cost-of-production business risk management program. Once again, the Alberta government is taking a strong leadership role to help their farmers.

Ontario producers compete against these farmers, and they are at a disadvantage when they are denied similar programs—not federal; provincial. Alberta’s agriculture minister called the program an “Alberta solution.” Minister, when are Ontario’s livestock farmers going to receive a made-in-Ontario solution from the Ontario government that’s supposed to be representing their interests?

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I simply don’t understand why the members from across the way continue to apologize for our federal government. Our programs have always been all three levels working together, because our farmers know that’s what meets their needs. I simply would ask the members that as we work with our organizations, they’ll be looking for their support, and they’ll be looking for their support at the federal level as well.

We have brought forward a grain and oilseeds risk management program. We then extended it for a year, but they voted against that. So I say to them: We are committed to working with our farmers to bring forward a suite of programs that will address their concerns, assure and give them bankability, predictability and stability. That is what our farmers require. They require programs that meet their needs for now and into the future. We will not—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. New question.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last Friday night, my colleague MPP Paul Miller and I were in Cornwall. We went out for dinner, and we went to the Best Western hotel. As I always do now, I asked the server about the hotel’s tip-out policy. I was dismayed to learn that that hotel takes 2.5% of the gross bill and it steals the wages of the servers, whether or not an actual tip is given. On top of that, the management charged their workers for breakage and for Visa fees as well.

Does this minister think it’s fair employment practice to charge people in Cornwall and across Ontario for the privilege of working?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, let me reiterate that we understand how hard waiters, waitresses and all those who work in the hospitality sector work. They provide services to all of us, as the member experienced when he went out to a restaurant in Cornwall.

I have said, and I repeat, that we have many protections here in the province of Ontario when it comes to employment standards. To any