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

November 30, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-30 (PDF)

L076 - Tue 30 Nov 2010 / Mar 30 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 30 November 2010 Mardi 30 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

SIGN-LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY POLICIES

ENERGY CONSERVATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

PENSION PLANS

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

DEFERRED VOTES

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EGG FARMERS OF ONTARIO

CONSUMER PROTECTION

ORLÉANS PEOPLE’S CHOICE

BUSINESS AWARDS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

PINE RIVER BRIDGE

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

KENT AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

EGG FARMERS OF ONTARIO

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

COMITÉ PERMANENT

DE LA POLITIQUE SOCIALE /

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

SOCIAL POLICY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HEALTH PROTECTION

AND PROMOTION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LA PROTECTION

ET LA PROMOTION DE LA SANTÉ

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ROBERT MACAULAY

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS

PETITIONS

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

PARKINSON’S DISEASE

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

ORDER OF BUSINESS

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 24, 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. Reza Moridi: It is my pleasure to speak on the resolution calling on our federal government to begin negotiations on a comprehensive new immigration agreement with Ontario.

The success of our newcomers is vitally important to the success of our province of Ontario. Immigration is Ontario’s lifeblood. Almost half of the country’s immigrants settle in Ontario. A few thousand immigrants choose to settle in my riding of Richmond Hill every year. As a result, the population of Richmond Hill has been increased from about 60,000 in 1990 to almost 200,000 in 2010. My family and I are, in fact, immigrants to Canada who moved to Richmond Hill in 1991. It’s expected that the population of York region will reach 1.5 million within the next 20 years.

Newcomers are key components of our labour force growth and prosperity in Ontario. They bring a wide range of work expertise and life experience to our country. They are doctors, engineers, lawyers, teachers, nurses, technicians, technologists, entrepreneurs, business executives, artists, academics and workers, just to name a few. Within the next decade, newcomers will be the only source of net labour force growth in our province.

When the immigrants arrive, no matter the level of their education and work experience, family background, country of origin or ethnicity, they’re all faced with the reality of life in the new land. They have to deal with numerous issues pertaining to settling down in their chosen country—their new home. That’s why we need to ensure that our newcomers have the resources they need to succeed and contribute to our country.

Ottawa has signed federal-provincial immigration agreements with other provinces such as Manitoba, British Columbia and Quebec. These agreements address the unique local needs of newcomers in those provinces. Ontario’s newcomers deserve a comprehensive new agreement that addresses their local needs. The McGuinty government is calling on the federal government to begin discussions immediately on a comprehensive new agreement that provides Ontario with the funding, planning and management necessary for Ontario’s newcomers to succeed. I urge Ottawa to spend the remaining $207 million promised under the first Ontario-Canada immigration agreement on services Ontario’s newcomers need to succeed.

Ontario’s strength and competitiveness depend on new Canadians settling in Ontario, and settling smoothly; on ensuring that they have the tools to succeed. The newcomers’ success is our success, and with almost half of new immigrants to Canada settling in Ontario, this is an issue of national importance. Immigration is a key component of our labour force because newcomers will represent the only source of net labour force growth within the next decade.

Ontario’s newcomers arrive with skills, talents and experience. We have an obligation to help them integrate their skills and talents into our society and our economy. By putting the skills of our newcomers to work, we are ensuring that Ontario remains strong and prosperous. The past generations of immigrants helped to build our province and our country. Today, that tradition continues. But we know that the talents of some newcomers are not being fully utilized.

We need a new comprehensive agreement with the federal government to match the realities of our economy and the importance of immigrant success for Ontario’s prosperity. That means funding, planning and the governance necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper fully.

Earlier this year, the first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement expired. We have repeatedly asked the federal government to begin negotiations, but they continue to delay the discussions. We are also waiting for Ottawa to spend the remaining $207 million that they promised to newcomers under the original agreement. That’s why we are calling on the federal government to come to the table and to begin negotiations immediately on a comprehensive new agreement that ensures that Ontario immigrants have the resources they need to succeed.

According to the Conference Board of Canada, better settlement and integration of immigrants would add tens of thousands of skilled workers to the labour force, resulting in a $4.1-billion to $5.9-billion boost to our national productivity and income. According to the Royal Bank of Canada, if foreign-born workers were as successsful in the Canadian workforce as those born in Canada, personal income would be about $13 billion higher each year than at present. These figures speak loudly. They tell us that every year, we are losing at least $13 billion as a result of issues related to immigrant settlement.

Spending on immigrant settlement is not an expense to our governments; in contrast, it is an investment in our people and in the future economy of our nation.

In Ontario, we are a province of 13 million people, competing in a global economy with much larger established and emerging economies. We need a long-term deal with our federal government to ensure that we provide the required services to newcomers to allow them to thrive. We need the talents of new Ontarians.

Throughout the life of the first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, the federal government underspent what it promised by $207 million. That’s why we need comprehensive new arrangements to support the success of our newcomers to Ontario. Other provinces have agreements with the federal government that respond to the unique local needs of their newcomers. It’s time for Ontario to get a comprehensive new agreement that benefits Ontario newcomers.

Provision of settlement services to the newcomers is not all related to funding. It’s about easy access and improved services for our newcomers. Under the existing system, immigrants face a patchwork of services and duplication by various government agencies. For newcomers, this can be overwhelming and confusing. Immigrants and Ontario are not being served as well as they could be by the current system. We need a comprehensive new arrangement that addresses the needs of newcomers to Ontario.

The service providers delivering settlement services such as language training and other supports for immigrants are burdened by two sets of paperwork and two sets of programs for one set of people being served. This is unnecessary and unproductive. Ontario’s eligibility criteria for the programs it funds are broader than the criteria of Citizenship and Immigration Canada. Programs administered by the province will have blended eligibility so that those currently closed to new citizens and refugee claimants are opened.

Ontario is a destination of choice for immigrants to Canada. Almost three million immigrants have arrived in Ontario since 1980. This figure represents about half of all immigrants entering Canada during that period. In 2009, 106,867 immigrants coming to Canada landed in Ontario. This represents 42% of all immigrants to Canada.

Ontario continues to drive Canada’s economy. Ontario generates 39% of the national GDP and produces 43% of total merchandise exports. Ontario is the home for almost 50% of all employees in high tech, financial services and other knowledge-intensive industries.

Successful immigrant integration is closely linked to Ontario’s economic and social outcomes. Immigrants account for approximately 30% of Ontario’s current labour force. In Toronto, nearly one in two—meaning 48%—of labour force participants are immigrants.

The Canada-Ontario immigration agreement was signed on November 21, 2005, and provided $920 million in new federal funding for settlement services over a five-year period, in addition to $540 million in base funding. A one-year extension of the agreement was announced on May 5, 2010, which commits an additional $428 million for the year 2010-11. However, only $713 million of the new money was spent throughout the original agreement; a shortfall of $207 million remains.

I urge the federal government to come to the table and negotiate a fair and comprehensive immigration settlement agreement with Ontario. The success of our newcomers is the success of our country.

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Good morning, everyone. It’s nice that we see so many people here. I know some of you may have been out at subway stations today, but we’re glad that you’re here today.

I also want to make mention: I hope everyone had a great breakfast. We’ve got the egg farmers downstairs.

Mr. Jeff Leal: It was good, Steve.

Mr. Steve Clark: It was wonderful. I got to talk to a young lady who I went to high school with. We were actually heads of the student council together at Thousand Islands Secondary School in Brockville.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Is she Conservative as well?

Mr. Steve Clark: I think so, Rosie. Mary Jean McFall is her name, and she’s with Burnbrae Farms. She just got elected to city council in Brockville.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Uh-oh.

Mr. Steve Clark: No, it’s a good thing. She’s going to make a great councillor, absolutely. So I want to welcome Mary Jean McFall and all of the egg farmers who provided a wonderful breakfast. I think it’s just a great start to the day.

Mr. Jeff Leal: What about the new mayor in Athens? Is there a new mayor in Athens?

Mr. Steve Clark: Absolutely, there is. There is, member for Peterborough. There are a few new mayors around the province of Ontario.

I’m extremely pleased that I’m able to speak on this motion, and especially the amendment that was put forward by PC leader Tim Hudak regarding the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement.

We’ve all heard, especially over the last week, the heckles from the government benches about asking for a plan from our party. Of course, we know why the government is looking for a plan. They’re a bit worried. The Toronto Star poll shows that 76% of Ontarians want a change and, you know, folks on the other side as well are getting a little worried. There are a few of them who are even jumping ship because of the problems that we’re seeing.

Mr. Jim Brownell: No, we’re not.

Mr. Steve Clark: Absolutely.

Mr. Jim Brownell: Absolutely not.

Mr. Steve Clark: I think what’s happening is they’re desperately looking at and looking for ideas from Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak, because over the next 10 months they’re going to make it their vision to twist and distort the facts coming from this side of the House.

I’m so very happy to be able to stand here today and talk about the plan that was proposed by Tim Hudak on this motion. It’s a plan that amends the citizenship and immigration minister’s motion, which I have to admit has some good intentions. But the problem is that, like so much of what we see on that side of the House, it’s got one fundamental flaw. It’s a flaw that should frighten Ontarians because if it was a movie, we’d say, “Premier, we’ve seen this too many times over the last seven years.

We didn’t like it the first few times that we saw it and we certainly don’t want to see the sequel.” You see, this motion that was proposed calls on the federal government to blindly hand over $207 million to the McGuinty Liberals. The problem is, there’s no plan on how to spend it and there’s no plan to show Ontarians that it’s working.

That’s why Tim Hudak’s amendment, our PC leader’s amendment, adds a few key words. I’ll say them slowly because I want the government to listen, because sometimes they are words that they rarely use in this House. Our PC leader Tim Hudak’s amendment talks about words like “fully costed plan,” “accountability” and “performance measures.” In other words, before the government creates another $1-billion eHealth boondoggle, we’re demanding they present the federal government and the people of Ontario with a detailed and costed plan on how they’re going to spend the $207 million.

We don’t want the money going to Liberal-friendly consultants, we want it spent on settlement programs that will meet the needs of newcomers to Ontario, as well as the requirements of Ontario communities. We don’t want another slushgate scandal that saw the previous citizenship and immigration minister waste $32 million with a program that had as its main criterion who you knew within the Liberal Party. Groups weren’t even applying for the money, it was getting passed out. There was no paperwork, there was no accountability.

I’ll remind my friends opposite about what the Auditor General had to say about that particular plan. Remember what he said? He called the oversight, “the worst that we’ve ever seen.”

Instead of using that money to help newcomers to Ontario realize the dreams that brought them here with their families, the money went to the government’s friends—people with connections. What a terrible lesson for any resident of this province, particularly those who have just arrived here. What a terrible thing for them to learn. We can’t go down that road again.

That’s why I strongly support our PC leader Tim Hudak’s amended motion which reads: “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 was particularly eager to speak about this amended motion today because of what’s happening in my own riding of Leeds–Grenville. In fact, on Friday just past, I was interviewed in my constituency office by the Leeds and Grenville Immigration Partnership. It was a great meeting. They were taping a video. They’ve actually created a series of videos to help market my riding to new Ontarians, to show them the wonderful quality of life we have in Leeds–Grenville that has brought so many settlers to the banks of the St.

Lawrence River, to the Rideau and to the farms and forests in between for hundreds and hundreds of years. It was a great meeting. Those early immigrants worked hard to shape the landscape and build our cities, towns and villages and, in the process, they contributed so much to the social and cultural fabric that makes eastern Ontario such a rich region.

And now we’re looking to a new generation of immigrants from nations other than those in Western Europe. We need them to help us build a new economy that can help eastern Ontario compete with other regions of Ontario, Canada and the world. We need them to add their mark on our communities and their cultural traditions, which will not only strengthen the cultural tapestry, but will make it stronger at the same time.

The reality is that rural Ontario needs immigration. Recruiting these talented, risk-taking family-oriented new Ontarians to live in places in my riding like Brockville, Prescott, Gananoque and Westport must be a critical part of any economic development program. But as badly as we require their skills and as hard as groups like the immigration partnership in my riding are working to lay the groundwork to welcome them, the reality is the provincial government isn’t helping. I know we’re going to hear about how much this government is spending on programs and they’re going to tell us about the great job they are doing. For all that backslapping, it really isn’t helping the people who need it.

In my own riding, part of my meeting last week was interesting; I talked to the 1000 Islands Region Workforce Development Board because I wanted to talk to them about labour shortages in my riding. It was interesting, some of the statistics that they talked about in Leeds–Grenville. We’re going to be facing some unique shortages, perhaps faster than what’s predicted in Ontario and other parts of Canada, in our riding, due to the older median age of its population and the older workforce.

When I met with the immigration partnership in my riding, we talked about the statistics that I’ll read into the record. In the 2006 census, the median age in Leeds and Grenville was 43.6; in Ontario, it was 39. And 45% of our workforce is over 45 years of age in Leeds–Grenville, as opposed to 41% in Ontario. When I met with the 1000 Islands Region Workforce Development Board—and I’m going to be going to a seminar that they’re putting on on Friday. They’ve done some exceptional work on some of the shortages that are taking place in Leeds–Grenville.

Thanks to the federal government for their settlement services to Ontario—and with their support, funding has tripled.

But I guess, again, I want to go back to measurable outcomes. Without accountability, if we don’t know where the funds are going and where they’re most needed, I’m afraid that we’re just not getting there. At least, that’s not the impression that I’m getting from people in my own riding, and I did have the opportunity to get some emails over the weekend that talk about immigration.

As you know, I was appointed a week or so ago to the post of critic. I took over from our leader, Tim Hudak. I had a great opportunity, as I said, to meet with the immigration partnership folks in my riding. I’ve spoken to my federal MP, Gord Brown, and I hope in the very near future to slip up to Ottawa—I’m very close, being in Leeds–Grenville—to meet, hopefully, with Minister Kenney to talk to him about his views and the partnership with Ontario.

But I do, as I said, want to talk about a couple of emails. The first was one that I received on Friday. It’s from a gentleman who was a recent immigrant and moved to Brockville. He was an engineer back in the Philippines and brought with him extensive work experience in manufacturing. He worked for different multinational companies in the past and worked in Hong Kong for five years, as well, as an engineer. He’s had both supervisory and managerial experience and has great technical knowledge in three industries. In fact, he sent me his resumé, and I really was impressed with his background.

However, in his three months of job searching in Brockville and in nearby towns, he’s extremely frustrated, as I know many Ontarians are, with the lack of a job opportunity. He’s looking for some help from our office. He’s looking for some help from the partnership and from some of the employment agencies in our community.

The one person who’s copied on the message was from the Employment and Education Centre. I made a member’s statement last week about that great group in Brockville that’s provided employment for all sectors. But again, this gentleman is frustrated over the fact that he is such a skilled worker and that there just aren’t any opportunities for him.

I received a long email on Saturday from a lady in Brockville who read about my announcement that I was taking over the citizenship and immigration critic portfolio from our leader, Tim Hudak. She appreciated some of my comments. She arrived in Brockville in July 2010. They chose the city because it was in close proximity to Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa, right in that little triangle with the 401 and 416. Her husband was a professor of literature. She was an experienced administrator, having great difficulty trying to find work in the community. They have met with the immigration project coordinators.

But when you’re starting up a program, they’re more working on some of the portals and the websites for the project,

whereas this person talked about her need for researching jobs. She had some interesting comments, because she’s an artist with the council of arts, which is a parallel body that she dealt with in Israel. Their experience since coming to Canada is that they just don’t have the same opportunities. She talks about that in great depth, and she’s given me four great suggestions for moving some of these things forward.

One of the things that they felt extreme frustration on is the fact that they are skilled and their resumés seem to be totally disregarded in the community. It made me think of our leader, Tim Hudak, who, in June, introduced the Newcomers Employment Opportunities Act, 2010. The act would provide incentives for immigrant small business entrepreneurs to invest in Ontario. It also gives incentives for established businesses to provide job-specific language training for immigrant employees and achieves more transparency and accountability in the foreign credential recognition process.

I looked at these letters over the weekend, since my appointment, and it made great sense that a bill like what PC leader Tim Hudak was talking about would certainly help the situation.

Those were just a couple of voices that I believe we should be listening to when we set out for a new program, but it doesn’t seem that they are. No; it’s our party and our leader, Tim Hudak, that recognize that newcomers need programs that will ensure their skills are recognized. We need programs to help cut through red tape and assist them in integrating into rural and small-town Ontario where those communities are filled with opportunities for hard-working, entrepreneurial immigrants, and they need incentives to encourage them to venture outside the GTA to open new businesses.

Those ideas can be found in Tim Hudak’s amendment to this motion before this House today and in his Newcomers Employment Opportunities Act, 2010, introduced earlier this year.

Those are the plans. I know that, as well, when we started, there was a lot of discussion about whether we have a plan or whether we don’t have a plan. Clearly, in this regard, there is a plan that our leader has put on the table. They reward those who come here to work hard, to play by the rules, and do away with the policy favoured by the current government that rewards only those who cozy up to them first.

Thank you, Madam Speaker. I appreciate it.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m happy to speak to the—

Applause.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you, Dave. Good to see you.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I can’t do that.

I’ll be speaking to the main motion and the amendment because I’ll be supporting both of them for different reasons.

I really understand why the minister is introducing this amendment, because there’s good reason to be afraid of federal governments, irrespective of their political colourings. Some of you, of course, were too young and some of you were probably not involved in politics in 1990, but those were the days of—

Mr. Steve Clark: I was a mayor.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You were a mayor, yes.

Those were the days of Brian Mulroney. I used to love his voice, that mellow voice. I loved it, and I used to love it when he said, “The GST will bring prosperity to the”—I loved that. Of course, it didn’t bring any prosperity, but you remember a couple of those things.

Of course, we were in government in 1990; we, New Democrats, with the then leader of our party, Premier Bob Rae, who has since left us and joined the Liberals. We were having one difficult economic time. Do you remember that? It was tough.

Hon. John Milloy: The Speaker’s too young.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That’s right.

Of course, the Conservatives used to say, “You don’t got a revenue problem, you got a spending problem.” And so did the Liberals, of course, because the Liberals didn’t cut us any slack, either. They used to say the same thing about the NDP: “You don’t got a revenue problem, you got a spending problem.” The problem is, we had a huge revenue problem, but none of the opposition parties then, Liberals or Conservatives, ever extended a hand out and said, “You’re right, Bob. We’re with you, Bob.” None of them, and of course, that’s the way it works. Politics is like that.

But we were on our own. Some of you are too young or too old to remember that we used to have a deal with the Conservative government. We had a cost-sharing agreement on welfare. Understand this: cost-sharing, 50-50. In that recessionary period, Mulroney decided to end that deal. You understand how difficult it was, because people were unemployed. They were going on welfare. Our welfare bill went from $1 billion to $5.5 billion. We were in desperate times. We were looking for the federal government to continue lending their support to the province at a time when we most desperately needed it, and they cut the cord in 1990. Mulroney; God bless him, wherever he is.

In 1993, another Prime Minister whose name starts with an M, Mr. Martin—Mulroney, Martin; interesting. Marchese: There’s the next logical progression. Martin comes into power. Understand, by 1993, things got better. The economy was getting better. But this is the time when Liberal Martin decided to make huge cuts to our transfer payments as well, and made huge cuts to unemployment insurance as a way of dealing with the deficit that we were left with, in 1990, at the federal level. So he made huge cuts to our transfer payments to Ontario, and of course that made us unhappy. Subsequent governments who followed us, the Conservatives, were, I’m assuming, very unhappy with those cuts.

The reason why I mention this brief little history is to say that there is good reason why these motions are put in front of this Legislature: because they’re worried. They’re worried that in these last two years of recessionary periods, where there is less money, the federal government might decide not to be as kind as they have been in the last five years. So I understand the motivation, as expressed by the member from Richmond Hill, by the Premier and by Minister Hoskins, through his motion. You never know, because it’s quite possible they will start reducing the transfer payments. I have no doubt about it.

I know that the finance minister at the federal level said, “We’re not going to do that. We’re not going to do what previous governments did.” I understand those pronouncements, but I don’t believe them, and I suspect a lot of Liberals don’t believe them as well. That’s why they’re nervous. So we have a motion here that says, “Send the money; frightened as hell.” So we’ve got a motion that says, “Send the $207 million that you told us you would send and let’s renegotiate the deal.”

Now, as my colleague our critic—good heavens. As my friend from—where is my friend?—Beaches–East York said in his remarks, we have, provincially and federally, constitutional obligations. The constitutional obligation of the federal government is to negotiate whatever immigration agreements with the provincial government. It’s a duty. It’s actually written down in law. And it doesn’t say, “They shall need to have an arrangement around immigration issues,” but “they may.” That’s the language that Liberals use in their bills; that I’m assuming we, New Democrats, used when we were in power; and that the Tories used. So, the language is “may,” but the effect is, for legal purposes, the same.

So your motion makes it appear somehow that they’re not going to negotiate with you, but you all know—at least if you didn’t, you did once the member from Beaches–East York told you—that they have a constitutional obligation to meet and discuss and do an arrangement with you; that they will. Except your motion makes it appear as if somehow they will not, and that’s the politics of it, which I understand. I really do. But I hope you accept the fact, once it’s been brought to your attention by the member from Beaches–East York, that negotiations must happen and they likely will.

Now, whether you get the full piñata or not, I don’t know. That remains to be seen, and for that you will have to continue to negotiate, to hammer strongly against the Conservative government federally, which we’re happy to help you with.

Part of the problem is that, around issues of immigration, the federal government has been negligent. We’re not just talking about the current government; we’re talking about their predecessors, the Liberal government federally. They were equally feckless in their approach to these issues. They bring immigrants into the country and then they send them loose to every corner of Canada to fend for themselves. They bring them in, highly qualified people, by and large, the majority with degrees, except for the 30% who have less than a high school education, but the majority with degrees.

They bring them into the country with the expectation that they’re likely to find a job in their field, and then, when they don’t find a job, the reaction of the federal government is, “Well, it’s too bad. So sad.” It ought not to be that way. It ought to be that the federal government has an obligation and better manages their affairs so that immigrants, when they come in, know very well what to expect. The problem is, the majority of them, with degrees, have no clue what to expect.

They actually believe the government that if they let them in because of their degrees, somehow they’re going to find jobs, and then they don’t. I call that irresponsible governing by federal parties, both Conservative and Liberal, in the last 15 years.

They ought to be doing what Quebec does, and I’ll speak about that in a moment, which is that you’ve got agents who meet with prospective immigrants and basically tell them what to expect, give them the information they require to get their licence, should their licence not be applicable once they come into this country. The point of that is that they know then whether to come to this country or to go somewhere else. At least they’re not in the dark about what to expect when they come as immigrants.

Quebec does a good job with that. Quebec has negotiated an immigration arrangement where they decide on the immigrants that they need and the immigrants that they want. Now, much of that is based on language, which I understand; I really do. I’m a big supporter of Quebec and I’m a big supporter of bilingualism in this country. I wish everybody was bilingual. I accept the fact that Quebec has those diverse interests and needs, and I accept the fact that they are the only province in Canada where they conduct their business in French. It’s great.

So to have sought, as a province, the power to do immigration on their own was a remarkable thing. I call that a remarkable accomplishment by the province of Quebec, which is the second-largest province, by way of population, in Canada.

The question the member from Beaches–East York raised is, why isn’t Ontario doing that? Why is it that every four or five years, the province is left begging the federal government to negotiate, and to negotiate a fair deal? Why do you do that? You look like little children begging for more, as opposed to behaving as an independent province with the power to behave independently, and you could if you decided that that’s the power you wanted. Yet none of you seem to speak to it at all: not the members who speak to it, not the minister who spoke to it and not the Premier of this province.

For some reason, some of you are happy to keep this servile relationship with the federal government. I don’t know why some of you don’t squirm in shame around this, as I say it. Some of you are going to speak after me. That’s good. But that’s what you should be demanding, because then you have clarity with respect to what you want to be able to accomplish with immigration.

Now, I suspect the reason why you want to do this is so that you, the province, can continue to blame the federal government for not giving you enough money—because they have the responsibility; not you, really—and so you can continue to take political cover when things fail you. It’s not good, really. You don’t look like statesmen and stateswomen when you do that. It’s a political ploy, I understand, but it doesn’t really work anymore. You should be demanding that you have your own power to determine what immigrants Ontario needs and not let the federal government, that has not done this very well, continue to do it badly in perpetuity. I think it’s time.

I also believe that what the Conservative amendment says is not a bad thing. To demand accountability is something you Liberals should be supporting. What’s wrong with that? If you are spending the money as you claim you are, then show how you are doing that. Account for the money that the federal government is giving you in terms of how you’re spending that to help newcomers once they land in this province. Why would you be afraid to do that? By not accepting this amendment, you are afraid.

And if you reject it, as I suspect you might, you’re saying to the public that you’re quite happy to take federal money and that then you will spend it as you wish, rather than spending it for real immigrant needs, and the needs are quite remarkable. Immigrants come to this province and the majority, 50% of them, come to Ontario—it used to be higher—and 79% come to Toronto. By “Toronto,” I think they include Toronto and the GTA, because nobody can afford to stay in Toronto anymore. When they say “Toronto,” I really do believe they mean the GTA.

That’s why poverty has grown in the GTA, because Toronto has become a very expensive place to live in. So they moved out to the GTA, and all of a sudden, the GTA is experiencing poverty issues—God bless them, because they never had any sympathy for Toronto in the old days when the whole of Canada dumped their problems on Toronto. And they used to criticize Toronto at the same time for being a haven for poverty issues, public housing and whatever else you can think of.

Then, all of a sudden, the GTA experiences problems in health and social services, and lo and behold, they’re asking for help. I love it; it’s great. It’s good that the GTA is asking for help finally. It’s good that the GTA is finally saying, “Oh, we’ve got a little problemo to deal with.” It’s no longer Toronto that’s suffering the problemo; it’s now the GTA and beyond. I love that, because it means they’re beginning to understand what some of us have had to deal with for a long, long time.

It used to be that we had welcome houses in Ontario, until my good friend Mike Harris got rid of them. Oh, I shouldn’t talk about Mike Harris anymore; he’s gone. But he got rid of the welcome houses. You understand, the welcome houses were the places where newcomers could go and say, “I need help. Can you direct me? Can you tell me where to go for assistance, for language training, or any kind of training, or any help? Where can I find any services? How can I get my licence accredited? Where do I go?” I don’t know where they can go anymore. The welcome houses don’t exist and I don’t know what the Liberals have put in their place to support them.

The Liberals are asking for $207 million. I agree with the Conservatives in this regard, because they can be good in opposition. In opposition they are great. I have learned to love them in opposition; I have. I often say, “I hope they stay there longer,” because they get better in opposition, they really do. They become human, or at least humanized.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Who are you loving?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The Tories.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: You love them?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I love them in opposition, yes.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Wow.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: But it’s equally true that even Liberals, when they were in opposition, were good, too. Something happens on the way to the farm on the other side.

The point is, this is a good amendment introduced by the opposition parties. We need to account for where your money is going. When you stand up to speak, you have to say, “We agree with the amendment because we think it goes a long way. We want to account. We want to tell you, actually, Marchese, where the money is going. We’re going to delineate, line by line, literally, so that you can tell.” That would be good for me, good for Tories, good for Liberals, good for everyone because immigrants are having a difficult time.

Even though Tories and Liberals have opened the doors for doctors—and by the way, if we didn’t need doctors, neither the Tories nor the Liberals would have opened that door to them. But because we needed doctors in the last 12 or 15 years, the immigrants who have degrees, who have been able to become accredited to practice their profession are those who are doctors. In almost every other profession they’re struggling, for different reasons, and they are virtually on their own.

Use your constitutional power to stop begging and use your constitutional power, because you have a Minister of Immigration, and actually do something on your own without constantly having to complain about what the federal government is doing to you and not doing enough for you.

It would be good for you to become finally independent. It would be great for you to finally ask the federal government to negotiate a deal like Quebec, which gives you, finally, the independence you need to be able to do this job right.

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: I’m pleased to stand today in strong support of a new and comprehensive Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, one that puts the local needs of our newcomers first. I would also like to commend the member for Trinity–Spadina for supporting this government’s motion.

When I immigrated to Canada a lot more challenges existed, especially for seeking accreditation, despite having two master’s degrees and 10 years of teaching experience. I must admit that now we have better programs and I would like to share with the members of this House that, having said that, we have come a long way but still we have a long way to go. Many newcomers still face language barriers and difficulty settling. As someone who has immigrated to this country, this new immigration agreement is something that is very important to me and the constituents in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South, which is a very diverse riding.

Despite the challenging economic times, Ontario continues to drive Canada’s economy. Ontario generates 39% of the national GDP, produces 43% of total exports and is the home of almost 50% of all the employees in the financial sector, high tech and other knowledge-based industries.

Ontario is a destination of choice for immigrants to Canada. In 2009, over 100,000 immigrants coming to Canada landed in Ontario. This represents 42% of the total immigration to Canada. Out of that, 27,000 newcomers settle every year in the region of Peel and many more in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South. Ontario’s first immigration agreement with the federal government was a good start. It is now time to apply what we have learned from that experience and develop better ways to help our newcomers so that Ontario can benefit from their skills and talents.

There has been a shift in the immigration categories from skilled workers to family class and refugees. As a result of that shift, those immigrants who opt to settle in the province of Ontario need more and more settlement and integration services.

Ottawa has signed federal-provincial agreements with other provinces such as Manitoba, British Columbia, and Quebec. These agreements address the unique local needs of newcomers in those provinces. I see no reason why the federal government should not sign an agreement that addresses the unique local needs of newcomers in the province of Ontario.

To date, Ottawa has withheld $207 million from the first immigration agreement. I urge the federal government to live up to its commitment and release all funds from the previous agreement. In addition, I urge the federal government to step up and begin negotiations immediately with us so that our immigrants can benefit from the services they need to succeed.

We need a new agreement, an agreement that provides all immigrants with the services to overcome language and settlement barriers, an agreement that allows our service providers to spend more time helping our newcomers and less on administration, an agreement that better addresses the needs of our communities to attract and retain newcomers. We believe that by administering language and settlement services provincially, we can help reduce duplication and help our immigrants when they need those services. We want a new comprehensive agreement that puts the local needs of our newcomers first because we strongly believe that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

I would like to encourage all members of this House to support this agreement and stand up for the newcomers in your ridings as we move forward to build a stronger Ontario for all families, new and old.

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

Mr. Jim Wilson: I certainly appreciate the comments that have been made this morning both on the amendment and on the main motion from the government.

Mr. Hudak has been trying to improve the motion that was put forward by the government. The motion that was put forward by the government, as Mr. Marchese, the member for Trinity–Spadina, said a little earlier, sounds a bit whiney. It sounds a bit like the Ontario Liberals once again suggesting that the federal government is shortchanging Ontario—and they might be. There’s always an argument to be made there that you never get enough money from the federal government with respect to immigration.

Certainly, my belief is that Quebec gets a better deal from the federal government, and that may be the fault of all three parties in this Legislature, that we failed to seek independence from the federal government with respect to immigration matters in the country of Canada.

We’ve always been the good guys and gals, as it were, in Confederation, and we have sought to keep the country together on almost all program fronts. Now we have labour market agreements separate from other provinces, special agreements with the federal government, so we do have some independence with respect to training and money that comes for post-secondary education. Perhaps it’s time, not through whiney resolutions like this one but through formal agreements with the federal government, that we seek a degree of independence from the federal government, as Quebec has done in the past.

I’m just going to be very short here this morning. I would say that we would hope, as the NDP have indicated, that the Liberals would also see Mr. Hudak’s amendment as an enhancement of what they’re trying to say, an expansion of what they are asking for. It’s a recognition by the PC caucus that we certainly welcome immigration and we believe the federal government should do its fair share. But having resolutions on the floor of this House, which frankly are a bit of a waste of time, and whining at the federal government isn’t the way to do it.

We need the Premier to sit down with the Prime Minister and the respective ministers, do the hard work that’s required to hammer out agreements, and then the proper money will flow to the province of Ontario.

I suspect one of the stumbling blocks is that the federal government will want to audit that money. It has always wanted to audit the money in post-secondary education or what they give the provinces for health and social services. I used to work for the federal government at one time back in the mid-1980s, and it was very, very frustrating that you would transfer gobs of money to the provinces, but you weren’t sure whether they were actually spending it on health care or social services or post-secondary education or welfare. I suspect that’s one of the stumbling blocks here.

When it came to training, that was sorted out. The federal government, because of the agreement that we now have, has been able to satisfy itself and the taxpayers of Canada for the same taxpayers in Ontario that the money is being spent on what it is sent to the province for.

With that, Madam Speaker, I’ll yield the floor.

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

Seeing none, on September 28, 2010, Mr.

Hudak moved 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 substitute the words: “[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 plan including accountability and performance measures, which will allow the federal government to spend the” and “that was not applied for under the existing Canada-Ontario immigration agreement and will aid the province in commencing”.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the amendment carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the nays have it.

The vote shall be deferred to deferred votes.

Vote deferred.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Orders of the day?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: We have no further business this morning.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): This House stands recessed until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1005 to 1030.

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that, pursuant to standing order 71(b), the House leader of the official opposition, the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, has notified the Clerk of his intention to file notice of a reasoned amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2010, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts. The order for second reading of Bill 140 may therefore not be called today.

SPECIAL REPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER OF ONTARIO

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table an energy conservation progress report from the Environmental Commissioner of Ontario entitled Rethinking Energy Conservation in Ontario—Results.

SIGN-LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I also beg to inform the members that today the Canadian Hearing Society is visiting Queen’s Park, and we will have sign-language interpreters on the floor.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Monique M. Smith: To that end, I would like to introduce and welcome Lesley Roach and Paula Bath, who are the interpreters from the Canadian Hearing Society. They’re here for the annual Canadian Hearing Society Day at Queen’s Park. We thank them for their services and we’re happy to have them here today.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome a number of members from Durham region here today, who are joining us in the gallery. They’re here to express their concern with respect to the extension of Highway 407 eastbound.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’d like to welcome Lorin MacDonald, who is a lawyer and is here today with the Canadian Hearing Society.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to welcome a constituent with a farm business from my riding. He’s here with the Ontario Egg Producers: Hubert Schillings. He has a wonderful farm family in Durham. Welcome, Hubert.

Hon. Carol Mitchell: I’m very proud to introduce members of the Egg Farmers of Ontario board of directors. We have Carolynne Griffith, Scott Graham, Harry Pelissero, Hubert Schillings, Victor Slobodian and Laurent Souligny. Welcome, and thank you for a fabulous breakfast. It was just wonderful.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I would like to welcome Mayor John Gray from the city of Oshawa, as well as Councillor John Neal, who have joined us here at Queen’s Park today.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to, in the west gallery, introduce my wife, Carole, and our friends who are retired teachers, who taught in my riding: Jim Leavens, Rae Leavens and Barb Gibson.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m more than pleased to introduce the family of Jennifer Boothby, a page from Etobicoke Centre: Christina Boothby, Bob Boothby, Carol Ann Boothby, Frank O’Rourke, Gillian O’Rourke, Ruth Boothby, Dan O’Rourke, Linda O’Rourke, Katie O’Rourke Macole and Susan O’Rourke. Welcome to the Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Steve Clark: I also would like to introduce representatives from the Egg Farmers of Ontario. I’d like to welcome Janet Hueglin Hartwick, who’s here, and also a dear friend of mine—we went to high school together and she is now a Brockville city councillor: from Burnbrae Farms, Mary Jean McFall.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I would like to introduce and welcome to the House members of the Canadian Hearing Society. They’re here at Queen’s Park today for their annual day of advocacy and awareness. Thank you and welcome.

Mr. John O’Toole: I’d like to introduce Councillor-Elect Corinna Traill from the council of Clarington, as well as Jeremy Woodcock, a citizen who’s here protesting the failure to extend the 407, and Mark Canning, who is a member of the 407 highway extension committee. They’re asking the Minister of Transportation—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): These are introductions of guests, not members’ statements.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Even though we already introduced Mr. Souligny, I would like to say that Mr. Souligny comes from where the sun rises in the morning. He comes from my riding and he’s also the national president. That’s where you get the best eggs in the province.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: As well, I have a number of other guests from Oshawa: Mr. Bob Bell, Mr. Doug Hawkins and a schoolmate and Scouting mate of mine, Mr. Mark Canning.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would like to take this opportunity and ask all members to welcome a former member, Harry Pelissero, who represented Lincoln in the 34th Parliament. Welcome back to the Legislature today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, when you took office, Ontario’s energy prices were among the lowest and most competitive in Canada. Today, under your misguided energy policies, they now rank among the highest in North America, yet you want to continue to drive us down the path of high-cost energy.

Yesterday I pointed out, Premier, that Spain’s energy experiments—that you are copying; of massive subsidies to corporations—cost 2.2 jobs in the economy for every job that was created by subsidies. It gets worse. The Bruno Leoni Institute says Italy’s similar experiment killed 4.8 jobs for every job created in the whole economy and 6.9 jobs for every job created in manufacturing.

Premier, how are you going to avoid the job losses experienced elsewhere when you’re copying an outdated plan from Europe?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure what my honourable colleague is talking about when he talks about other jurisdictions. I do know that he’s a man without a plan. I do know as well that we continue to have a plan here on our side of the House.

When it comes to jobs, just a couple weeks ago I was in Hamilton and met there with the folks at JNE Consulting. This meeting flowed from a trip I had made just a few weeks before that to China. There’s now a joint venture. They’re establishing 300 new jobs there in clean energy.

Just last week, the Minister of Energy announced 150 jobs in clean energy technologies in Cambridge. I’ve spoken as well about some 10,000 Ontario farmers who are signing on to produce clean energy for the people of Ontario. We’re talking about more jobs, not fewer jobs. We’re talking about clean energy and reliable electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Hamilton and Niagara families know the Premier has now snuck into town a couple of times last week and then snuck out of town without answering questions from the media.

Premier, let me continue. I think you should know that the Wall Street Journal, earlier this year, had the authors of the institute’s report that I referenced earlier on. It said the evidence of Italian job losses from energy experiments, these massive subsidies to corporations, is consistent with Spain’s. Your “buy high, sell low” policies have created a gold rush when it comes to massive subsidies that are driving up rates and chasing jobs out of our province.

Spain, France, Australia and Germany are now all walking away from their expensive, massive subsidies. What makes you think, Premier, that you have a more intelligent understanding than countries who are now admitting that their expensive experiments went badly off the rails?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We know that families want us to shut down dirty coal because they want to breathe clean air. We know that farmers are very excited about participating in clean energy production. Maybe we should hear from businesses.

This is what the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario commented with respect to our long-term energy plan. This comes from Adam White, the president. He said: “This plan means a stable investment climate, and that means more jobs.” He went on to say, “Competitive electricity rates are an absolute priority for AMPCO members. The plan sets out a framework to create a reliable, economically viable electricity system for Ontario.”

So if we put it all together: Families want clean air, farmers want to participate in clean energy production and businesses support a stable electricity pricing environment. We’re putting it all together. It’s going to be there for the next 20 years for Ontario families and Ontario businesses.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, your so-called energy plan has chased jobs out of our province and is driving up rates for families. It has been an unmitigated disaster for the Ontario economy, and Premier, if you want the next election to be about your plan to double hydro bills yet again, we say, “Bring it on.” We’ll take you on because we’re on the side of Ontario families and Ontario small businesses that say enough is enough. Let’s make it about affordability and bringing jobs to our province.

Premier, I know you have a love affair with European policy-makers who voted for massive subsidies to particular projects. I say to you again: Those countries now are backing away from their expensive energy experiments, but you want to double down. You want to put our economy at risk. You want to put the livelihood of Ontario families at risk. Premier, why won’t you look at the evidence and abandon your expensive energy experiments—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Euro-bashing puzzles me and I’ll leave that to others to contemplate. We’re going to stay focused on creating more jobs in Ontario.

The leader of the official opposition may be less than enthusiastic about our long-term energy plan, but I can tell you, one by one, members of his own party are rising in support. The member for Sarnia–Lambton attended our announcement of the world’s largest solar farm in his backyard. The member for Haldimand–Norfolk–Brant said this when he attended our green energy hub announcement: “Our area has significant economic and geographic potential for solar energy generation.” That’s from within their own caucus. Then there’s the MPP for Leeds–Grenville. He said, “Building future jobs in the renewable energy field is clearly the way to go.”

There’s an outbreak of rash reasonability inside the Conservative caucus when it comes to support—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the Premier stuffs his ears with straw to avoid the facts of Europe’s experience with expensive energy experiments like his. You, not too long ago, boasted that you were going to follow in the path of Italy, Germany, Spain and other jurisdictions, but, Premier, as I’ve laid out, they are now moving away from these expensive energy experiments.

But if you’re not going to see the evidence abroad, then perhaps you’ll listen to an important group here at home: The Canadian Federation of Independent Business polled its members, and a whopping 87% said they don’t trust you or believe you when it comes to a clear picture of the Ontario economy, and a similar number, a whopping 82% of small businesses said that you’ve mismanaged electricity pricing in the province of Ontario.

Premier, do you take this to mean that your campaign to confuse Ontario families is really working?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just quoted those folks who arguably might have the most at stake when it comes to electricity: the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. The president said, again, “This plan means a stable investment climate, and that means more jobs.”

Certainly, when it comes to small business, they’ve expressed a tremendous amount of appreciation for our clean energy benefits. Effective January 1, there is going to be a reduction in electricity bills for the course of the next five years. It’s going to benefit our families, it’s going to benefit our small businesses, and it’s going to benefit our farmers.

We recognize that there’s going to be an increase in electricity prices. They on the other side believe somehow that there will be no increases in electricity prices; I think they believe in the electricity fairy. We don’t believe in the electricity fairy. We believe that we’ve got to be responsible, to be fair with Ontarians, when it comes to putting forward a reasonable, responsible plan for them. That’s what we’ve done, and a clean energy benefit will be of real support to families, small businesses and farmers as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: It’s a shame the Premier does not take the Canadian Federation of Independent Business’s recommendations seriously. This is one of the largest organizations in Canada when it comes to advocating for hard-working small business people. They should be the economic engine that drives job creation in Ontario, but your high-cost energy policies are forcing them to cut back. One in five of its members now, Premier, is saying they’re going to have to reduce staff in the next quarter, and the vast majority say they’re not going to hire any new staff at all. The reasons they give? Your tax grabs like the HST, and now skyrocketing energy bills are a top concern.

Premier, you’ve doubled prices, and your fantasy plan is going to double hydro prices yet again. Why is it that Premier McGuinty is the only one who sees no connection between job losses and higher hydro rates in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, these are mutterings and musings from the plan-free zone in Ontario. My friend is very negative and pessimistic about the economy and the growth that is in fact taking place.

We heard good news this morning from General Motors. We insisted on being there for the auto sector at a time of tremendous challenge. We invested on behalf of the people of Ontario. They announced today that they are hiring back the last 400 employees that they laid off, but more than that, they’re hiring on 300 new employees. The fact of the matter is that production is up. The fact of the matter is that they’re showing confidence in our tax policies; they’re showing confidence in our energy policies. They’re showing confidence in Ontario and in our shared future.

I would encourage my colleague opposite to demonstrate that kind of confidence from time to time, because that’s what the people of Ontario want to see.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: You know, it’s a bit rich, coming from this Premier, that he has a plan, when he has a plan of the week when it comes to energy. Premier, you have backtracked so often, poor Minister Broten should get out of the way, because you’re going to run her over with all of your backtracks in the province. Clearly, this is no way to run energy policy in the province. It’s impacting on jobs; it’s driving up bills for families and seniors.

Premier, the CFIB even cites your smart meter tax machines as a major concern. Seventy per cent of them say it’s impacting negatively on their ability to create jobs and to do business. Now we see that a number of—I believe nine—local distribution companies are telling you to hold off on this program, that it’s not working properly, and we hear from families that your smart meter tax machines are driving the rates through the roof. Premier, will you admit your smart meter tax machines are a failed initiative and that you need to rethink it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: At the end of the day, I’ll side with the Environmental Commissioner when it comes to supporting our smart meters. I’ll also side with the experience of many parts of the world, which demonstrates—including the United Kingdom. I know that my honourable colleague has not made reference to the UK, but the new Prime Minister of the UK has said in no uncertain terms that they’re going to continue to move forward and, in fact, accelerate their plan to put smart meters in homes and businesses.

My friend has made reference to the CFIB on a number of occasions. I want to quote from their press release of November 18. The headline says it all: “Small Businesses Welcome Hydro Relief.”

They say, “We are pleased to see the government acknowledging the impact of its energy policies on the province’s job-creators.”

We’ve got the Association of Major Power Consumers in Ontario. We’ve got the CFIB expressing support for our clean energy benefit. We’ve got farmers lining up to participate in clean energy production. We’ve got families saying, time and time again, “We want to stop the pollution. We want our kids to breathe clean air.” We’ve got tremendous and growing support—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Premier. Today, the Premier sent his staff and increasingly desperate caucus out into the rain to hand out flyers promising lower hydro bills. Does the Premier think it’s fair for the Liberal Party to promise lower hydro bills when everything, from smart meters to private nuclear deals to the unfair HST, will be driving hydro prices up?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my colleague. What we’re doing is something that we’re able to do because we have a plan. We’re communicating a plan to the people of Ontario. They can’t go door to door. They can’t go bus-stopping. They can’t stand at the doors of the subway and hand out information about a plan, because they don’t have a plan. We do have a plan. We’re proud of our plan. We want to share that plan with the people of Ontario. We want more and more people to understand that this is about ensuring that we have a clean air future.

It’s about understanding that we have a future with all kinds of new jobs and exciting new clean energy industries. It’s about families and businesses knowing that they can have the security that comes from knowing that we’re going to have, for the next 20 years, a reliable supply of electricity. All we need to enjoy our lives and all we need to grow our businesses on top of that is clean energy, and we’re creating jobs. That’s the plan that we have, and that’s why we’re communicating it to Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government says that they’re helping people save, but the people who run the system are saying anything but that. EnWin in Windsor, like many other utilities, is delaying their smart meter implementation because they’re still scrambling to make it work. The manager of customer service at EnWin says that when, or if, the system is in place, customers will have to work “really hard” to stop bills from climbing. Does the Premier really think anyone believes his Liberals are going to help with the family budget?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague should know that we’ve been making tremendous efforts to help families with the budget, in addition to the fact that there’s going to be a clean energy benefit which will be effective as of January 1 this coming year. It’s a 10% reduction in electricity bills for the course of the next five years.

I also note that during the past couple of months, 220,000 Ontario students have been receiving $150 cheques for their textbook and technology grants. I also note that this December, hundreds of thousands of Ontario families will receive the HST transition cheque. That’s $335 per family and $100 per individual. I think those are very welcome supports at a trying time for our families and our students, and we look forward to finding more ways to help our families acknowledge their challenges.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: While Liberal MPPs stand in the rain offering false promises of relief, people struggling with their bills can see the facts very clearly. Local utilities like EnWin are saying it will be “really hard” to save money with a smart meter, and even harder as expensive nuclear deals and the HST drive prices up.

Why would Ontario families have any faith whatsoever that the Premier’s latest plan will save them any money?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m a little bit confused by my honourable colleague’s approach, because for months on end she stood in this very Legislature and asked that we reduce electricity bills by 8%. We’ve done more than that: We’re reducing them by 10%. Again, that is just one small part of a very comprehensive, thoughtful, responsible, honest long-term energy plan for the people of Ontario.

Again, I say to my honourable colleagues opposite that we have a plan. It’s out there for Ontarians to see. They can kick the tires. We’re going to keep talking to them about it. I ask them now, on behalf of the people of Ontario, to put forward their plan. They remain part and parcel in a plan-free zone. We’ve never seen anything like this before. We put forward a 20-year plan; they’ve put forward nothing. I ask them, on behalf of Ontarians, to put forward that plan and let’s take a good, long look at it.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. The government continues to say that it’s got an energy plan, but already it’s been torn to shreds. Here’s what people are saying about the so-called plan. Carole Barry from Terrace Bay writes, “Because of the high hydro and because I live on very low income, I have made the decision next year to walk away from my home … this 46% increase coming is very scary.”

Now, given the Premier’s failed seven-year record, why would people like Ms. Barry have any faith whatsoever that the Premier’s latest plan is going to help them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I would encourage my honourable colleague to do everything within her power, and I’m sure she would want to do this, to make sure Ontarians are fully informed when it comes to the details of the plan that we’ve put forward. Over the course of the next 20 years, the electricity bill will go up, on an annual basis, on average 3.5%. During the course of the past 20 years, it went up, on average, annually 3.6%. I want families to know as well that electricity went up during the last 20 years 3.6%, natural gas 4.7%, cable TV 5% and fuel oil 5.2%.

The average resale price of a home has more than doubled. I want Ontarians to know that in the natural order of things it is not unusual for prices to go up. We’re ensuring that during the next 20 years it will in fact go up at a lower rate when it comes to electricity costs than it did during the past 20 years.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Irene Mielnik from Windsor has her own thoughts about this government’s so-called energy plan. She writes, “I’m not in favour of a temporary fix that you call a rebate … there is also something desperately wrong with the smart meters being installed and the complaints from residents whose bills have skyrocketed.” Why should Ms. Mielnik and people like her believe that the Liberals’ latest attempt to spin their energy plan has any truth whatsoever?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, 3.5% on average during the course of the next 20 years, and we’ve put out a plan. It’s comprehensive, it’s responsible, it’s thoughtful and it speaks to our future. We want clean air. We want reliability when it comes to our electricity supply and want to make sure that we create more jobs. That’s our plan. We’ve got a plan that’s out. Again, they don’t have a plan out.

These new jobs are an important dimension to our plan. When I was in Hamilton just a couple weeks ago at JNE Consulting, we announced 300 new jobs in the production of clean energy technologies. I wish at some point in time my honourable colleague would stand up and speak on behalf of those families that are going to benefit from those jobs. I think I know what they’d say. They’d say, “Thank you for thinking of our future.

Thank you for not just putting before us a proposal for clean air and reliable supply, but, be it in my capacity now as a mum or a dad, to go home and look my kids in the eye and say, ‘We’re going to make it because there’s a new job for me. It’s going to support our household. We’ve got a bright future.’” I wish she’d say that.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The government has slapped an HST on people’s hydro bills, said people are just going to have to pay more and then they scrambled. They scrambled to reverse themselves when their poll numbers started to plummet. People see through it.

John Akermanis from Aurora writes this: “The 10% rebate is a joke and likely has more to do with an election”—unparliamentary word, and I won’t use it; it starts with a B—“than anything else.”

Why should people like Mr. Akermanis believe the government’s latest tale when they have completely ignored those people for so many years—seven long years, in fact?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague, for months on end, stood up in this Legislature and asked, I think with all sincerity, that we reduce electricity bills by 8%. We have, in fact, reduced them by 10%. She now chooses to call that a ploy. What was it on her part when she was asking us to cut them by 8%? If we believe her sincerity when it comes to 8%, then she should trust our sincerity when it comes to 10%.

At the end of the day, it’s about ensuring that families have the capacity to manage this transition as we move into a clean energy future. The fact of the matter is that governments of all stripes have failed to rise to the occasion when it comes to ensuring that we have a reliable supply of clean electricity. That’s what we’ve done. That’s what our plan is all about. That’s what we’re going to continue to move forward with.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John O’Toole: My question is to the Minister of Energy.

Interjection: He’s not here.

Mr. John O’Toole: The other Minister of Energy.

Interjections.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I guess my question is to the Premier. Yesterday, in question period, Premier, you told members of this assembly that a constituent of mine, Wayne Wilson, a farmer from Uxbridge, was a supporter of your expensive energy experiment.

What does Wayne Wilson of Uxbridge have to say? Here is a quote: “In my opinion the government has not been truthful.” He goes on to say that your expensive energy experiment and taxes doubled his hydro bill while letting you say the kilowatt-per-hour rate has not risen. He calls this “creative accounting.”

Why did you tell Ontario families that Wayne Wilson supports your expensive energy experiment when, in fact, Wayne Wilson doesn’t support your experiment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We do know that there are some 10,000 Ontario farmers who are participating in our plan to generate—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity to thank Mr. Wilson, who is a crop farmer in Uxbridge. He grows corn and soy. He was one of the first in the Uxbridge area to install solar panels on the roof of one of his—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, I’m not stopping the clock.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to thank Mr. Wilson; he’s a crop farmer in Uxbridge. He grows corn and soy. He was one of the first in the Uxbridge area to install solar panels on the roof of one of his barns. He has 66 panels, generating 10 kilowatts of clean electricity. He has been feeding his power into the grid since August, and we’re very grateful for his efforts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: Premier, I know that we have excellent farmers in Durham—some of them are here today, in fact—but you try to confuse the families of Ontario, including misrepresenting some of the views on this expensive energy experiment.

Page 2 of your Sussex Strategy campaign says it is critical to confuse the public and the media away from the price and to attribute it to farm income. You were wrong to tell Ontario families that Wayne Wilson supports your energy experiment when, in fact, he doesn’t.

Why is Premier McGuinty not simply telling the people of Ontario the truth?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just ask the honourable member to withdraw that last comment, please.

Mr. John O’Toole: Would the Premier—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, I’ve asked you to withdraw.

Mr. John O’Toole: I withdraw the part about the truth.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to repeat the facts because I think they’re pretty important here. Mr. Wilson is a crop farmer in Uxbridge. He grows corn and soy. He’s one of the first in the Uxbridge area to install solar panels on the roof of one of his barns. He has 66 panels generating 10 kilowatts of clean electricity. He’s been feeding his power into the grid since August, and we’re grateful for his participation in this program.

But you should know that he’s one of 10,000 Ontario farmers who have signed on to participate in our clean energy program. This is great news for families because it’s helping to make the Ontario farm, especially the small Ontario farm, more viable, which means Ontario families will continue to have access to good-quality, homegrown Ontario foods. It’s good for farmers, and it’s good for families.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have a question for the Premier. Today, the Environmental Commissioner raises questions about the McGuinty government’s non-performance on energy conservation. The Environmental Commissioner says the McGuinty government won’t achieve even its modest 2010 targets for conservation. The Ontario Clean Air Alliance reports that this government spends $60 on new electricity supply for every $1 it spends on energy conservation, and the government has only pursued two thirds of the conservation measures deemed cost-effective by the Ontario Power Authority.

The question: Why does the McGuinty government put expensive new gas and nuclear plants ahead of cost-effective energy conservation and energy efficiency?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. John Wilkinson: My question is, when we conserved 1,700 megawatts of electricity in the province of Ontario, why didn’t the NDP support us? I think that is something that we can all be proud of because if we can not use the electricity in the first place, then we don’t have to get into expensive new generation. That’s why the people of Ontario are supporting our plan.

We want to thank the Environmental Commissioner for his good work and his report. He is respected by all sides of the House.

There’s always more work to be done, but it is important to remember that conservation is at the heart of our long-term energy plan. On this side of the House, we have a plan, including a plan for conservation. We’re going to build on the 1,700 megawatts that we’ve already conserved. That’s why we’re moving forward with our ambitious goals. The only way to get out of dirty coal in this province is to conserve and use green energy. That’s what we’re focused on on this side of the House, and we want to thank the Environmental Commissioner for his—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Conservation is exactly what the Environmental Commissioner says you’re not achieving.

His report was written before the government released its so-called long-term energy plan, and that’s too bad because he would have raised concern about the great McGuinty slowdown on energy conservation, going from a goal of 6,000 megawatts of conservation by 2020 to less than a quarter of that between 2020 and 2030. Why? Because that’s when expensive new nuclear reactors are expected to come online: in 2020.

The question again: Why does the McGuinty government continue to invest all kinds of money in expensive nuclear reactors and gas plants while you continue to ignore thoughtful energy efficiency—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: I think a little history lesson is important. When the NDP were in power, they cancelled all the conservation programs in the province of Ontario. We’ve had to bring them back.

Why is it that the Canadian Energy Efficiency Alliance gave Ontario an A+ for conservation last year, up from a C- just six years ago?

Our home energy savings program has helped 250,000 homeowners make their homes more energy efficient through savings and retrofits. That’s like taking some 83,000 cars off the road. Our conservation of some 1,700 megawatts is the amount of power used by 500,000 homes in the province of Ontario. That is making a measurable difference.

Is there more to do? Absolutely. That’s why on this side of the House, where we have a long-term energy plan compared to the NDP, the “no darned plan” party over there that doesn’t have an energy plan, we’ve made conservation an important keystone of that plan, and we’re—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Since the province recently announced its intention to repeal the Social Housing Reform Act of 2001 and replace it with a new piece of legislation, residents in our western Mississauga communities of Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar have asked if there is new money being announced through the measures proposed in the bill. Minister, our patterns of poverty in big cities like Mississauga and Brampton are different from Metro Toronto. Please outline what this proposed legislation will do for those in the 905 belt who face very urgent housing needs.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank the member for the question. This legislation, if passed, is about fixing an outdated, inefficient housing system and building on existing resources. It’s about putting people first, finally. It’s about giving municipalities and service managers the flexibility to do what they need to do in order to serve the people we all serve. It’s about being creative, allowing that creativity to take place so that we can maximize the effectiveness and the efficiency of the $2.5 billion we’ve invested since 2003.

It’s about ensuring that the ongoing $430 million we invest in social housing is invested in the wisest possible way. It is allowing those service providers to make those critical decisions that will affect the local people, the people we are mandated to serve.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Like the member for Mississauga–Streetsville, I too have heard many constituents in my riding of Mississauga–Brampton South who have expressed some concerns with regard to the social housing and the amount of funding being provided by our government.

My question is also to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Minister, having listened to your response, I think there is a lot there that our 905 colleagues can bring back to constituents in our growth-driven ridings. You discussed provincial money being invested both currently and in the past. Can you please outline what these investments are achieving in Mississauga and how this proposed new legislation will enhance the value of those investments?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I want to thank that member for the question as well. She certainly has a passion for serving her constituents in a very, very real way.

In Peel, the members on this side of the House have helped secure investments that have resulted in—and this is really remarkable—more than 1,200 newly built units, more than 12,300 units repaired, roughly 950 rent supplements and allowances, and more than 780 evictions prevented. This new legislation is ensuring that the monies that we put in annually, the $430 million, are used most effectively. We want to ensure, as we move forward, if this legislation is passed, that service managers at the local level, which can meet the local needs best, are given that authority.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, last Thursday I asked the Premier about his wage freeze plan that has gone badly off the rails. After question period, media asked the finance minister where the money will come from to pay all of the unplanned wage hikes. He said, “The deficit is so far this year already below what we projected,” suggesting you will spend the billion dollars you didn’t expect to have when you made your projections. But you already spent the billion dollars to pay down debt. How many times does McGuinty math let you spend the same dollar?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I refer the member opposite to the quarterly report from the Ministry of Finance, which will be audited by the Provincial Auditor. I remind him about the Fiscal Transparency and Accountability Act, which this government put in place because that member and his party left a hidden $5-billion deficit. What they did in those days was they used plug numbers in their budget to try to pretend they had it balanced.

We have worked hard to bring down the average wage settlement, working with our partners in the broader public sector on both sides, labour and management. We reject their approach. We do not believe it is in anyone’s interest to force strikes, lockouts or more bad blood, especially as this fragile economy recovers. We will continue to work with our partners in the broader public sector for the best interests of all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Minister of Finance: Last week, as acting energy minister, you spent a billion dollars for your so-called hydro credit. Your runaway spending habit is so bad, you want to spend the same dollar a third time in a bid to save face on a wage restraint plan that has gone badly off the rails. So you used the billion dollars to pay the wage increase, you used the billion dollars to reduce the debt and you used the same billion dollars to give the hydro credit. You spent $1 billion in found money three times. No wonder Premier McGuinty is being called Canada’s worst economic manager.

What makes you think Ontario families have a never-ending ability to pay more for runaway spending on all of Premier McGuinty’s expensive experiments?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I think Ontario families are looking at the results in education; we have higher graduation rates. I think they’re looking at health care—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Ontarians have access to a doctor. We have shortened wait times. We have worked hard to get ourselves through the worst downturn since the Great Depression. We’ve recovered 75% of the jobs that were lost. General Motors, just today, had another good announcement: Not only are they bringing back the last folks who were laid off—and those are real Ontario families—they’re hiring additional workers.

Ontarians care about results, not your cheap rhetoric; not your confusing of facts. They want better health care, better education and more jobs. They know they’ll get that from us, not from you, and they need to see one thing—

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

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Attorney General. Nortel disabled retirees have been attempting to get the transcripts promised by a judge for the latest CCAA proceedings that dealt with health and welfare trust. Attorney General staff agreed to provide these documents and transcripts, but there’s been a delay of six weeks. The request was made on October 13. Why has this minister not ensured that these transcripts were provided in a timely manner?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I’m not familiar with the time it will take to prepare the transcripts. Most of the time when you order transcripts, you depend on those who actually were in court, heard the evidence, needed to transcribe the evidence, got it checked, then got it approved by the presiding judge before it gets distributed.

We’ll look into this and find out where it is, but the Attorney General does not have final say on the preparation of court transcripts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: These are disabled workers who have no money and are losing everything as they face today’s deadline for the appeal for the court decision—today’s deadline. They need these transcripts today; they needed them six weeks ago when they started asking for them.

Our staff contacted the ministry to ask for help, but received absolutely no co-operation for these desperate—and soon, destitute—disabled workers. Will the Attorney General finally support these disabled workers and provide these badly needed transcripts today?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I appreciate the member’s passion and I appreciate the question he is asking.

First of all, CCAA protection issues are federal government issues. That’s number one. Secondly, the Nortel issue: Our government has stood with Nortel pensioners and supported them to a great extent. Third, in his first question, the member said that the ministry was already working to provide the transcripts and to assist with the transcripts, but they would take weeks. Fourth, I don’t control the preparation of transcripts. Those are independent people for the most part. They type, they prepare, they transcribe, and then they get them approved by the presiding judge. That’s not me.

So my friend’s passion is misplaced. We’ll do what we can to assist, but his passion is simply misplaced.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Reza Moridi: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. On November 24, the member from Thornhill asked the minister a question and made statements about the chief of staff of York Central Hospital. The information presented wasn’t accurate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that was directed at another member.

Mr. Reza Moridi: I withdraw.

As a member of this House and as someone who represents a neighbouring riding, I am very concerned about misinformation being spread in this House about someone who is doing important and good work in my community.

Can the minister please address this issue and correct the record about the chief of staff of York Central Hospital?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I, too, was appalled by the cynicism and the disparaging nature of the question from the member from Thornhill. Sadly, though, it was just another in a long list of examples of the drive-by smear campaign that seems to be now commonplace for the party opposite.

I believe that the member from Thornhill owes it to his constituents who are served by York Central Hospital to, at the very minimum, get his facts straight before he attacks the health care professionals there. The member’s assertions related to what he called a salary bonus for the hospital’s chief of staff. It is simply wrong. It was not a salary bonus; it was, in fact, a pay-for-performance award.

I would urge the member opposite to actually understand how hospitals work in this province. They understand the value of a pay-for-performance award—

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

Mr. Reza Moridi: Thank you, Minister, for helping to clarify the issue that was raised in the House by the member from Thornhill.

It seems to me that York Central Hospital had an established pay-for-performance policy in place well before the passage of the Excellent Care for All Act, which targets a blend of Ministry of Health, LHIN and hospital priorities. I am proud of the leadership demonstrated by the hospital administration and medical staff, and I am also proud of the care that York Central Hospital provides to the growing population in my riding.

Can the minister please speak to the improvements in care that York Region residents now have access to?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Just last week I had the wonderful honour of visiting York Central Hospital with many members of my caucus. It truly was a wonderful event. I was there to announce $12 million in PCOP, post-construction operating, funding. This is funding that we provide to hospitals that have had a tremendous expansion, like York Central Hospital.

While I was there, I heard about the improvements to front-line health care. Indeed, I met a young mother who had spent two months in a coma from H1N1 who had recovered and was healthy again thanks to the front-line care she received at York Central Hospital.

Health care is getting better in the 905. We’re making the investments to keep on making it better. We’ve made a lot of progress, but we’ve got plans to do a lot more.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The members will please come to order. New question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Randy Hillier: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, my constituents have been contacting me about police making traffic stops and laying charges based on a vehicle insurance database. A year ago, the member for Newmarket–Aurora asked you to investigate such a database, and you told the House that the database wasn’t ready yet and that you wanted to spend more time to develop it and “get it right.”

Minister, it’s over a year later. Please tell us in the House, have you gotten it right yet?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: If there’s a specific case that the member would like me to look into, I can do that, but I assume what he’s referencing is our work with the Insurance Bureau of Canada to make sure that insurance records are combined and that we can accurately assess, when people go to have their licence plates renewed, whether they have valid insurance or not. That work has been under way and we are ready to do that when people go to get their licences renewed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Randy Hillier: Well, I’ll have to inform the minister: While you’ve been taking your time getting it right, someone else has indeed done it. The Insurance Bureau of Canada and various police services, including the OPP, confirm that a private company, CGI, is providing the Insurance Bureau data to municipal and provincial police forces. The database, however, is inaccurate, out of date and the data corrupted, and it was never intended to be used for enforcement purposes.

There have been numerous mistakes made by the police in its use, including impounding vehicles and false charges of driving without insurance. CGI is aware of these failings but has not stopped its use. Your inaction and incompetence has outfitted our police with faulty tools and they’re charging people who have done nothing wrong.

Minister, are you asleep at the wheel? And how did you manage to miss what was going on in your own portfolio?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We are wide awake and we are on this project. We are the first government that has worked to actually combine the databases to make it possible, when people go in to get their driver’s licences and their val tags renewed, that we can actually make a validation of whether the driver has valid insurance or not. Up until now, that data has not even been available. We’re not going to take any lessons from the party opposite on how to ensure that people have valid insurance.

We’ve been working with Insurance Bureau of Canada. MTO officials are working with the police service. There’s a lot of data, obviously, to combine. We’ve been doing that, and people can rest assured that when they go in to have their val tag renewed, their insurance can be validated.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Why didn’t the government act on numerous complaints and tips they received between 2005 and 2007 about financial improprieties at the Niagara Parks Commission?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. I really appreciate the opportunity to talk about NPC, the Niagara Parks Commission.

Our government is taking action. We are moving forward to restore public confidence, to bring greater accountability and to bring greater transparency. We are having a close look at practices at NPC, everything from travel and meals to hospitality expenses for senior management. As we move forward, I have full confidence in Chair Fay Booker to take all the necessary actions to strengthen this important government agency. She understands that we need to drive change so that the agency operates in a manner that is accountable and transparent to all Ontarians.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question was, why was the government missing in action from 2005 to 2007? With every passing day, Ontario families learn more of scandals at the Niagara Parks Commission. First it was sole-source deals. Then it was expensive Vegas vacations. Now we’re learning that the government and the former Minister of Tourism had information about improprieties but didn’t act on them for four years.

Why did this government ignore the voices of concern and sit by while the Niagara Parks Commission unravelled at the seams?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. We are moving ahead. These changes are far-reaching. We are looking at everything from procurement of governance. We are looking at everything from travel and meals to hospitality expenses for senior management. Our actions will move the commission forward to bring greater accountability, to bring greater transparency.

I have, one more time, full confidence in the new chair, Fay Booker, a chair that is knowledgeable and experienced, and someone who is determined to strengthen the commission and to make it transparent and accountable to all Ontarians.

EMPLOYMENT SUPPORTS

Mr. Jim Brownell: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. Literacy is a basic skill I know we all feel is essential for any individual to master in order to become a confident and productive member of society. In fact, literacy remains a key skill that Ontarians need to compete for jobs in today’s economy.

Minister, what commitment has this government made to the investment of literacy education in this province?

Hon. John Milloy: Obviously, literacy is a key part of our educational agenda over here. I’m very pleased that this year, the literacy and basic skills program, including academic upgrading, helped over 61,000 learners, with 72% of exiting learners going on to further education and employment.

There is a concern, though. Due to the federal stimulus funding which came to the province of Ontario, this past year we were able to provide service to an extra 13,000 individuals. Unfortunately, this stimulus funding is coming to an end at the end of March. This government, and I call on all members of the Legislature, is calling on the federal government to continue this funding and to recognize that the effects of the recession are not going to somehow magically end on March 31 of next year. We’ve been—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Brownell: As I understand it, the stimulus funding from the federal government not only affects literacy funding but a whole range of other programs. I am deeply concerned for students in this province, and certainly in my riding, who have trouble finding work, which, as we know, helps them to pay for their schooling and living expenses during the academic—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just remind the honourable members who are offering interjections in the chamber today that if they’re so engaged in some of these issues, perhaps during their morning question period pitches they should be pitching for these questions so that they can directly ask these questions.

Please continue.

Mr. Jim Brownell: According to Statistics—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable members on all sides within the House—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I don’t need help from the member from Sault Ste. Marie, I believe that was.

Please continue.

Mr. Jim Brownell: According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate of full-time Canadian students between the ages of 15 and 24 was reported in 2009 to be over 18%.

Minister, what are you doing to help students find employment?

Hon. John Milloy: Again, I’ve been very proud that this year we invested over $90 million to help 107,000 young people benefit from summer employment opportunities. But once again, due to the partnership with the federal government—part of this funding came from federal stimulus funding, which they are threatening to end at the end of March. In fact, if they do pull it, it could jeopardize 37,000 young workers who would not be able to benefit from our summer employment program.

Once again, we appreciate the support of the federal government over the last two years, but I think it’s incumbent upon every member of this Legislature to send a very strong signal to Ottawa to say that the effects of the recession in Ontario are not going to end on March 31 of next year and we urge them to continue support for Ontario workers and for Ontario young people.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. During the minister’s recent visit to Durham region and in her answer to my question on October 20, she maintains that she did not breach the agreement entered into between the McGuinty government and the federal government with respect to Highway 407. The Flow agreement dictates that Highway 407 must be completed to Highway 35/115 by 2013, yet the minister has now admitted this might not happen for more than a decade. She blamed the economy, saying, “Infrastructure was our priority before the downturn hit.”

Minister, you had the money to take out a billion-dollar energy loan. You had a billion dollars to squander on the eHealth scandal. The federal government has been able to hold up their end of the Flow agreement. Why won’t you?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to welcome the folks from Durham region here today. I know that this road is very important to people who live in Durham. I know it’s very important to people who live in Kawartha and Peterborough, which is why we are going to build the 407 to 35/115. That’s what we’re going to do. The environmental assessment has been done. The road will be built in stages, as I said to the folks in Durham. There will be 13,000 jobs created as we build this highway. The shovels will go in the ground in 2012. The road will be built in stages, as the first 407 was built in stages.

I think, given the economic downturn, this is a very good-news announcement. The fact that we’re going ahead with the 407—I’ve driven the road. We’re building the busiest

section first, and we’re going to be working with the mayors to look at the traffic flow issue—

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: It has come to our attention that landowners east of Oshawa’s Simcoe Street are having their properties expropriated. If the McGuinty government is not able to finish the 407 extension to Highway 35/115 right now, then why is the land being expropriated, and why are residents being told that they have to be out of their properties by this spring?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: You actually can’t have it both ways: Either we are going to build to 35/115 or we’re not. The fact that we are working on land acquisition means—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just like to remind the members that the Speaker is hosting the pages for lunch today, and they’re very hungry.

Minister?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: In order to build a road, you actually need land and you need a plan. We are in the process of executing that plan, so we do have to acquire land.

But one of the things I have to say, as the Minister of Transportation, that I think about consistently on this file, is, what if we had retained possession of the 407? What if the 407 had not been sold off in a fire sale? What if we had been able to work on the 407 as a provincial asset all these years? The party opposite sold out the 407 in a fire sale. We’re going to build it to 35/115.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. In 2008, you promised your bill would allow part-time college workers the right to bargain collectively. It is almost 2011, and those workers are still not allowed to do so because the colleges are circumventing the rules. You’re happy to let this charade continue while thousands of votes remain in sealed ballot boxes. Where is your plan to make colleges respect your bill?

Hon. John Milloy: I was very proud when this Legislature passed legislation which allows the unionization of part-time college workers. The matter that the member is raising is, right now, as he knows, before the Ontario Labour Relations Board. I would also think that he would know, as a former minister, that it’s inappropriate for myself or the Minister of Labour, or any other minister, to comment on a matter that’s before the board. We will allow the parties to work it out with the assistance of the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and leave it to that body, where it should rest, and not here in the Legislature.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We’re allowing them to work it out and it’s two long years, so long that the International Labour Organization has also taken notice of this—again—with respect to the minister’s reluctance to help workers. Recently, the ILO took this very minister to task by stating that they regret that the government provides no observations on the complainant’s allegation that mediation and costly litigation at the OLRB can take months, if not years.

It’s no wonder colleges resort to these stalling tactics; they’re broke. They’re frightened because Ontario gives less money to its colleges per full-time equivalent than PEI does. But it’s not the fault of workers that colleges are underfunded. When will you allow these workers to organize so that your bill can pass in a way of which you are proud? When are you going to make it happen?

Hon. John Milloy: I find it passing strange to have a member of a party which cut funding to our institutions, which cut student aid and which made post-secondary education the bottom of their priority list stand up and talk about funding to our colleges and universities. I am very, very proud of this government’s record when it comes to post-secondary education and the significant investments that have been made, and also the changes that we’ve made to labour legislation around part-time college workers.

There is a process before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, and I think that member should respect the fact that the purpose of the board, which was established by this Legislature, is to deal with disputes such as the one that he is referring to and not play cheap politics by raising it here, when he knows that no minister can comment on a proceeding that is in front of the board.

DEFERRED VOTES

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote 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.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1137 to 1142.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour of Mr. Hudak’s amendment will rise one at a time to be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Bailey, Robert

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

DiNovo, Cheri

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Gélinas, France

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hillier, Randy

Hudak, Tim

Jones, Sylvia

MacLeod, Lisa

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

O’Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Prue, Michael

Savoline, Joyce

Shurman, Peter

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Yakabuski, John

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Those opposed?

Nays

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arthurs, Wayne

Balkissoon, Bas

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Brownell, Jim

Cansfield, Donna H.

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Colle, Mike

Delaney, Bob

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hoy, Pat

Jaczek, Helena

Jeffrey, Linda

Johnson, Rick

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

Levac, Dave

Mangat, Amrit

Matthews, Deborah

Mauro, Bill

McMeekin, Ted

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Moridi, Reza

Murray, Glen R.

Orazietti, David

Phillips, Gerry

Qaadri, Shafiq

Ramal, Khalil

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Smith, Monique

Sorbara, Greg

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Zimmer, David

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 28; the nays are 52.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the amendment lost.

Amendment negatived.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There being no further deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1145 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome guests here today seated in the Speaker’s gallery for the Robert Macaulay tribute. Welcome to Hugh Macaulay, his brother; Paul Bordonaro; and welcome back to the Legislature to Clare Westcott. It’s a pleasure to have you back, sir.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EGG FARMERS OF ONTARIO

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I’m happy to rise today to thank the Egg Farmers of Ontario for coming to Queen’s Park this morning to provide members with a great omelette breakfast and to let them know what is going on in their industry. This is the 13th annual egg farmers’ breakfast at Queen’s Park, and the turnout was great, as usual.

Recently, the egg farmers began a campaign to promote awareness of our made-in-Ontario eggs and to highlight some of the great people involved in egg farming in the province. I know how hard our farmers work, and it’s great that, through this campaign, people across Ontario will get to hear their stories. I want to commend them on a job well done. I also want to congratulate them on their continued commitment to research and innovation as well as food safety and quality.

The Egg Farmers of Ontario are a great example of an industry that has taken steps to ensure a perfect balance is struck between the quality, availability and safety of their product. Eggs are a great choice for a healthy, active lifestyle. They are low in calories, high in protein and contain all nine essential amino acids.

But eggs are not only an important part of our diets; they are also an important part of our agricultural and provincial economy. That’s why Tim Hudak and the PC caucus are proud to support our chicken farmers and supply management or—a better name—orderly marketing.

On behalf of the PC caucus, I want to thank the Egg Farmers of Ontario for coming here today, and I want to encourage everyone to talk to an egg farmer today and to watch for the campaign to hear more of their stories.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Peter Kormos: There’s a scam, one amongst many, that’s travelling the province and North America right now. It’s the Yellow Pages scam.

A fraudulent company called yellowpages-ontario.com is sending out fake invoices to businesses. The businesses, relying upon them as being the invoice for their Yellow Pages listing out of Montreal, are paying the invoice and then getting the traditional zero, nada, nothing—getting ripped off.

A small business operator down on 7th Street in Welland, a business that I know well, received an invoice. This is a small business, family-run and -operated. They got scammed by yellowpages-ontario.com. They came to our office, my constituency office, and we were proud to help them, only to learn that consumer protection here in Ontario does not extend to small businesses.

The ministry, in one email, said, “The Consumer Protection Act, 2002, does not apply to business-to-business transactions, so regrettably the ministry cannot assist in resolving the dispute.” When is a small business not a consumer?

This Liberal government talks a big game, but when it comes down to really helping small businesses in this province, it does zip. It turns its back on them. To suggest that somehow this small business person’s business is not a consumer when it’s getting ripped off by fraud artists like yellowpages-ontario.com is absurd, stupid and nuts.

I say it’s time for the minister to step up to the plate, do the right thing, get involved and protect people and victims like this small business.

ORLÉANS PEOPLE’S CHOICE

BUSINESS AWARDS

Mr. Phil McNeely: On November 18, members of the Orléans Chamber of Commerce gathered at the Camelot golf club for the 12th annual Orléans People’s Choice Business Awards.

Small businesses are the backbone of Ontario’s economy. This is especially true in Orléans, where small businesses employ thousands of local residents, businesses such as Cheddar Et Cetera, which was named retail business of the year, and Boston Pizza, which received the award for restaurant of the year.

The Orléans People’s Choice Business Awards also recognized the efforts of the men and women behind these successful businesses, people like 29-year-old entrepreneur Cristie Vito, from Stellar Events, who received the young business person of the year award this year; and Dr. Michael Mattinen, who was named business person of the year.

Among the 10 businesses and business owners who were honoured at the awards gala were Jason Pilon and Leam Hamilton, from Pilon Hamilton Real Estate, who received the customer service award, and La Coccinelle daycare, which earned the community support award. Portobello Manor received the award for new business of the year. Cuisine et Passion was named family business of the year. Bryan Castilla received the award for professional of the year. Last but by no means least, Geraldine Dixon from Access Print Imaging was named corporate citizen of the year.

Congratulations to this year’s recipients. I know you will join me in wishing them continued success in the future.

Félicitations aux récipiendaires de cette année, et ensemble souhaitons-leur un succès continu dans leur avenir.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. John O’Toole: Citizens from across Durham region have come to Queen’s Park today to urge Premier McGuinty to be a man of his word and to fulfill his numerous promises to complete the Highway 407 extension east 50 kilometres, right to 35/115.

I’d like to welcome Oshawa mayor John Gray—this is his last day as mayor—along with Corinna Traill, duly elected, as well as Rosemary McConkey, who is one of the lead organizers, Mark Canning, and Jeremy Woodcock. I’d also like to thank the work done in the past by those who are not here: Mayor-elect Adrian Foster, as well as outgoing mayor Jim Abernethy.

By not completing the 407 extension as promised, this government is costing residents jobs and costing businesses tens of millions of dollars in lost revenue. Shameful. The region will lose $433 million, and Durham estimates that by not completing the 407, 3,945 years of employment will be lost; plus, there will be a 10% increase in municipal taxes because of maintenance and work that will be required. How many residents will pay for your HST, eco tax and expensive energy experiments if they don’t have jobs?

The broken promise of the Premier has a real consequence to business. Every day, 1,500 trucks work through the area. This is lost revenue.

The McGuinty government’s failure to keep its promise is troubling and worrying at this time. It will cost us everything and, most of all, it will cost the Premier because he’s a man who will not keep his word.

PINE RIVER BRIDGE

Mr. Bill Mauro: Neebing is a municipality in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan and has some of the most beautiful country and scenery you are going to find anywhere.

With roughly 2,100 residents, Neebing is a relatively small municipality in terms of population, but geographically it’s a very large municipality and, as such, it has a great deal of road and bridge infrastructure to create and maintain with a very limited residential tax base.

That’s why it was a very good day recently when, along with Mayor Steve Harosen, councillors Roger Schott, Bev Mercier, Maureen Schmidt, Dawne Kilgour and other municipal representatives, I took great pleasure in announcing the opening of the Pine River Bridge.

Our government contributed over $400,000 to this $1.2-million project. This is an example of infrastructure that likely could not have been built without the support of other levels of government.

In fact, the bridge was closed for roughly 18 years. The closure forced residents to take much longer commutes, leading to an additional cost for the municipality in terms of snow removal and road maintenance and, more importantly, serious delays in emergency situations, especially for the fire service. All of these problems have now been fixed.

The municipality of Neebing has been very aggressive in addressing their infrastructure needs. The Sturgeon Bay Road, which received $1.4 million from our government, is another good example of their advocacy.

It’s been a great pleasure for me to work with them, and I congratulate them on their foresight in meeting their municipal needs.

CANADIAN HEARING SOCIETY

Mrs. Christine Elliott: On behalf of the PC caucus, it’s my pleasure to welcome the Canadian Hearing Society to the Legislature today.

Since its founding in 1940, the society has become a leading provider of services, products and information that remove barriers to communication, advance hearing health and promote equity for people who are culturally deaf, oral deaf, deafened or hard-of-hearing. They were last here in May to discuss a vitally important issue: the need for visual fire alarms.

Those of us who have met with members of the Canadian Hearing Society know their members work hard day after day to advocate on behalf of their clients, facilitating fair and equal access to all aspects of life, including employment, education, recreation, housing, health care and social services. They are able to do this by offering a wide range of services across the country which support equality and inclusion for the deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing.

These services include audiology, mental health and addiction counselling, employment services, sign-language interpreting and instruction, and many more, because time doesn’t me permit me to list an entire list. But the Canadian Hearing Society continues to break down barriers on behalf of their deaf, deafened and hard-of-hearing clients. I commend and thank them for the important work they do day after day on behalf of our communities.

KENT AGRICULTURAL HALL OF FAME

Mr. Pat Hoy: Recently, eight individuals were inducted into the Kent Agricultural Hall of Fame. The hall of fame recognizes the sacrific