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

September 28, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Sep-28 (PDF)

L048 - Tue 28 Sep 2010 / Mar 28 sep 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 28 September 2010 Mardi 28 septembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

SMART METERS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

SMART METERS

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

SMART METERS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

WORKPLACE SAFETY

RENEWABLE ENERGY

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

HYDRO RATES

WORKPLACE SAFETY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

LABORATORY SERVICES

VISITORS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALMON SPECTACULAR

FISHING DERBY

HUMAN RIGHTS

BIOREM

KAREN GLEDHILL

MINING INDUSTRY

CANADA 55+ GAMES

THUNDER BAY MARATHON

PETERBOROUGH LAKERS

TENNIS TOURNAMENT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ENHANCEMENT OF THE ONTARIO

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

FOR SENIORS AND ONTARIO

FAMILIES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’AMÉLIORATION

DU CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT DE L’ONTARIO

POUR LES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

ET LES IMPÔTS FONCIERS

À L’INTENTION DES PERSONNES ÂGÉES

ET DES FAMILLES DE L’ONTARIO

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ENERGY AND PROPERTY TAX CREDIT

PETITIONS

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

BRITISH HOME CHILDREN

TAXATION

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

KIDNEY DISEASE

TAXATION

COMMUNITY SAFETY

TAXATION

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL

VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TAXATION

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

TAXATION

OPPOSITION DAY

SMART METERS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. John Yakabuski: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to direct your attention to O’Brien and Bosc, second edition, House of Commons Procedure and Practice. On page 530, under the heading “Substantive motions,” it reads: “Substantive motions are independent proposals which are complete in themselves, and are neither incidental to nor dependent upon any proceeding already before the House. As self-contained items of business for consideration and decision, each is used to elicit an opinion or action of the House. They are amendable and must be phrased in such a way as to enable the House to express agreement or disagreement with what is proposed.”

This is the basis of the idea that a motion cannot compel the House or the Legislature to do something that is not within its power.

I would now like to call your attention to the motion put forward by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. The motion calls on the federal government to “fulfill their commitment under the recently expired five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement.” This makes the motion confusing and incorrect in its essence.

In May 2010, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, along with his federal counterpart, extended this very agreement until March 2011. Therefore, the motion is calling upon us to consider a defunct agreement when the agreement is very much still alive, and asks the House to do something that therefore would not be within its power.

I also considered the possibility of amending the motion. However, again, this is changing the very basis of the motion: that the agreement is expired when it is not.

I call your attention to an announcement made by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration on May 5, 2010. I quote from the news release announcing the extension of the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement: “‘Ontario is pleased to sign this one-year extension as we negotiate a successor agreement, so that newcomers to the province can continue to receive the services they need to settle and succeed,’ said Minister Hoskins.” This is proof that the agreement is in existence and, therefore, the motion is out of order, as it would require the House to do something that is not within its power.

I quote standing order 14, which says, “Whenever the Speaker is of the opinion that a motion offered to the House is contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament, the Speaker shall rule it out of order and may quote the rule or authority applicable.” I have quoted for you the rule on substantive motions, and I have shown how this motion breaches that rule. I would therefore ask that you rule this motion out of order at this time.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Government House leader?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Mr. Speaker, obviously this motion is not out of order. What we are requesting through this motion, though it has not actually been read to the House, is that we are calling on the federal government to immediately commence negotiations. The five-year agreement that my friend has referred to has expired. We have a one-year extension, but obviously, in order to move forward and to support our immigrants and new Canadians, we need to have an agreement in place and we need to start the negotiations.

What we are asking through this motion is that the House support our government in its attempted negotiations with the federal government and that we call on the federal government to support us in this and to initiate discussions and negotiations into a new agreement.

What the opposition today is moving is not relevant to this particular motion. This motion is in order. It represents what we hope will be the will of the Legislature to support us in our negotiations with the federal government and to support us in supporting our new Canadians. If the opposition does not feel that it wants to support this motion and support new Canadians in Ontario, that is their decision and they can make that decision in the debate on this motion.

But this motion is actually in support of engaging the federal government, which is actually a live issue at this particular time, as the federal government is not coming to the table to engage in discussions. It is about engaging in discussions for an agreement that will expire, that is expiring, we all know, at the end of March 2011. If we don’t start discussions now, we will have no agreement in 2011-12, which is vitally important to our new Canadians in Ontario.

This is a live issue. This is an important issue for Ontarians, for new Ontarians in particular, and for our government. We hope that the opposition will support us in this motion.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: On a point of order, I’m just asking the Chair: Are we debating something that isn’t yet on the floor? There’s no motion before us.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We’re discussing a point of order. Member from Beaches–East York?

Mr. Michael Prue: Yes, to weigh in on this just a little, the clear wording of what is on the order paper does state, about mid-paragraph, “asks the federal government to fulfill their commitment under the recently expired five-year Canada-Ontario immigration agreement.” It states categorically that it is recently expired. I think that, should the government wish to put this forward, they should amend it prior to it being debated, because it’s very clear from what is being put forward that they are stating it has expired

whereas, in fact, it has been extended. So it is not technically correct, as the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke correctly put.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Government House leader?

Hon. Monique M. Smith: In fact, the five-year agreement has expired. There is in place a one-year interim agreement. What we are proposing and what we are asking for support from the opposition and from this House on is that we immediately commence negotiations of a new agreement. That is what we’re proposing. We have only until March to get this new agreement in place.

This motion is completely in order.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to thank the honourable members. I will take a five-minute recess to consult with the table.

The House recessed from 0909 to 0916.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to thank the member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke for raising the issue, and for the comments by the government House leader, the member from Essex and the member from Beaches–East York.

This certainly presents a question of semantics on which there is clear disagreement, but beyond that it is not for the Speaker to parse the meaning behind the words in a motion, nor for the Speaker to be the arbiter over a difference of opinion. During the arguments made on the point of order, it was clear that both sides of the House can successfully argue the semantics in the motion, but a debate over the precise meaning does not negate the procedural orderliness of the motion. The key to the orderliness of a motion is whether it presents an intelligible question to the House which the House can resolve. In my opinion, the motion as currently worded does so.

However, this is a substantive government motion and it is therefore capable of being amended. It is open to any member to propose an amendment to either delete elements of it or add to it in such a manner as to try and make it more acceptable to a wider number of members. The House therefore possesses the means to resolve the alleged factual irregularity, if it agrees such exists, simply on whether or not it chooses to amend the motion or whether or not it chooses to pass the motion with or without amendment.

I suggest that this would be the procedurally correct manner in dealing with what amounts to a disagreement over the precision of the language in the motion. I find the motion to be in order and will allow the debate to proceed.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Hon.

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

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr. Hoskins has moved government notice of motion number 29. Debate?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I’m pleased to rise in the Legislature today as Ontario’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to speak to this important matter.

For generations, immigrants have chosen Ontario as their new home because of the opportunities they have right here in this province to create a better life for themselves and for their families. Newcomers to Ontario want the same opportunities that we all aspire to: They want meaningful employment, a good education and a high quality of life.

The province of Ontario has always been a place where immigrants can strive to achieve their full potential. Ontario has been fortunate. Many of these immigrants have not only succeeded but have become household names, such as businessman and philanthropist Michael Lee-Chin, filmmaker Deepa Mehta, former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and former cabinet minister, and currently our Fairness Commissioner, Jean Augustine. These remarkable individuals have inspired us and have left an indelible imprint with their valuable contributions.

There are also millions of newcomers who may not be household names but through their hard work have made and continue to make our province vibrant, strong and prosperous. They have made Ontario one of the best places in the world in which to live.

As many of my honourable and esteemed colleagues know, Ontario has always been the destination of choice for new Canadians. Today, our province continues to receive the majority of newcomers who immigrate to Canada. Our province receives approximately 110,000 newcomers each and every year. That is more than the combined total of the next two provinces.

Why is Ontario attractive to so many people from around the world? Why is Ontario attractive to people from Africa, Latin America, Asia, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Europe? It’s because Ontario is renowned for being open, vibrant, peaceful, compassionate and inclusive. That’s important, because now more than ever our province needs to attract the best and the brightest.

As we said in the speech from the throne, immigration is Ontario’s lifeblood. It’s our demographic future. It is fuel for our economic engine. With an aging population and a declining birthrate, Ontario’s future prosperity depends on immigration. Attracting skilled newcomers, helping them to get settled and retaining them here in this province is an economic imperative for Ontario. This is especially important because within the next decade, newcomers will make up 100% of Ontario’s net labour growth.

To ensure that Ontario remains prosperous, we need immigrants for the skills and talents that they bring and for the richness that they add to the fabric of our society. In short, we need a steady stream of highly skilled, highly educated immigrants.

Let me say that Ontarians understand the importance of immigration. I want to refer to a recent poll that was published by Nanos in June of this year, where it asked Ontarians their views on various immigration matters. One of the questions they asked was whether immigration was a key positive feature of Canada as a country. The response of Ontarians was that a full 82% agreed that immigration is a key positive feature of Canada as a country. Furthermore, they were asked if immigration is one of the key tools that Canada has and should use to strengthen the economy.

The response of Ontarians was that a full 70% of them agreed with that statement, that immigration is one of the key tools that Canada can use to strengthen our economy.

All of us in this House must join with our constituents, with the people of Ontario, and commit to helping our newcomers succeed. We can do so today by supporting this resolution. Together, we must call on the federal government to support Ontario’s newcomers and to invest in their success and in their hopes and dreams. We must call on the federal government to recognize that Canada’s success depends on a strong and competitive Ontario. Ottawa can do this by coming to the table and negotiating a comprehensive new immigration agreement with the government of Ontario.

The first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement was signed in 2005 for a five-year term. It expired in March of this year, and at that time my federal counterpart and I signed a one-year extension to allow for the negotiation of a new agreement. Well before the first agreement expired and in the six months since, the McGuinty government has repeatedly called on the federal government to live up to their responsibility to Ontario’s immigrants. We’ve repeatedly asked Ottawa to begin negotiations—simply to begin negotiations on a new agreement because we owe it to our newcomers to help them succeed.

Still, the federal government has not yet set a date for negotiations to begin, and time is running out.

Ottawa’s reluctance to discuss a comprehensive new agreement with Ontario has extremely significant implications for Ontario’s immigrants and Ontario’s economy. To strengthen Ontario’s economy, all Ontarians must be at their best. Better settlement and integration of immigrants would add tens of thousands of skilled workers to Ontario’s labour force and would increase productivity and income by billions of dollars. A new comprehensive immigration agreement with the federal government is therefore vitally important.

A new comprehensive agreement would allow Ontario to become a stronger partner in immigration policy and decision-making. It would be the beginning of a made-in-Ontario solution for services and programs for our newcomers.

Back in 2005, the federal government committed to spending an additional $920 million over five years for settlement and immigration services in Ontario. When that agreement expired in the spring, we assessed the outcomes. On the positive side, the first immigration agreement infused an additional $713 million into Ontario’s settlement and integration sector. New services resulted, such as our Welcome Centres. New partnerships, especially with our municipalities, were created and strengthened.

It is important to note that during that same five-year period, Ontario also spent $775 million on programs and services for our newcomers.

In the area of newcomer integration, the McGuinty government has made significant progress. We have a plan that’s working for Ontario’s newcomers, and the McGuinty government, as one example, led the way in 2006 with the Fair Access to Regulated Professions Act, the first legislation of its kind in Canada. Our government’s groundbreaking legislation is breaking down barriers for internationally trained professionals who want to practise, as they should, in their field of expertise. Since then, other provinces such as Manitoba and Nova Scotia have followed Ontario’s example by implementing similar legislation.

Ontario has also invested in bridge training programs. These programs are proving very successful. Since 2003, we have invested more than $175 million in more than 200 bridge training programs. These programs have helped more than 40,000 newcomers put their skills to work in Ontario in more than 100 different professions.

To give you a couple of examples, 80% of the participants in the construction management bridge training project at George Brown College found jobs within one year of graduation, and through the CARE bridge training program for internationally trained nurses, 90% of participants found a job within only six months of graduation. That translates, for that program alone, into almost 1,000 more nurses caring for Ontarians.

At the University of Waterloo, a bridge training program for internationally trained optometrists has improved the pass rate on their licensing exams from 37% to 87%, and after passing those exams, 100% of the participants are finding jobs as optometrists here in Ontario.

While these are impressive statistics, the successes achieved by the participants in these programs are truly inspiring. I’ll just give a couple of examples. I met recently, a couple of weeks ago, an internationally trained veterinarian from Pakistan, Dr. Chaudhry, who immigrated to the Ottawa area.

He struggled to find a job, submitting applications to Tim Hortons and gas stations, but finally, after several years and a number of attempts, he passed his certification exams in veterinary medicine and, with the help of a bridge training program funded by the government of Ontario through LASI World Skills’ job match network, he found a job. He found a job working as a veterinarian in Ottawa, and he hopes that sometime in the next few years he will be able to open his own veterinary hospital.

Another example: An internationally trained early childhood educator was only able to find employment at a fast food restaurant after she arrived in Ontario, but within a year of starting her bridge training program she is now an Ontario-certified early childhood educator working in Ontario.

Lastly, an internationally trained civil engineer with 20 years’ experience was unemployed. Through our bridge training program, he is now working as a structural engineer and is on the road to completing all of the requirements for licensure with Professional Engineers Ontario.

What’s clear is that the McGuinty government’s plan to help our newcomers is working. We are getting results. Our newcomers are benefiting from these results. But while we are making progress, we also recognize that there is much more to be done, and that is why the Canada-Ontario immigration agreement is so important to our newcomers’ well-being and to their success.

While the first immigration agreement produced highly positive results for Ontario and for Ontario’s newcomers, we must nonetheless remember that other federal-provincial immigration agreements have disproportionately benefited other provinces. For example, in 2009-10, federal government funding for newcomers was approximately 50% more on a per capita basis in Quebec than it was in Ontario. We don’t think that’s fair. It’s not fair to Ontario and it’s certainly not fair to our newcomers.

Ontario has a number of concerns about the current state of funding and settlement services and about decisions the federal government has made in the past several years. For example, the federal government has failed to spend $207 million promised under the first Canada-Ontario immigration agreement. That’s over $200 million that could have been spent on employment training, language training and other settlement services, and when it comes to helping our newcomers succeed we all know that every penny counts.

Ontario cannot afford to look the other way when Ottawa breaks its commitment; we owe it to our newcomers. This agreement, after all, is about serving them, meeting their needs and helping them integrate quickly and effectively into their new home.

But a new agreement is also important to Ontario and all Ontarians, because Ontario’s success depends, in a very real sense, on the contributions that our newcomers make to the province’s economy and to the province’s social fabric. Ontario needs a new comprehensive agreement that allows us to address the needs of our newcomers and the challenges that they face at the local level. We need a new agreement that eliminates duplication, closes gaps and reduces administrative complexity, all things that make it harder to serve our newcomers effectively.

We need a new agreement that allows for language training and settlement services that are accessible to all immigrants, that are flexible, high quality, cohesive and results-based. We need, in short, an agreement that helps us better meet the needs of our newcomers. This is what our settlement agencies, our newcomers advocacy groups and our business organizations are saying to me. I heard this loud and clear just last Friday when I convened a Canada-Ontario immigration agreement, or COIA, summit and heard from more than 50 organizations as to how we can best serve our newcomers and help them succeed in Ontario.

For example, in the area of language training, there may be different rules depending on whether funding comes from the federal government or from the province. For newcomers trying to access these services, these kinds of administrative difficulties are a barrier to access. We believe that immigrants who have recently become citizens, as well as refugee claimants, should be eligible for language training programs. We don’t want to have to turn newcomers away, like the federal government does, if they are Canadian citizens or if they are refugee claimants.

Ottawa has entered into bilateral agreements that better support newcomers in other provinces, namely in Quebec, in Manitoba and in British Columbia. The agreements enjoyed by these provinces give them much more say in decision-making, more say in administering funds and a greater ability to provide comprehensive, effective and impactful programs benefiting their newcomers. In fact, earlier this year the federal government renewed an immigration agreement with British Columbia which affirms that province’s responsibility for the administration of settlement and language training programs.

That is something that Ontario simply does not have, and yet Ottawa has shown little interest in sitting down and negotiating a comprehensive immigration agreement with Ontario, where almost half of the country’s immigrants choose to live.

Furthermore, the federal government recently informed us that it is reducing spending on immigration services by $53 million next year and $59 million years after that. Ottawa’s cuts to immigration spending deeply concern me, especially at a time when Ontario’s immigrants have been disproportionately affected by the economic downturn, more than other groups in Ontario. During the past several years, the federal government has made a number of decisions that greatly concern the government of Ontario.

For years, Ottawa’s backlog in the processing of immigration applications has meant that highly qualified individuals and potential immigrants waited up to six years to get a response to their immigration application. Now, to its credit, the federal government attempted to fix the problem. Its goal was to reduce that backlog of immigration applications. The issue is that the fix created even more problems for Ontario. In 2008, Ottawa set up a list of just 38 occupations which it determined would receive priority consideration and processing.

The new selection system allowed the federal government to reject most applicants on the basis of the federally—not provincially, but federally—determined occupation list. This system is not designed to meet Ontario’s needs. An immigration system that only accepts skilled workers in a limited number of fields cannot possibly meet the needs of Ontario’s complex, diverse and dynamic economy. This does not work for Ontario, because our economy depends on a steady and diverse flow of skilled immigrants.

The right way to reduce this backlog is to invest more resources in the processing of applications, not to close the doors on the federal skilled workers program. The impact of the growing provincial nominee programs in other provinces has also had consequences for Ontario. Although we support the efforts of all provinces to meet their own unique immigration needs and requirements, it cannot come at Ontario’s expense.

Those nominee “landings” through the PNPs come out of the already compromised skilled worker category, reducing even further skilled landings in Ontario and creating competition between provinces for highly skilled immigrants. Competing against ourselves is no way to compete against other global jurisdictions for the best and the brightest.

Of course, the additional work required to attract and process these provincial nominee program applications comes with no funding and no resources from the federal government, and because these individuals get priority federal processing, our skilled backlog continues.

Today, Ontario is experiencing the combined effect of these federal government decisions. Today, less than one half of all newcomers coming to Ontario are in the skilled category, selected on the basis of our labour market needs. Over just the past five years, the number of immigrants admitted to Ontario in the skilled worker category has dropped by 42%. This, as we all know, has a significant and negative impact on the province’s long-term well-being.

This economic argument, this, if you will, business case for diversity is one that Ontario’s employers understand well. In communities like Hamilton and Brampton I’ve had the opportunity to meet with chambers of commerce and boards of trade, and have spoken to them about why immigrants, as they know, are so important to the future of Ontario. In this knowledge-based global economy, they know that we need a labour force that has the education and the skills so that Ontario can lead, so Ontario can innovate and so Ontario can grow its economy and ensure that future generations have the best education and the best health care possible.

Today’s economic reality means that the contributions of Ontario’s talented newcomers will once again be called upon to add strength and vigour to our existing pool of skilled labour. But let’s be clear: Ontario faces a growing shortage of skilled workers. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that this shortage will rise to more than half a million positions by the year 2030; that’s 500,000 positions potentially going unfilled, and skilled newcomers are going to be essential to filling these gaps. So I can say without reservation that immigration and the diverse, highly skilled workforce that will result is an economic imperative for Ontario.

To capitalize on this economic opportunity, to be competitive in today’s global economy, we need to get creative. We cannot allow the challenges of integrating skilled newcomers to stop us from embracing the enormous potential that they bring with them to Ontario. Skilled newcomers bring their own unique brand of international experience and they bring with them contacts and language skills to give Ontario businesses the competitive edge. Ontario’s newcomers are the people who, if we open our doors to them, can open doors for us. After all, almost half of all new arrivals in Canada choose to settle in Ontario.

Two out of three adult newcomers to our province arrive with post-secondary education or training.

The McGuinty government is using the opportunity of negotiating a new comprehensive agreement to press for a new partnership with Ottawa, a partnership that gives us an immigration system that better serves the local needs of our newcomers and, through it, improves Ontario’s economic prospects. At the end of the day, Ontario’s goal is to deal effectively with the significant demographic and economic challenges under way in the province. We all know that the sooner we have an agreement that improves services for immigrants, the better for our immigrants and ultimately the province of Ontario.

Ontario therefore calls on the federal government to commence negotiations immediately on a comprehensive new agreement that provides the funding, the planning and the management necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper. We call on the federal government to meet its obligations, to fulfill its promise under the first COIA agreement and spend the more than $200 million that is still owed to Ontario’s newcomers.

With this resolution today, this House is reiterating our commitment in no uncertain terms to Ontario’s newcomers. We know that Ontario’s success depends to a large degree on their success. We know fundamentally that our diversity is one of our greatest strengths. And we know that under a new partnership, a partnership that works for Ontario and that, most importantly, works for our newcomers, we can better serve our newcomers and help them succeed in Ontario, because when our newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I’m pleased to rise on the motion before the House today. Immigration, as members of the assembly likely know, is an issue very near and dear to my heart, as a grandson of immigrants from what was then Czechoslovakia. If elected Premier, I will be the first Premier in Ontario whose family directly immigrated to Canada from outside of the British Isles. That first is a testament to the amazing culture of opportunity that this province has offered immigrants from across the world, and particularly to those who came in the early to mid-20th century.

Through my grandparents and my own parents, I learned the values that helped to make them successful in their new home, that gave them the courage to leave the old country for a place where they didn’t speak the language, didn’t fully understand the culture, but knew that if they worked hard and played by the rules, they would provide a better life for their children and for their grandchildren. It wasn’t easy. The only settlement programs back then tended to be hard hands and strong backs.

My grandfather worked in construction, he worked on a farm, he worked in the lumber industry, he was one of the labourers who helped to build this province. He eventually then saved up enough money to bring the family across the ocean and set up a small business in Sarnia, Ontario.

But no doubt as we move into the 21st century, challenges faced by new Canadians today are difficult ones. The world is more complex. Rules around getting their credentials recognized and accessing the skilled labour market continue to build, and in spite of a lot of talk from the McGuinty government, these barriers have not come down. Today, newcomers need a variety of training to be full partners in the Ontario economy, to help address our looming skilled labour shortage, and most importantly to help them put their considerable energy, expertise and entrepreneurship fully to work and provide for their families.

That means we need settlement programs that respond to the needs of newcomers and reflect the needs of Ontario communities both.

This motion is asking for more money to be spent in Ontario, but it doesn’t say where, how or in what particular programs. It doesn’t outline how the province will help the federal government to ensure money that is being spent in Ontario will actually produce the intended results. It doesn’t even say what the results should be. This is why I have concerns—as my colleague from Halton said earlier on, a bit of the pot calling the kettle black.

Let’s look at the McGuinty Liberals’ record when it comes to immigration issues. In 2007, then Citizenship and Immigration Minister Mike Colle, the member from Eglinton–Lawrence, was forced to resign during the slushgate scandal, after the Auditor General found $32 million was handed out to Liberal-friendly groups without an “open, transparent and accountable process.” Sadly, when it comes to the McGuinty Liberal government, it’s not what you do, it’s who you knew that counted. This runs absolutely counter to the values of newcomers who came to Ontario, who believed in a level playing field, a fair shake based on their skills, not based on their connections with a particular government.

I don’t think anyone will forget the one particular example where the Ontario Cricket Association asked for a grant of $150,000 and the McGuinty government doled out $1 million in taxpayer funds. This money was handed out to groups who happened to know the minister personally, where they went to the right minister’s fundraiser. In some cases, they didn’t even have to apply for the cash; it was simply handed out.

After months of dithering and delay and stonewalling—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Denying.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —denial, finally Premier McGuinty and then the minister himself acknowledged that the money was often doled out with little or no paperwork whatsoever. The spending controls on the grants, according to the Auditor General, were “the worst that we’ve ever seen.” It’s frightening. It runs counter to the culture of Ontarians. It runs counter to the culture of newcomers who want to call Ontario home to see that kind of cash handed out with no paperwork and no transparency, based on personal connections.

And now the McGuinty government is asking for $207 million more to be spent but doesn’t say when, where or how to spend it.

We want to help the province support programs for new Canadians.

That’s why I would like to propose an amendment, 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 then “promised to Ontario’s newcomers and immediately,” and replacing this with “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” and then “that was not applied for under the existing Canada-Ontario immigration agreement and will aid the province in commencing”—and I have copies of that for the Chair.

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

Hudak has proposed an amendment, by removing “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 replacing it with “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” and “that was not applied for under the existing Canada-Ontario immigration agreement and will aid the province in commencing”—okay.

Further debate?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

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

If this motion passes, I believe it will help the province focus on what it needs for newcomers to best succeed in Ontario and it will help the federal government to also understand the programs it should be looking at providing.

You see, the present agreement with the federal government tripled the amount of money for settlement services in Ontario. As of March 2010, the total spending in Ontario on settlement programs and services since the COIA came into effect in 2005 was $1.25 billion. But while the province of Ontario has seen new money for immigrant services, we have yet to make sure that the money goes where it is most needed or has measurable outcomes.

The Ontario PC caucus believes that accountability should be at the root of all government programs. For example, the provincial nominee program, since May 2007, has only attracted 722 nominees and their families as of March 31, 2010. It attracted 722 nominees in the last three years, yet this government prominently displays that they are targeting 1,000 nominees in 2010 alone, falling well short of their targets.

On OMNI TV in August, the minister said, “We think that program is just right.” I don’t understand why the minister is saying this program is right when they have fallen well short of their targets, and given the past type of slush fund that the McGuinty government has used immigration funds to advance. This is a pattern. Only an out-of-touch government would think that spectacularly failing to meet your objectives is just about right. When we see boondoggles like eHealth, which saw Liberal friends and consultants waste a billion dollars, we see clearly the need for greater accountability.

Eco taxes was a program whose partners didn’t even understand, and the government was forced to suspend it for 90 days because Premier McGuinty rushed it into place—another clear example of the lack of accountability. So it only makes sense that in the desire to create programs that are effective and actually help Ontario newcomers, we must include these types of accountability measures, and we need programs to promote economic opportunities for new Canadians.

New Canadians and newcomers I meet in their own communities and here at Queen’s Park tell me they are eager to have their skills recognized so that they can help unlock the true potential of our great province. They are entrepreneurs who want and deserve to enjoy the prosperity of a stronger Ontario. As Ontario struggles to recover from recession, a new generation of leadership must do more than the last to tap into the education, energy, skills and experience of the people we draw to our province.

When we deliver on our promises of a level playing field and fair opportunities for all to build a better life, new Canadians and all Ontario families will prosper. So I would ask all members of the House to support my amendment to the motion so that settlement programs will respond to the needs of newcomers, reflect the needs of Ontario communities and tap into the great potential of our province. Thank you.

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

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise today to speak to this motion and now, I guess, to the amendment to the motion, and I do so not being the child or grandchild of immigrants and not being someone who can trace their roots to places other than the British Isles or France, but I do so as a person who worked for the immigration department for some 20 years. I worked in Ottawa, Toronto and Vancouver. I worked across the Maritimes and at Toronto International Airport before it was called Pearson International Airport.

I worked helping to bring immigrants, I worked with students, I worked with people who wanted to sponsor their relatives, and for a time, I even worked deporting those bad ones who needed to be sent home. It was all part of the job and understanding about immigration. And what I say today I have said in this House before, and it has never been listened to, not by this government and not by the previous government. If Ontario wants to choose and to work with immigrants and to help them in the best possible way, then Ontario has to do much more than what is being proposed here today.

Section 93 of the British North America Act states that immigration is a dual responsibility. There are only two dual responsibilities: agriculture and immigration. That’s why you see that there is a Minister of Agriculture in this House and in every Legislature across the provinces, and there is a minister responsible for immigration in this House and in every Legislature across Canada, and you have dual counterparts in Ottawa.

But what this House has not seen fit to do, what this motion does not see fit to do, what this government has not done in the past seven years, what successive governments going on before them have not done, is to seize the opportunity to actually help and assist immigrants and do what is needed to be done and what they have the authority in law to do.

It’s all well and good to look at the Immigration Act, and I still have my copies and it’s not substantially changed, although the number may not be the same. But

part VII-General of the Immigration Act states that the federal government must consult with the provinces. They must; they shall. It’s mandatory. Whether we have this motion or the amendment to the motion, those consultations are going to take place in any event. I’m absolutely confident. They’ve done so in the past, they will continue whether or not this motion is passed, and the consultation will be ongoing.

There are also federal-provincial agreements that must be made and that the minister—and I will read the

section of the act: “The minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may enter into an agreement with any province or group of provinces for the purpose of facilitating the formulation, coordination and implementation of immigration policies and programs.”

The minister in Ottawa must do that, and this motion and this minister here in Ontario wants to participate in that.

But everyone is missing the boat. Everyone is missing that what absolutely needs to be done is for Ontario to be a player, to be a leader. In 1978, the government of Quebec, through the British North America Act and the authority given to them, negotiated with the federal government for its own immigration program. Ontario, since 1978, has done none of that—32 lost years. While immigrants continue to come to this province in great numbers, we have done absolutely nothing.

The Canada-Quebec agreement on immigration—as I said, 1978: What this agreement allows the province of Quebec to do—and Ontario has no such authority, nor is it asking for the authority, nor has it ever dreamed of having the authority, nor will the $207 million ever help the immigrants in a way that Quebec does.

This is what Quebec can do: Quebec can select its own foreign nationals. Quebec has immigration visa officers strategically placed throughout the world, in order to choose those immigrants who will best help Quebec. If they need something—as the minister said—if they need doctors, lawyers, dentists, nuclear scientists, labourers, whatever they need, they get to choose them. They get to choose the right mix for Quebec. In Ontario, we never dream of doing that.

The minister can talk about that, but the minister never does anything that will allow Ontario to choose those immigrants who will best prosper in Ontario and those immigrants who will contribute the most to the overall economic benefit of the people of this province. Quebec can do it. Does the minister stand up with a motion asking for permission or a law that says we can do the same thing? No.

What else can Quebec do? Quebec has the authority to make sure that every application for permanent residence is looked at upon its merits and that a selection certificate is filed with the Ministry of Relations with Citizens and Immigration, in a manner determined by the province of Quebec. They have selection criteria. They have their own grid system. If they are looking for people with university educations in a particular field, they can choose them. If they are looking for people with academic credentials, they can choose them. If they are looking for people who are trained in skilled trades, they can choose them.

But what they can do even more is that when they sit down with a perspective immigrant somewhere in the world and that perspective immigrant has skills and abilities, they can assess them on the spot to see whether or not those skills and abilities will be recognized in the province of Quebec. So an immigrant sitting down in Burundi—just to pick one country out of the 200 around the world—will know that, as a carpenter, those skills are wanted and needed in Quebec and that they have the necessary qualifications to be called into the trade.

Or if they’re a dentist or a doctor or a lawyer, they can come to Quebec and they can work.

The visa officer will sit down with them and assess the application—knowing full well that that’s what Quebec does—and tell them, “No, if you come to Canada, and particularly to Quebec, this will not be recognized, but you can take the following courses that we will assist you with,” so that the prospective immigrant knows not that they have to jump through hoops, not that they have to go around corners, not that they have to wait in line; they’ll know precisely what is going to be expected of them before the application is even finalized.

And should they agree they want to come to Quebec, they know when they get to the other end, the Quebec government has all of the programs in place to assist them.

Does Ontario do that? No. Is asking for $207 million going to do that? No. Does anything in this motion or what the minister is trying to do help immigrants in the same way as if they were coming to Quebec? The answer is no. And that is a shame, because as the minister and as everyone keeps saying, 44% of all the immigrants who came to Canada last year came to Ontario. This is the magnet, this is the place and this is the province that chooses not to assist them.

To go on: Quebec has the authority to choose temporary foreign nationals; that is, people who come in for a short period of time to do work, who are not expected to stay in the long term but who are necessary for carrying out the economic activities of that province. Does Ontario have that authority? No. Ontario doesn’t have that authority. Ontario’s not even asking for that authority.

If we did have that authority, we could assist the tens of thousands of people who come here on temporary work visas and could assist them in integrating or applying to remain within the province if it is discovered that their work and skills are necessary. We do not have that authority, nor is the minister asking for it. But the British North America Act and the template of Quebec allow fully for it. Why is the minister not doing that? I’m flabbergasted as to why we talk this whole thing about immigration and then do nothing about it.

What else does Quebec do? Quebec has an entire law for the integration of foreign nationals. It has an integration program, a linguistic integration service, eligibilities, financial assistance, loan guarantees and deferment of loan repayment, all set out in the act. The government of Quebec, when it gets money from the federal government—as it does because it runs its own programs—gets countless dollars more than Ontario is asking for. That’s because the federal government understands that they are not providing that service, that in fact the government of Quebec is providing the service.

But does Ontario want to do that? No. The minister doesn’t put forward that proposal. He doesn’t talk about what can be done. What he asks for is $207 million that the federal government is supposed to hand over willy-nilly to be spent on who knows what.

I listened to the Leader of the Opposition and I listened to this motion. It’s not any wonder that the federal government is sometimes reluctant to hand over money to a province, this province, that has no clear idea of what it wants to do with it. It has authorities, it can set out laws, but all it wants to do is set out motions that ask for money. I am not surprised that there has been some reluctance on the part of succeeding federal governments to give Ontario the money.

I’m not surprised at all, because they have to be accountable to the people of Canada, and they know that if they give the money to Quebec, it is all spelled out in law how that money is spent and Quebec is meticulous in spending it in ways that assist new immigrants and is absolutely meticulous in spending it in ways that bring credit to the province of Quebec.

What else does the Quebec law do? The Quebec law also allows for the minister to make regulations and allows for the government of Quebec to do investigations, inquiries, to give out information, to supply identification documents—provides all of that. It provides for penal provisions if people break the act or the laws, and it regulates consultants. My God, don’t you think this province should be doing that? Have you not heard of the horror stories of people going into unregistered and unregulated immigration consultants and getting bad advice?

I had a man come to my office this past week, a man from India, a man with enormous credentials, a man who was working very hard, a man who came here and claimed refugee status. He had tears in his eyes. He came with his friend, who said, “I don’t know what made him claim refugee status from India.” The man had tears in his eyes. He admitted to me that he had no refugee claim. As a matter of fact, he couldn’t even fathom an Indian, from the world’s largest democracy, having a refugee claim; he couldn’t even fathom it. Yet he went to an immigration consultant who told him to make this bogus claim.

Do you know how much money that costs? Do you know how much money that costs the people of Canada? That costs about $10,000 per claim that is made, with virtually no chance of success. It cost him tens of thousands of dollars, paid to the immigration consultant, to make up a whole fabrication that ultimately was not successful. He came to my office looking for my assistance because he has now found a decent and honourable lawyer, who says, “No, you should never have done that in the first place.

What you should have done is you should have made an application showing economic benefit to Canada.” He is making a huge contribution to a company. They cannot replace him. They are paying him $100,000 a year, as a person who is temporarily here, because he is absolutely skilled in what he does. But he, in all likelihood, is going to have to go back to India to make that application.

I asked him, is he afraid to go back? Of course he’s not afraid to go back. The bogus refugee claim was just something that someone dreamed up, because this province allows it to happen. This province, in not getting into the game, in not providing the advice to someone who is here on a temporary visa, forces them into the hands of unscrupulous immigration consultants. I think we need to regulate them. The only way we can successfully regulate those consultants is by taking

an act into our own hands. But does this motion do that? No, this motion doesn’t do this. This motion perpetuates what has happened in the past: for this province to go to the federal government, whether it’s a Liberal government, a Conservative government, a minority government, a majority government—it doesn’t matter. You go there and you ask for money. But you don’t ask for any particular purpose and you don’t ask for any authority to regulate what needs to be regulated.

I’m saying to this minister, I don’t know why the motion is before us. The federal government and the minister, the Honourable Jason Kenney, have a duty and an obligation, as set out in statute, to consult. He’s going to consult whether this motion is passed in this House or not. He is going to consult with the minister and the ministry officials on the extension or change to the program. What is more important to me, and what is more important to the tens of thousands of immigrants who call Ontario home, is what is going to be negotiated, not that negotiations take place.

And what is more important is Ontario seizing the opportunity to finally do the right thing; Ontario seizing the opportunity to help immigrants; Ontario seizing the opportunity to regulate unscrupulous practices; Ontario seizing the opportunity to do what Quebec has done and to have an immigration act that has some teeth, that has powers and authorities, the rights to choose, the rights to regulate, the rights to punish if people run afoul of it. That’s what Ontario needs, and that’s not what we’re hearing here today. That’s not what we’re hearing at all.

I am profoundly disappointed, every time this subject comes up, when I think about those people who come to Canada, when I think about the five million people who came to this country in the 21 years that I worked for the immigration department—five million people. Go to Pearson International Airport. Go to the border points. Even go to a refugee-bearing ship and see the faces of those people as they get off from wherever they’ve come from. See the hope in their eyes. See the hope they have, not necessarily for themselves but for their children. See what they aspire to in Canada. See how we can help them.

But see how we can help them in a way that does Ontario proud, not how the federal government can shuffle them off, not how the federal government can run years and years and years of backlogs on refugee claims, some of which—and most of which—are obviously not true.

Oh, I see my time—I will continue. This is another one of my bifurcated speeches. I look forward to continuing this on the next occasion.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you very much. It being very close to 10:15, this House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Bruce Crozier: If my lovely wife, Joan, were in the members’ gallery this morning, which she is not, I would want to wish her a very happy birthday.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I share something with the member from Essex. If my wife Karan was in the gallery today—but I know she’s the vice-principal at St. Catherine school in Peterborough. Today is actually her birthday. Just for a historical record, she was born during the Kennedy administration and the last year of the Diefenbaker administration, just to put that into historical perspective.

Hon. Margarett R. Best: Today I want to welcome students and teachers from Cornell Junior Public School in the riding of Scarborough–Guildwood, the second half today.

Mr. Dave Levac: Today in the gallery on this side we have the family of page Caelan Meggs: mother Lisa, father Randy and grandmother Sylvia Meggs. We’re awfully glad that they’re here today to watch the proceedings and to watch their very large-statured son take over the page’s place.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I’m pleased to introduce Keith Pacey, who’s here today from North Bay, a member of our North Bay Regional hospital board. They’re proudly opening their new facility in December and he’s here to watch proceedings. I’d like to welcome Keith.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): In the Speaker’s gallery today, I’d like to welcome my brother Joe Peters, who was out giving blood again today. Good for you.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today Mr. Kuo-Jan Wang, director general of the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office in Toronto, and delegation. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

There being no further introductions, it is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. The Ontario PC caucus has uncovered documents that show that the Dalton McGuinty government was warned that his—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d remind the honourable member of the use of titles. I have allowed the term “McGuinty government,” but I don’t appreciate you using a first name, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: All right. Thank you, Speaker.

The McGuinty government was warned that your smart meters are broken, but the Premier is plunging ahead with his expensive experiment anyway. Premier, 21 energy distributors, including provincially owned Hydro One, said that the rush to make time of use mandatory by June 2012 doesn’t give them time to fix all the problems with the meters, to fix bugs with the software to run them, and the inaccurately high bills they produce as a result.

Premier, 21 red flags were raised; why did you ignore them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleague is a staunch defender of the status quo when it comes to the electricity system as it existed in 2003 but that’s not something that we’re prepared to accept, because that would be irresponsible.

He calls smart meters part of an experiment, but I will remind him that they are in place in BC, Quebec, a number of American states, the United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia and Ireland. In particular, I note that the previous Labour government in the UK committed to smart meters in every home by 2020, but the new Conservative government said, “That’s not fast enough,” so they accelerated the implementation of that very program by three years.

Around the world, people know it’s a smart plan to put smart meters in our homes and businesses.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, 21 red flags were raised by distributors across the province, by your own Hydro One, but you give them the back of your hand. And it gets worse: The Ontario Energy Board, in a letter of August 4, acknowledged “a number of distributors express the view that the setting of mandatory” time-of-use “dates is premature and inappropriate at this time....” Your own Ontario Energy Board admitted that energy distributors “may encounter extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances during the implementation” of time of use, and said that “these matters need to be addressed.”

Twenty-one distributors—your own Hydro One, your own Ontario Energy Board—raised flags, but I guess Premier Dad knows best. Premier, how much do families have to pay for your mistakes when it comes to your smart meter tax machines?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague stands against smart meters. Ontarians should know what he stands for is the continuing use of coal-fired generation in the province of Ontario. He stands against the Green Energy Act, which is about laying the foundation for a new manufacturing industry in the province of Ontario.

I want to remind my honourable colleague as well of something that the Environmental Commissioner said about smart meters. He said this:

“By reducing peak demand (which should come about through customers’ response to time-of-use prices), we avoid having to build more power plants and transmission lines....

“Going back to the same-old-same-old that did not work is not the answer.”

I could not agree more with the Environmental Commissioner.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier now twice has refused to answer the essence of the very clear question today. Premier, 21 energy distributors raised red flags, including your very own Hydro One. The OEB has similarly raised concerns about the accuracy, the bugs in the system, but you ignore them. And just like Premier McGuinty declared Saturdays as laundry days for the common people, you’re ignoring the concerns of distributors across the province about your broken smart machines, which are not only charging high bills but inaccurate bills as well.

Families today are struggling just to make ends meet. Why don’t you get that? Middle-class families are struggling to make ends meet, and you’re going through with these smart meter tax machines that are inaccurate and high-priced.

Premier, will you do the right thing? Will you suspend this program, give people a choice and get this program right?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we have a bit of an inkling of the Conservative Party plan for electricity in the province of Ontario. They are for coal; they are against smart meters. They are against laying the foundation for a new clean technology industry through green electricity manufacture, production, transmission and the like.

I also want to remind Ontarians that the results of their reckless price freeze that they put in place when they were in government cost Ontarians $900 million. I would also remind them that their “leave it to the next government to take care of it” approach left our kids and grandkids with $20 billion in stranded hydro debt. That costs Ontario families $60 every year because they refused to take responsibility to begin to build a clean, modern, reliable electricity system.

SMART METERS

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier. Premier, I don’t understand. You just don’t get it. Why won’t you simply say that the meters should be accurate? Why don’t you simply say—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will once again remind the members that if they want to have conversations amongst themselves, please allow the questioner and the person answering the courtesy to hear either the question or the answer. Those members who want to have a discussion with members on the opposite side of the House, please take those discussions outside of this chamber and do not interrupt the proceedings.

Question?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier McGuinty just doesn’t get it. Where is the sense of leadership? Why aren’t you asking the questions? Why aren’t your meters accurate? Why aren’t the bugs being fixed? The last time you ran headlong down this course without asking the questions a Premier should ask, we got the $1-billion eHealth boondoggle that saw Liberal friendlies get fat and rich and Ontario families get nothing in return.

Premier, once again, just like with eHealth, you’re relying on computer technology that the energy industry says is not ready, isn’t reliable and is making families pay too much on their hydro bills. Why won’t you do the right thing, suspend implementation, give families a choice and fix your badly broken smart meter program?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’re not going to return to the generation of electricity by coal in the province of Ontario. My colleague remains firmly committed to that policy. That’s not one we’re prepared to accept. We’re not going to freeze electricity rates; that cost Ontarians $900 million last time.

There is some hope, though. There is. Some people think that progressive conservatives no longer appear anywhere on the face of the planet. In fact, they’re in the United Kingdom, and this is what they had to say about smart meters: “The rollout of smart meters will ... help us meet” some of the “long-term challenges we face in ensuring an affordable, secure and sustainable energy supply.”

Those conservatives in the UK understand. They understand in BC, Quebec, the US, the UK, Italy, Sweden, New Zealand, Australia, Ireland and so many other places around the world. This is an important and integral part of an intelligent electricity plan that ensures that we have clean, reliable, affordable electricity.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the PC caucus understands that after seven years, you’ve surrounded yourself with elite individuals to help you make decisions, that you’ve clearly lost touch with what is happening at kitchen tables across this province. Well, let me try to make this clear once more.

Premier, you’ve heard from energy distributors, you’ve heard from Hydro One, you’ve heard from Measurement Canada, you’ve heard from the Ontario Energy Board, and you should have heard from Ontario families that your smart meter experiment has gone dangerously off the rails. And if you’re not listening, I’ll tell you one more time: Families are telling you that your tax machines are defective. They can’t afford your outrageously spiking hydro bills, let alone your HST tax grab. Why don’t you call a halt, fix the problems and give every family a choice whether they want to participate in the program or—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Very, very soon my honourable colleague will have the opportunity to support a new and important measure that I spoke of earlier today. It’s our new energy and property tax credit. In particular, it will benefit Ontario seniors—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew: I warn you to come to order, then I sit down and you start again. I just ask you to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No. I don’t need help again from armchair Speakers. What I’m trying to do is ensure that we have a good flow of question period, that there is an opportunity to question and an opportunity to answer. It’s very difficult for myself and our guests who are here in the chamber to hear the proceedings.

Premier.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that my honourable colleagues will be very interested in and hopefully supportive of a new measure that we spoke of earlier today. It’s a new energy and property tax credit. It will be for the benefit of many Ontarians but especially seniors. In fact, two thirds of Ontario’s seniors will qualify for this new benefit. It maxes out at $1,025. It’s a very real recognition on the part of our government that our seniors face special challenges when it comes to their property taxes and their energy costs. That’s why we’re moving forward with this particular initiative.

We’re very proud to do so, and I would ask my honourable colleague that, when the time comes, he lend his strong support to this measure that will help Ontario seniors.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know that Premier McGuinty boasts that he has a more intelligent understanding than Ontario families. This manifests in him having the gall to declare Saturday as laundry day for the common people. It’s why he lectures senior citizens to get up at 2 in the morning to do their laundry. That’s why he lectures people on shift work—to try to change their lives to fit what Dalton McGuinty defines as the right way to run a household. I think families—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I just remind the honourable member again to use titles.

It’s not helpful to have somebody stand up to question and then the opposite side of the House start to heckle that member. Again, I just caution the members. I don’t want to start to name members for heckling. I think there are much more serious offences to start to name members, but I don’t want to get to the point of having to name members for heckling. I just ask that we, as much as possible, be respectful of one another.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, people are weary of your experiments in social engineering that are driving costs through the roof. We stand with that senior citizen whom you’re telling to wash their clothes at 2 in the morning. We stand with that family that is working shift work that can’t adjust to your smart meter tax experiments. We stand with that family with young kids that can’t have them all showered and ready for school by 6 in the morning, as Premier McGuinty wants them to do.

We believe in carrots; you believe in sticks. Won’t you do the right thing? Give families a choice, because not every family is how Dalton McGuinty wants them to—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s not helpful to make personal attacks on your own members.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: For seven years now, we’ve been working long and hard on behalf of Ontario families. And yes, I would argue that we have a more intelligent understanding of families than do the Conservatives. I will not be ashamed of saying that.

Families’ priorities are unchanging, Speaker. They are the same today as they were when you and I were growing up. Families want good-quality schools for their kids. They want access to good-quality health care for everybody in the family. They want a strong economy that supports good jobs. And when it comes to the latter, the strong economy, they understand that an important part of that foundation is a reliable, clean electricity system. That’s why we’re working so hard together to put that in place.

So, no, we will not freeze electricity rates. They did that, and that cost us $900 million. We’ll not reopen coal-fired generation in the province of Ontario. They did that, and that made our kids sick.

We understand families. They want good schools, they want good health care, they want good jobs and they want a good electricity system so that when they turn on the switch, it’s there.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

I’m quite comfortable just to wait and let things drag on. I know it’s a caucus day today, but it may be a little late arriving.

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Thank you, Speaker. No worries; I’ve told my caucus members that they can get their exercise after question period.

My question is to the Premier. For the last month, the Premier has insisted that electricity rates have to go up and that people who have a problem with it should do their laundry on the weekends. People have been speaking up loud and clear over this last month, and they cannot take it anymore.

So my question is this: Is the Premier finally ready to admit that he was wrong and that people need relief?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that, given the tone and the tenor and the goodwill that infused that question, my honourable colleague will be very supportive of the new measure that I just referenced. It’s a new energy and property tax credit for many Ontarians, including three quarters of Ontario seniors. It is specifically designed to help Ontario seniors address some of their property tax challenges and some of their energy costs. This is a specific, practical measure that we are putting forward, and I would ask my honourable colleague if Ontario seniors will be able to count on her support for this very important measure.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: All families, all households, are being hit and they’re being hit hard by this government. They were hit hard by the unfair HST. They were hit hard by the smart meter boondoggle and sweetheart private power deals.

The Premier has ignored the pleas of Ontarians for a very, very long time. But now this mess is so big that he’s finally scrambling to try to address it. We have a very simple, concrete proposal. Will the Premier take the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m afraid, on behalf of Ontario seniors, that my honourable colleague is not prepared to support their energy and property tax credit. But perhaps that is not surprising, because when we introduced our new sales tax credit of $260, they opposed that. When we introduced our personal income tax cut of $200, on average, they opposed that. When we doubled the property tax grant this year to $500, they opposed that.

When you add all those benefits up for Ontario seniors—the energy and property tax credit, the new sales tax credit, the personal income tax cut and the property tax grant—that’s $1,985 in benefits for Ontario seniors on an annual basis. In each and every instance, they continue to oppose that. You can’t say you’re in favour of doing things that help seniors with their costs and vote against these kinds of measures.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I think that I’m very proud to have opposed everything that this government has done, and I would say the vast majority of Ontarians agree with me, as per the Toronto Star poll today.

Ontarians simply just cannot afford to pay any more. They can’t afford to pay for more smart meters that simply don’t work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I say again that it is very helpful that members be respectful when somebody is speaking. I will make reference to the official opposition, to a member who just made a comment as the leader of the third party was speaking. The leader of the third party was respectful when your leader was speaking, and I just ask that, as much as possible, we try and tone the heckling down and let individuals ask questions and answer questions.

Please continue.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: They can’t afford to pay more for smart meters that simply don’t work. They can’t afford to pay more to pad the profits of private power utilities or even public power utilities. They can’t afford to pay more, period. That is the point.

When will we see a plan that will provide real relief for all Ontario families who very desperately need it? Will the Premier take the HST off of hydro today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think there was a telling slip on the part of my honourable colleague when she said that she doesn’t support anything that we’ve done. I think that responsible opposition demands more than just continuing opposition. At some point in time, you have to put forward some positive, constructive policy proposals.

My honourable colleague says that she is concerned about prices that Ontarians have got to grapple with. But again, I want to return to a very specific, practical measure that will be before this Legislature very shortly. It’s our new energy and property tax credit. It’s valued at $1.3 billion every year. That is real, meaningful support for over three quarters of Ontario seniors. The benefit can go up to $1,025 on an annual basis to help them with their energy costs and their property taxes.

Again, I say to my honourable colleague, will she stand up in support of Ontario seniors by supporting that particular measure?

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. My office has been flooded with messages from families and seniors worried about escalating hydro bills, no doubt about it. Connie Falcone from the GTA writes this: “As a single mom, and no wage increase in two years, it’s very difficult to make ends meet. My latest bill increased by $80”—perhaps the energy ministry would be interested in this. “This is too much for one person to absorb.”

Instead of a knee-jerk response that doesn’t help all struggling Ontario families, why won’t the Premier just take the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague knows that the HST is part of a comprehensive package of tax reforms. It’s accompanied by a personal income tax cut that my honourable colleague opposes. In fact, it’s accompanied by $12 billion in cuts for people over the course of the next three years. My colleague opposes each and every one of those.

I want to remind her again of that very important report put out by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, which I would commend to my colleague. The title says it all: Not a Tax Grab After All. That report specifically says that when it comes to low-income families, they come out ahead when you throw everything into the mix, middle-income families come out about the same and highest-income families come out a little bit behind. That’s a fair approach to dealing with some really important issues. That’s why we put that in place.

I would ask my colleague again to support specific measures that we bring to this House on a regular basis to help relieve some of the financial burden for families and seniors in particular.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier likes to conveniently forget that the authors of that report have actually said that they don’t support the harmonized sales tax. Nonetheless, all over Ontario, hydro bill concerns have been growing, and that’s what my question is about.

John Sauve from Val Caron writes: “I would like to see what he can do for us seniors about the hydro and the HST that has tripled on my hydro bill.” The NDP’s proposal would ease the concerns of people like Mr. Sauve by taking the HST off of hydro. Why won’t the Premier just agree?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s good to have an opportunity to talk about our plan, because they don’t have one. It’s also a good opportunity to refresh Ontarians’ memories with respect to what they did when they were in government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North and the member from Hamilton East will please come to order—Oxford as well, please, and Durham and Leeds–Grenville.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Durham again.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And Renfrew one and Renfrew two.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague is asking us to freeze hydro rates. We’re not prepared to do that.

I want to remind Ontarians of what they did when they were in government, because that’s always informative. They raised hydro rates by 40%. During their five years in government, they built no new electrical supply in Ontario—not one megawatt. They paid $150 million to cancel Ontario Hydro’s lifeline with Manitoba. In fact—perhaps this is the most galling of all—they ended all conservation initiatives. Those savings would have equalled 5,200 megawatts by the year 2000 had we only maintained those that were already in place. That’s their legacy; it’s abysmal when it comes to electricity in the province of Ontario.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Until this Premier wakes up and realizes what’s going on out there today, I am going to continue to raise the stories that Ontarians are bringing to me, stories like the one that was shared by J. Paul Roberts from Kitchener, who says his hydro bill went up by 18% since last year—just since last year—and Maureen Cain in Ottawa, who got a shock when she opened her $411 bill, and Earl Drozdoski in Acton, who saw an $85 increase in his hydro bill and writes, “I received my hydro bill today and was floored!” These are real people today who want real relief.

My question is, when will the Premier finally start listening to them and do the right thing and simply take the HST off of hydro?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s never enough when it comes to explaining to Ontarians what it is we’re doing and why we’re doing it. I just want to remind my honourable colleague again of what we inherited here by way of electricity supply circumstances. We were in a terrible state. There were regular brownouts. We were at risk of a province-wide blackout. There had been no new generation or transmission built in a long time and the only plan put forward by the former government was to put in place diesel generators in the downtown cores of our cities. That was obviously irresponsible, untenable and unsustainable.

We’ve made massive investments in new generation and in new transmission. We’re cleaning up our air at the same time by shutting down coal-fired generation and we’re laying the foundation for an entire new industry of green electricity in the province of Ontario.

People know what has happened to manufacturing in Ontario. They know it’s under attack with the advent of globalization. They know we’re going to have to do something to move forward. An important part of our electricity plan is about laying that new foundation for new jobs in the manufacturing sector right here in Ontario, serving—

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

SMART METERS

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. When it comes to your smart meter initiative, Hydro One and energy utilities warned you about computer software defects, Measurement Canada concerns and other problems that render inaccurately high bills that families must pay. Your crown corporation also warned you of capital cost overruns to install your smart meter tax machines in rural Ontario in time for your urgent deadline.

In another out-of-touch, Marie Antoinette moment, you said that you “acknowledge distributors may encounter extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances during implementation of time-of-use pricing.”

Just how much extra cake will it cost families to pay for your failed energy experiment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I thank the member for the question. I want to go back to a report that I discovered called Energy for the Future. It was a report published in February 2006. In this report, it says the following—I think this is important—“We have to invest in conservation—to offset demand. We have to invest in demand management—to shift peaks in consumption to off-hours.” That’s what time-of-use is all about. I think we all know that. Guess who wrote this report? It came from a task force from the Progressive Conservative Party, chaired by the MPP for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke. Also a member of that task force was the MPP for Mississippi Mills.

It’s very obvious. The Tories have done this from day one. When it comes to having to make the difficult—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: The Premier may think he has a more intelligent understanding than Ontario families, but his answers to the problems that utilities and families raise about so-called smart meters are simplistic. You’re following the same pattern as eHealth. Real and substantial problems with your expensive experiments emerge, but instead of fixing them, you laud the goal and the ideal, attack the whistle-blowers and ignore the problem.

Ontario families paid over a billion dollars for an eHealth system that is still not functioning. How much more will you make families pay when your latest experiment goes awry?

Hon. Brad Duguid: As I said before, in 2006 this very member stood and wrote a report in support of time-of-use meters. Today, as is typical of the Tories here in the province of Ontario, when things become challenging, they run and hide. They don’t have the courage to make the important decisions we need to make to ensure that we have a modern energy system in this province.

The same decision is being made in the United Kingdom. The same decision is being made in the United States. The same decision is being made in New Zealand. The same decision is being made in Australia. The same decision is being made in British Columbia. We are global leaders, and we’re proud of that. The rest of the world is following Ontario because we’re going to modernize—

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It’s not helpful.

I would also remind the honourable minister of a former Deputy Speaker, Mr. Bert Johnson, who reminded that when the Speaker is standing, he’s the only one to be standing.

We are halfway through question period right now. I am starting to get sore ears.

I have guests who have just arrived from Elgin county, and I would like to see all members set a very good example for the Van Brenk family while they’re here.

New question.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Peter Kormos: To the Premier: Every time Ontarians open another bill, they get the shock of their lives. Monday, it’s the hydro bill. Tuesday, it’s the property tax bill. Wednesday, it’s car and home insurance bills. Ontarians can barely keep their heads above water. Why does the McGuinty government always side with the powerful insurance companies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A party that raised insurance rates 53% has no business making those kinds of claims.

When it comes to families, will the member and his—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We are halfway through question period. I’m going to warn members that as reluctant as I am about it, I will have to start naming members. Our guests need to be able to hear questions and answers.

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Will the member and his party opposite support our energy and property tax credit for seniors, which will put more than a billion dollars into the pockets of hard-working Ontario families and our seniors?

Why did that member and his party vote against the northern electricity industrial rate, and why did they vote against the energy tax credit for northern residents?

Our plan is about building a stronger economy for our children. It is about creating jobs, and it is about ensuring that all Ontarians have a bright and prosperous future. It’s a plan that’s working.

It speaks volumes that that party—

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

Mr. Peter Kormos: On September 1, it was the McGuinty government that slashed auto insurance benefits. Accident victims are going to be forced to pay for rehabilitation out of their own pockets, and all this at a time of rising insurance premiums. Why has the McGuinty government caved once again to the powerful insurance lobby and abandoned Ontario drivers and innocent accident victims?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We are getting rid of abuse in the system to save consumers money. The member opposite wants to stand up for large private health care organizations. He wants to ignore the reality. He doesn’t want to tell the people of Ontario that our benefits across a range of benefits are equal to or better than everywhere else in Canada. As is typical of that member and his party—which promised public auto insurance but when they came to power killed it; which raised car insurance rates 53%—he doesn’t want to tell the whole story. He wants to stand up for private health care delivery. He wants to stand against Ontario consumers.

That’s why we’ve kept the price of insurance relatively equal over seven years. The people of Ontario see through you. They see through your party, and they’ll give you a very strong message next year at this time.

SMART METERS

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: My question is for the Minister of Energy. Rising energy costs are certainly a concern in my riding of Lambton–Kent–Middlesex. And one of the concerns I hear about is smart-metering and time-of-use pricing. The young families that I see and talk to in my riding are parents who are both working, they’re coming home to spend time with their children, and for the most part they don’t really get to the chores until after the kids are in bed.

Hearing the opposition talk about doing laundry late at night as if it’s something very unusual or the only choice that these parents have makes me want to ask the minister to explain to them what time-of-use pricing is, and also for my constituents.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to thank the member for raising this important question. As she notes, time-of-use pricing is intended to encourage customers to shift their consumption off of peak use. Over time, that means less necessity for investment in expensive new generation and transmission to meet peak demand. The member may find it useful to know that, at present, under the time-of-use

schedule over 82% of all hours in the week fall outside of on-peak times.

I know the member from Lambton–Kent–Middlesex has some of the hardest-working farmers around in her riding, and they’re working hard to adjust, of course, to time of use, and some of those farmers do need to run their farms at all hours. So I can understand the member’s interest in time of use, and I can assure the member that we’re working hard to ensure we have a very good balance as we move forward with this new initiative.

Smart meters and time of use are about modernizing an outdated, inefficient system and giving consumers options with respect to consumption as well as—

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I want to thank the minister for mentioning the fact that we need to upgrade our transmission system. That is certainly something that is very critical to the stray voltage issue for those farmers.

But there’s also a misconception that time of use forces people to use energy—and intensive energy—at really unrealistic times, and there’s also a sense that smart meters exist solely to enable time-of-use pricing. There’s a notion that smart meters are an Ontario phenomenon and a one-of-a-kind experiment.

My question to the minister: In the experience of other jurisdictions, can you tell us what other benefits have been derived from smart meters?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The member is absolutely right: Smart meters and time of use are not just about the prospect of consumption management and providing people with a motivation to shift their usage to off-peak hours. That’s important, but building a smart electricity grid is about much more than that. It’s about helping local distributors pinpoint and respond more quickly to power outages. It’s about providing Ontarians with more precise readings of energy consumption, doing away with estimates and on-site measurements.

It’s about new, efficient meters that do not have to be manually read, reducing the number of field visits local utilities have to make to read and service old meters. It’s about reducing tampering and theft of electricity. It’s about long-term environmental benefits as a result of load shifting, and it’s about nurturing a culture of conservation.

Ontario is definitely a leader, but we’re not alone. The United Kingdom, New Zealand, Ireland, Italy, Spain, France, Sweden and Australia, to name a few, are hot on the path—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Premier. Here’s a question Justice McMurtry won’t answer because you deliberately left it out of the terms of his review: Why didn’t Premier McGuinty announce the G20 law that affected access to a large portion of Toronto?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We received a number of real and I think very legitimate concerns about a very old law which served as the foundation for a measure that we put in place. We think that the responsible thing to do in the circumstances is to take a long, hard look at that law, and that’s what we’ve asked Mr. Justice Roy McMurtry to do for us. We want to give him the time, and we’ve given him all of the breadth that he needs to take a look at this particular law, and we’re very much looking forward to his advice.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: A pattern has developed where the Premier hangs public servants out to dry in order to make himself look good. You did it with—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I withdraw that comment.

You did it with Kelly McDougald, formerly of the OLG. You left a cloud hanging over bureaucrats after the OPP raided three ministries and raided the Ontario Realty Corp. You’re doing it with our valued police officers with the G20 law, which was your job to announce. The former community safety minister still has his limousine, and nothing in the terms of the McMurtry review will change that.

If you won’t ask yourself the right questions, I will. Who is responsible for keeping the G20 law a secret from the public, and why did you feel the need to lie about it?

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Withdrawn.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

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

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’m glad that the member mentioned this particular issue, because he would know that our Ombudsman has announced that he is going to launch an inquiry into very narrow parts of the G20 summit. One of the things that the Ombudsman is looking into is, first of all, the promulgation of the particular regulation and the communications around that regulation. I’m looking forward with great anticipation to the Ombudsman’s report on that and the recommendations that flow from that.

We’ve also asked Justice McMurtry, a former Attorney General and a former Solicitor General in the Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis, and an eminent jurist, to look at a law which in fact is many, many years old—it was enacted during wartime—to give us some recommendations on how that law might be changed and—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Labour. On September 10, two migrant agricultural workers, Paul Roache and Ralston White, died after exposure to toxic fumes while working in a closed vat at a farm near Ayton. Will the minister order an inquest into the deaths, to find out if the accident could have been prevented?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First off, let me thank the member for the question and her concerns regarding this tragic loss. I’ve had the opportunity to speak with the member in regards to this issue, and I think I speak for everyone in this chamber, in this House, when I say that we are all saddened to hear about this tragic incident. I also understand how difficult a time this must be for those deceased workers’ families and for their colleagues.

What I can say is that we want the answers. We want the answers to how this occurred, and that’s why my ministry officials are investigating the specific circumstances about this case. Our first priority is to ensure that the Occupational Health And Safety Act was followed. When it comes to health and safety in Ontario, regardless of classification or status of a worker here, they are all protected equally. So our government —

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The minister will know that under the current Occupational Health and Safety Act, there is no real protection for migrant workers. When a migrant worker raises a health or safety concern, such as one regarding dangerous conditions in a confined space at work, they can be immediately removed from the country by an employer wishing to silence them.

So I ask again: Will the minister take the right steps to address this and provide migrant workers with some protection? Hundreds of thousands of union members across Canada would like to know the answer.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Just to correct the record for the member, yes, farm workers are protected under the Occupational Health and Safety Act here in Ontario, and it was this government, in 2006, that made that happen.

What I should note is that these workers do come to Ontario under a federal program, and I have encouraged and I have written to the federal government that they need to fix this program that is broken and flawed. That is something that I encourage the member also to do.

We are working closely to protect workers who work on farms. Under our government, what I can say is that we’ve doubled the number of health and safety inspectors. One hundred of those inspectors are trained on farm safety and are doing proactive inspection. That’s under our government, and we’ve tripled the number of inspections and orders issued on farms—

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

RENEWABLE ENERGY

Mr. Bill Mauro: My question is for the Minister of Energy. This past August, I had the opportunity to visit Atikokan, in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan, and announce our government’s plan to convert the Ontario Power Generation plant in that community to burn biomass. I can tell the Minister of Energy that my constituents are excited to see that OPG’s first biomass-fuelled power station will be located in northwestern Ontario.

The environmental benefits of shifting from coal to biomass are obvious, but for some people the economic implications may be less apparent. The Atikokan station is a critical part of the community, and a transition of this nature is not a simple process, so my question to the Minister of Energy is this: What sort of economic impacts can the people of Atikokan expect to see during this conversion process and beyond?

Hon. Brad Duguid: It’s through this member’s leadership and tenacity that this landmark conversion is going forward at the Atikokan generating station and a whole new made-in-Ontario industry is opening up in the northwest. This member worked tirelessly to make that happen.

I can say that in addition to the OPG jobs that are being retained at the station to assist the conversion and subsequent running of the biomass facility, 200 construction jobs will be created in the interim, along with a 25-employee wood pellet fuel manufacturing plant that will be located nearby.

I want to share with you the words of the mayor of Atikokan when he summed up, I think, the feelings of the community in saying, “This is splendid news for Atikokan. We are very grateful to Bill Mauro, our MPP; the Minister of Energy ... ; and the entire McGuinty government for this great announcement. It shows that they really care about Atikokan and northwestern Ontario and we thank them very much for this.”

These are exciting times for northern Ontario, and I know that my friend—

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

Mr. Bill Mauro: I thank the minister for the compliment. I know that my constituents appreciate that OPG will be maintaining a robust presence in Atikokan, and the minister makes a good point about biomass and the job potential on the fuel manufacturing end of things. Certainly the prospect of having this kind of industry as a permanent tenant in the north, with the shift to cleaner forms of energy starting to take place around the world and the potential for export, is something I think the forestry industry would be very interested in.

Speaker, through you to the minister, have you looked at the potential for partnership with Ontario’s forestry sector with respect to the manufacturing of biofuel pellets for consumption here and abroad?

Hon. Brad Duguid: To the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: May I also add my compliments to my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan for his determination and dedication—a remarkable job.

Certainly, I’m glad to speak about the new partnerships that are happening in the biomass and the forestry sector, and may I say, our government’s forest sector prosperity fund has already helped substantially in this area. The fund was established in 2005 to stimulate capital investment and revitalize competitiveness in the forestry sector, and to date the program has disbursed well over $34 million in grants to support these capital projects.

A very exciting example of how this program has supported green energy initiatives is the $20.7 million that went to the AbitibiBowater operation in Fort Frances for their biomass cogeneration plant: a tremendous project. Because of the funding provided for this plant, Fort Frances can generate enough green energy to power about 30,000 homes. This is great for the community, great for the industry—

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

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. John O’Toole: The question is to the Minister of Government Services. If we recap the recent history of financial blunders by the Liberal government, this is just a

part list of what we’ll find: millions wasted on eHealth, the eco tax, the HST and the failed smart meters. Further, over the summer we learned that the OPP raided some provincial ministries and are investigating so-called financial transaction irregularities. Now we’ve also learned of investigations of irregularities at Ontario Realty Corp.

Minister, since you’re taking the lead on accountability for the McGuinty government, can you now assure the people of Ontario that there is no other bid rigging, fraud or kickbacks taking place at this time under your watch?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Mr. Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Durham would like an answer to his question. I’m going to ask the minister to provide that, please.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: This is an interesting question. I just want to tell the member opposite that, to the best of my knowledge, there is no other information that I have available.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John O’Toole: That’s a very disappointing response, Minister. The media reports that the alleged offences involved amounts estimated at over $400,000. This is in the media that you and I should both be reading, but it appears that only I’m reading it. Who knows how much is at stake at the Ontario Realty Corp.? Yet there’s not even a peep from your government about voluntary investigations into spending practices in your government—clearly from your answer.

Where is the accountability? Have they not learned anything from the eHealth scandal? How can the people of Ontario trust the McGuinty government, given its reckless spending, its multi-billion-dollar tax grab and its wait-and-see attitude to learning about the OPP investigation this summer?

Minister, when are you going to release some information on ongoing OPP investigations on fraud under your watch?

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: Clearly, the member knows that the police are investigating. The police will do their proper work, and they will eventually release a report. I think the member should have patience.

But I want to tell him that, on accountability, he has no right to give us any lectures, because they are the ones who have put—you know, they didn’t want to disclose any information under freedom of information; now he’s giving us a lecture on accountability. We have actually made transactions more transparent. We have brought in more corporations under the freedom-of-information act. So, really, he doesn’t have any right to give any lectures on that front.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Today, we learned that—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable members know that there is a provision in the standing orders that if they are not satisfied with an answer, they can call for a late show. The minister has finished his answer. I don’t need other members continuing to try and question the minister. So use the tools that are available to you, and utilize the late show.

Leader of the third party.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Again, to the Premier: Today, we learned that Horizon Utilities wants to raise distribution rates by 12% in Hamilton and St. Catharines. The ever-rising cost of hydro under this government, including the 8% HST, has Hamiltonians hurting from hydro shock.

Susan Surowaniec of Hamilton writes: “I am one of the unemployed in Hamilton and this could not have come at a worse time. We are struggling to make ends meet and all we get is take, take, take. When is someone going to give us something for a change?”

Why won’t the Premier exempt hydro from the HST and give people like Susan a break?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m sure the member understands that Horizon Utilities has applied to the OEB for a rate application, which is what they do. We don’t own Horizon Utilities; that’s owned by the city of Hamilton and the city of St. Catharines. So if the member is trying to tie that in with our responsibilities, that’s not unlike some of the things she tried to do last week, where the Ontario Energy Board soundly corrected the numbers that she put out.

But I think one thing she would want to share with her constituents in Hamilton is the good news that the Premier announced this morning for 740,000 Ontario seniors that are going to see an increase in tax relief—an increase in tax relief that’s going to help some of those seniors address some of the challenges that come with rising energy costs. That’s 2.8 million Ontarians who are going to see tax relief totalling $1.2 billion annually. That’s something that I think her—

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Hamiltonians are worried sick that they’re not going to be able to pay their hydro bills.

Pat and Mike from Hamilton write this: “We are a family of five—two parents, three kids. We have never had a hydro bill anywhere near to the one we just received—$648. Thanks HST!”

Hamilton’s Robert Marshall has this to say: “I am on pension. My wife and I stay up late in order to do our laundry when we can afford to do it! Nothing personal but McGuinty has no idea what he has done.”

The Premier could make—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just remind the honourable members, notwithstanding the fact that she’s reading a quote, of my ruling earlier.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier could make hydro bills more affordable today. They could do it right now by taking the HST off of hydro. Why is he refusing to do anything to help Hamiltonians and the people of St. Catharines?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Once again, last week the member opposite lost all credibility with numbers when she put numbers out to the public, to try to get a headline, that were 500% wrong—not double, not triple—five times wrong. That’s something, I think, that she’s going to have to look herself in the mirror—because that’s not just a miscalculation; that’s a gross miscalculation.

What I want to say is that this morning the Premier had some great news for Ontario seniors in Hamilton and right across this province: 740,000 Ontario seniors are going to see an increase in tax relief. Some 2.8 million Ontarians will see tax relief, totalling $1.2 billion. That’s an increase of $525 million over the original 2009 property tax credit. That’s good news for Ontario families, and in particular that’s good news for—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Last month, you came to Sault Ste. Marie as part of your construction safety awareness campaign and visited the site where the new $15-million Francis H. Clergue public elementary school is being built. As you saw, Minister, the construction workers at the site are taking safety precautions very seriously and the project is moving along smoothly.

In my riding, we’re fortunate to have a number of other large and small construction projects under way, and I want to be sure that everyone working on these sites and sites across Ontario is just as safe as the workers you visited.

Minister, now that your construction safety campaign is finished, can you tell us what else you are doing to protect workers in my riding and across Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for bringing the construction safety campaign to Sault Ste. Marie. It was a great success, and I want to thank everyone from ridings across the province that I visited this summer to bring the message on-site.

This campaign is a call to action. It’s a grassroots campaign—it’s on the ground, it’s with the workers, it’s with the employers—and it highlights our workplace safety message. A key component to the campaign was our toll-free number that allows the general public, anybody, to be able to call in if they see a safety risk on a construction site.

Further, if you go by construction sites across the province today, you will see vivid images and a message, and the message is: “Make sure that you are safe today so that can you go home tonight.” We want to make sure that message is loud and—

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

Mr. David Orazietti: Earlier this year, you also announced an inspection blitz focusing on fall hazards in the construction industry. Fall injuries account for about 20% of lost-time injuries, making them one of the leading causes of lost-time injuries in Ontario workplaces.

According to the WSIB, the average cost of a lost-time injury in 2009 was over $25,000, and the cost to business is estimated at four times that. This doesn’t take into account the human cost of a serious injury, which is immeasurable.

Minister, can you report back to the House the results of this safety blitz and what your ministry is doing to protect construction workers in Ontario?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Yes, the member is right: Following the campaign, we had a 90-day safety enforcement blitz that visited 2,800 Ontario construction sites. Inspectors continue today to have zero tolerance when it comes to violations of our Occupational Health and Safety Act and its regulations in relation to fall hazards. We’re shutting down work sites where we see these violations occurring. In total, we have issued over 3,000 orders.

The top four concerns on construction sites are guardrails, non-suspended scaffolds, fall protection systems and worker training and records.

Safety is a shared responsibility between the workers, the employers, the government, the WSIB: everybody coming together to make sure that those workers get home safe and sound.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. On March 22, my office filed a freedom-of-information request with the Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. It’s now been more than six months and we’ve still not received the requested documents. On August 12, the Higher Education Quality Council sent us a letter indicating the records were assembled. On August 18, we sent them a cheque. On August 26, they cashed the cheque, and on September 9, after we still didn’t receive the documents, we wrote another letter asking where they are. There has been no response.

Why is the Premier withholding these documents and what are they hiding at the Higher Education Quality Council?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities.

Hon. John Milloy: As the honourable member is aware and as he’s outlined, there’s a process by which members can request information under access to information, and I’ll certainly follow up on the concerns that he brought here today.

This gives me an opportunity to speak a bit about the Higher Education Quality Council, which is an organization that was brought forward as part of the Reaching Higher plan to advise government on moving forward in the area of higher education. I’ve been very impressed with the research projects they’ve undertaken and the advice that they have provided the government as we continue to strengthen our post-secondary education system. We have now 140,000 more students in our province’s colleges and universities since we took office, and I think it’s incumbent upon all of us to get the best advice and research on how we can make sure that the system continues to grow and is enhanced.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: The minister would know full well that we’ve requested these documents. There’s something fishy. It doesn’t pass the smell test over there.

The last time I got freedom-of-information documents from the education quality council we found out that the chair had bought a $500 watch from Birks, and only after I raised it in the Legislature did he write a cheque to reimburse that. We also found out they were spending thousands and thousands of dollars on hospitality. So if you won’t come clean, if you won’t tell us what’s in the documents or release the documents, we can only assume that the Higher Education Quality Council has joined the likes of eHealth, Cancer Care Ontario, Ontario Lottery and Gaming and the WSIB in squandering hard-earned tax dollars.

Minister, why haven’t you ordered the council to release the freedom-of-information documents?

Hon. John Milloy: I indicated that I will look into the matter for the member. I would also indicate, in reference to his comments at the beginning, that the Higher Education Quality Council, as well as all agencies of that type, have adopted the new rules for expenses that were brought forward earlier this year by the government. Again, I reiterate the important work that has been going on with the Higher Education Quality Council.

Let me share with the honourable member some of the research projects that are ongoing right now with HEQCO: Aboriginal Self-Identification and Student Data in Ontario’s Post-Secondary Education System: Challenges and Opportunities; Determinants of University Retention; Discovering the Benefits of a First Year Experience Program for Under-represented Students; and I could go on. I’m proud—

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

LABORATORY SERVICES

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Health. Minister, you will know that your ministry is undergoing a review of possibly closing a number of provincial labs around the province. Can you tell me categorically that you’re not going to close the lab in the city of Timmins?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: What I can tell you is that we are working very, very hard to get the best value for every dollar we spend when it comes to health care. What I have to say is that we are looking at labs. I cannot speak to that specific case right now.

But I tell you, the people I talk to, when they think of health care, they think of our front-line workers; they think of our doctors, our nurses, our personal support workers; they think of people who actually provide care. So when it comes to the future of health care in this province, if we want a health care system that’s here for our kids and for our kids’ kids, we’ve got to look hard at every dollar we spend, and that includes looking at labs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, these are front-line workers. These are people who provide an essential service to our health care system across northeastern Ontario. That lab has been there for over 50 years. People in the city of Timmins, people in the region and the medical community have been using it for over 50 years. I ask you again a very simple question: Will you say today, right now, that you will not close that lab in the city of Timmins?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m happy to let the House know that a review of the labs was conducted in 2007 by an independent consulting firm to assess the service delivery model when it comes to labs. In keeping with the recommendations of that review, the pilot projects are being reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

We are working with our partners. We are working with the hospitals, the LHINs and community lab providers. In cases where a collective decision is made to transition to a provincial community lab model, partners will work to ensure that that is seamless for patients.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity—seated in the Speaker’s gallery today from the riding of Elgin–Middlesex–London are Helen Van Brenk, Katrina Kalita-Van Brenk, Lisa Van Brenk, Hunter Van Brenk, Kaysee Van Brenk and Finn Van Brenk. Unfortunately, Helen’s husband, Rein, and son Brian aren’t here.

As many of you know—you’ll remember, on the first day back of the Legislature, we had those wonderful Honeycrisp apples. The Van Brenks have a great fruit farm. But there’s another really good new apple out there right now. Rein shared it with me at the plowing match; it’s called a Silken. You’ve got to try a Silken apple as well.

Welcome to Queen’s Park.

There being no deferred votes, this House stands recessed until 3 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1142 to 1500.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Dave Levac: I appreciate the opportunity to introduce John and Donna Henning who, via Chicago and other ways, in terms of connecting, had lunch with Dave, which is a program that I do for charity. They bought the charity dinner. They were here to watch question period. John is a student of politics in the United States and is fascinated by your role, Speaker. I thought I’d let you know that he thinks you are a pretty fair-square-deal guy in dealing in the House.

I wanted to introduce John and Donna, and thank them for visiting us here at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I wasn’t about to rush that introduction.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SALMON SPECTACULAR

FISHING DERBY

Mr. Bill Murdoch: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I want to tell you, I think you’re a fair guy, too, just to get the story right.

I rise here today to tell my fellow colleagues and friends of a very successful fishing derby that was held in my riding last month. More than 50,000 people passed through the Molson big top tent at the 23rd annual Salmon Spectacular fishing derby, held between August 27 and September 5 on the waters of Owen Sound and Colpoy’s Bay. It’s one of the largest and longest-running fishing derbies in North America.

This year, virtually every day was filled with special events packed with activities for the whole family thanks to the generosity of 170 event sponsors. There were 3,000 registered anglers and daily prizes for the top 10 chinook salmon and top five trout.

The derby is put on by the Sydenham Sportsmen’s Association with the help of hundreds of volunteer members and volunteer sponsors. I would especially like to recognize the work of three co-chairs: Fred Gebhardt, John Ford and Bill Douglas.

The crowds keep getting bigger every year. This year, Team Murdoch served over 5,000 hungry friends at the giant f