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

February 25, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Feb-25 (PDF)

L105 - Tue 25 Feb 2014 / Mar 25 fév 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Tuesday 25 February 2014 Mardi 25 février 2014

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO IMMIGRATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMMIGRATION

EN ONTARIO

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR THORNHILL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

SMALL BUSINESS

TAXATION

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

MINIMUM WAGE

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

SENIOR CITIZENS

ARBITRATION

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

CONSUMER PROTECTION

AGRI-FOOD INDUSTRY

HYDRO RATES

VISITOR

CORRECTION OF RECORD

VISITORS

DEFERRED VOTES

INTERIM SUPPLY

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

GRAHAM MURRAY

FAMILY DAY WALKATHON

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

RARE DISEASE DAY

ALEX PIETRANGELO

GASOLINE TAX

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

MATT DUCHENE

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

OLYMPIC ATHLETES

CORRECTION OF RECORD

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO

ALTERNATIVE VOTING SYSTEM

ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’ADOPTION

D’UN SYSTÈME DE VOTE

DE REMPLACEMENT

PAR LA CITÉ DE TORONTO

SUPPLY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE CRÉDITS DE 2014

FAIR MINIMUM WAGE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 POUR UN SALAIRE

MINIMUM ÉQUITABLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

MINIMUM WAGE

PETITIONS

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

LCBO OUTLET

FIREFIGHTERS

LCBO OUTLET

CHARITABLE GAMING

LONG-TERM CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

UTILITY CHARGES

REGIONAL CENTRES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION FUNDING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR JOBS

AND PROSPERITY ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’INFRASTRUCTURE

AU SERVICE DE L’EMPLOI

ET DE LA PROSPÉRITÉ

VISITOR

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO IMMIGRATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMMIGRATION

EN ONTARIO

Mr. Coteau moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 161,

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 161, Loi portant sur l’immigration en Ontario et apportant une modification connexe à la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister.

Hon. Michael Coteau: Good morning. It gives me great pleasure to stand before the House today to speak in regard to our proposed legislation, the Ontario Immigration Act, Bill 161. Mr. Speaker, I believe that this piece of legislation will start a new

chapter in the province of Ontario. I think it’s the right time for this type of legislation and I think it’s critical for what we’re doing here in the province of Ontario. So I want to take an opportunity to talk about why I believe this piece of legislation, this proposed legislation, is critical to Ontario, but also I want to take an opportunity to respond a bit to my critics from the opposition and the third party. They made some remarks last week and I just wanted to bring some insight into those remarks. But first I’ll talk about why this bill is critical for the province of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker, we have some challenges when it comes to our birth rate in the province of Ontario, but we also know that we have an aging population; our baby boomers are retiring. We know that new sectors are being developed all the time, new technologies are being brought in, and there’s a skills shortage when it comes to specific skills in the province of Ontario. We also know that over the next 10 years there will be 2.5 million job openings in the province of Ontario, and the majority of those positions will be highly skilled positions.

Over the next 25 years immigration is going to be the major source of market growth in the province of Ontario. The simple fact is that immigration is critical to our economy. We need to ensure that we continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. We also need to make sure we put in place the right type of educational programs so we can respond to that labour market need, that we offer retraining. But we do know that immigration will play a

part in building a strong economy here in the province of Ontario, so it is critical.

But we also know that immigration, Mr. Speaker, has played such a huge role in the development of this province. If we think about our past, Ontario’s past—I know that the Premier says this all the time—outside of our aboriginal population, every single person in this province has some type of immigrant past. It could be two weeks ago; it could be 200 years ago, but there’s a strong connection with immigration here in the province of Ontario. In fact, I know many of the members here in this Legislature were born outside the province or country. Mr. Speaker, I was born outside of Canada.

I came here as a young man from England. My father went from Grenada to England, and we benefited off of what Canada had to offer, what Ontario has to offer.

Being in this position as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, I feel so proud when I get to meet newcomers here in the province of Ontario—and I get to meet them all the time. I ask them, “Why have you chosen Ontario as your destination?” Because I’m curious to hear what the answer is. Often, I hear words like “freedom”; I hear words like “opportunity”; I hear words like “success.” “I can find success for me and my family.” And I believe without question that if you work hard in this province, you can take advantage of those opportunities that are here and you can find success for yourself and your family.

I think Ontario is a unique place. The member from Oakville, Mr. Flynn—a few months ago, I was at an event with him. He said that Ontario is unique. He said that never in the history of the world has a place like Ontario existed, and I think that’s true because you look around and we know there are so many different cultures. In fact, there are over 200 different cultures, and we have over 250 languages that are spoken here in the province of Ontario.

So it is my honour to bring forward this proposed legislation, Bill 161, the Ontario Immigration Act, as a newcomer to Canada myself, from a newcomer family, and as a member of this Legislature, but I think most importantly as an Ontarian, because I believe this piece of legislation is coming at the right time for Ontario.

If this proposed legislation passes, it will do a few things. It will affirm our commitment to settlement and integration programs here in the province of Ontario. It will strengthen our role in immigrant selection in the province of Ontario, which I think is so critical, especially for trying to fill those skill gaps that exist. It will also support the implementation of our immigration strategy, which was brought forward by my predecessor, now the Minister of Finance, and the PA for children and youth services, because I know she played a huge role in the consultation process. But this immigration strategy is key to making sure that Ontario continues to move forward.

I want to take a few moments to talk about our settlement programs here in the province of Ontario. I think that this piece of proposed legislation is key to ensuring that these important and critical programs that we have here in Ontario are recognized and enabled, for the first time, through legislation. If this legislation does pass, it will enable and recognize those programs that we have here, that exist in the province of Ontario.

And I have to say that the programs that are offered in the province, settlement services for newcomers, are the best, I believe, in this entire country, and they’re the envy of many countries around the world. In fact, I’ve had other countries come here to talk about these programs because they always say to us, “How does Ontario do it so well?” It’s because of those settlement services and those programs that we have here in the province of Ontario.

My critic the member from Beaches–East York last week stood in the House and said that our programs are not the way they used to be back—I guess back years ago. He said that there has been a decline in the services that we offer, and he talked about a program at the airport where people come in and get information. I have to say that the settlement services in the province of Ontario are extraordinary. I get to go out there and meet these different programs all the time, and there’s no question that these programs are world-class.

In fact, if you talk about, for example, our bridge training program, our bridge training program, over the last several years, has successfully had over 50,000 people graduate from the program, and these are foreign-trained professionals who come into the province of Ontario. We want to figure out how we can fast-track them as fast as possible so they can get their credentials and they can continue to work in the field that they’ve been trained to do. We’ve had over 50,000 people go through these courses over the last several years.

Since 2003, this government has invested over $900 million into settlement and immigrant services here in the province of Ontario, and I think that’s important. I think that the member from Beaches–East York has to recognize that this is, I would argue, probably the largest commitment of any government in the history of Ontario when it comes to investment in our settlement programs and services.

Madam Speaker, if the legislation does pass, it will also do another thing. It will allow us to have a little bit more control over our selection process here in the province of Ontario. I want to take an opportunity to talk about Ontario and the current numbers. I know the member from Prince Edward–Hastings last week talked about Ontario. He says there’s more opportunities, I believe, in Saskatchewan, Manitoba and other places than there are in Ontario. He also said that “Ontario used to be the number one destination for newcomers to Canada.” I’m going to read that one more time.

He said that “Ontario used to be the number one destination for newcomers to Canada.” Well, I want to correct—well, I can’t correct his record, but I want to just point out to the member opposite that Ontario remains the number one destination in Canada for newcomers. It remains the number one destination. In fact, if you take all the newcomers west of Ontario, so you take all the provinces and you add them up, it doesn’t even equal what Ontario attracts. The fact is that there is opportunity here in the province of Ontario.

It’s a great time to be in the province of Ontario, and that’s why newcomers are choosing Ontario and it remains the number one destination in the country for newcomers. I think that’s important to say.

There are some challenges that we do have, though, when it comes to the newcomers that are coming into Ontario. Back in 2001, we attracted roughly in the mid-60s when it came to the economic class of newcomers here in the province of Ontario. Currently that number has dropped, and it’s dropped substantially, and that’s because of federal policy. So we need to have a better ability to select newcomers into the province of Ontario, like other provinces have. We know that there are other provinces that have selection up to 34%. In Ontario, it’s well below 2%; it remains below 2% in self-selection.

We know that if the province has more selection power, we can work with our municipalities. We can work with companies and businesses to ensure that we continue to attract the best and brightest with those specific skills necessary to fill in those positions we can’t find people to fill in Ontario, to ensure that our economy continues to grow. We are currently at 50%. We were in the mid-60s back in 2001. Here’s an interesting point: Saskatchewan and Manitoba’s economic-class percentages are at 87% and 77%, and the Canadian average of 70%.

So there’s an issue here: Ontario is not getting its fair share of economic-class newcomers into the province of Ontario, and other provinces are getting an average of 70% and as high as 87%.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings, my critic from the Progressive Conservative Party, made some observations last week that I believe were inaccurate, and I need to set the record straight. I need to set the record straight because the numbers are here, and I think the member from Prince Edward–Hastings needs to listen to these points. He claimed that our provincial nominee program attracts people into the province and then they leave. They leave and they go to other provinces out west.

Madam Speaker, 98% of our PNP nominees that come into Ontario remain in Ontario—98%. They don’t pick up their bags, land in Ontario, pick up their bags and move out west. It’s not true; it’s simply not true. They remain in the province of Ontario because there is opportunity in Ontario. I think it’s a great time to be in Ontario. I think there’s a bright economic future in Ontario and I think that the PNP numbers speak the truth: 98% of our provincial nominee candidates that arrive here remain in Ontario.

And we know that 95% of the employers that access this program are so satisfied; 95% are satisfied with the individuals that come over to fill those positions that are very highly skilled. So it’s almost a perfect record—98%. I think we in the Legislature should be proud, regardless of what party we belong to. We retain 98% of our provincial nominee candidates here in the province of Ontario, and we know that the provincial nominee program helps employers attract and retain the skills they need for today’s knowledge-based economy. I think that’s important.

We can say that PNP is a successful program here in the province of Ontario.

I want to give a few examples of the success that has taken place. In the last few years, 25 hospitals have accessed our provincial nominee programs to attract the right type of doctors or medical professionals they need in their communities to ensure Ontarians continue to live in a place where they can access good health care.

Also, half of our universities in the province of Ontario have accessed the program in order to attract the right type of professors and university personnel to ensure in our province that when a young person or an adult decides to go to post-secondary education, they can continue to receive a world-class education. In addition, since 2009, our provincial nominee program here in the province of Ontario has brought in half a billion dollars in actual investment and has created thousands of jobs. So there is no question that our provincial nominee program is a successful program.

In addition to that, I believe roughly 65% of the applicants who are successful come here to study either at a master’s or a PhD level. So we’re attracting the best and brightest from around the world, who go through a competitive process in order to gain citizenship in this province. They come in through this academic stream, and we think it’s very successful to attract the best and brightest, but also to add to our economy, because we know that our international students contribute a lot to our economy here in the province of Ontario.

The member from Prince Edward–Hastings said something interesting last week. He said that the federal government is not growing our numbers in the PNP because of a lack of confidence, I believe it was, in our ability to manage the program and make best use of it.

Since I became Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and utilizing the hard work and dedication of my predecessors, the Minister of Tourism and Culture, as well as the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Economic Trade and Development, to be able to really push forward on the agenda that they set, we went from 1,000 PNP numbers when I started— last year, we were allocated 1,300. I’m pleased to announce today—and I’m not sure if everyone knows—that we’re at 2,500 PNP.

So if the member opposite believes that our provincial nominee numbers are not going up because there’s a lack of confidence—well, if we’ve gone up, what, 150% in the last year, I think that’s the best vote of confidence we could ever have from my federal counterpart and the federal government.

I think this is an extraordinary time for Ontario and I think we should be very proud of the fact that we’ve been able to, through our advocacy and through our ability to continue to bring forward an argument that suggests Ontario needs its fair share of economic-class immigrants in the province of Ontario—you need to bring us up to the same number that you’re allocating to provinces like Alberta. We’re at 2,500 from 1,000, but we still need those numbers to go up. We need to be above the 5,000 mark in order to best position Ontario for success.

I think that the provincial nominee program is one of those programs that—we will be able to, if this legislation passes, have a framework in order to enable it to even work better, especially as the Expression of Interest model is moved forward by Ottawa. We’re told that in January 2015, the Expression of Interest model will come forward here in Canada and Ontario, and we need to make sure that we have a framework put in place that allows us to participate more in the selection process of newcomers, so we can continue to help our municipalities, our businesses and, most importantly, our society here in the province of Ontario.

This bill, this legislation, if passed, will bring forward more transparency and accountability, and it will allow us to continue to expand. It would also, Madam Speaker, prevent fraud by improving compliance and enforcement measures within our selection process. I think this is something we need to do in order to prepare ourselves for the Expression of Interest model.

If we can put in this process, prevent potential fraud and introduce penalties for applicants who misrepresent themselves, and for those who take advantage of newcomers—I know that the member from Beaches–East York said, “Why is there such a heavy focus on penalties for fraud?” I know he said that it was about half of a percentage of fraud that’s committed in Canada. I believe that’s what he said. I know that we attract about 250,000 newcomers to Canada each year, so that would be roughly 1,200 people, based on his number, that are actually committing fraud.

We need to make sure that there’s an accountable system put in place if the Expression of Interest model is brought forward based on the Australia and New Zealand model. We need to make sure that if the federal government decides to move in this direction, Ontario is prepared to further participate in the selection process of newcomers here in the province of Ontario.

In conclusion, I just want to say that we are quite proud here, on this side of the House, for the Legislature and for our members here to debate this proposed legislation. I believe that Bill 161, if passed, is the right thing to do at the right time for Ontario. If you look at our past and you look at the history of this province, immigration has played a huge role in its development and will continue to do so.

We need to make sure that we have in place the tools that government can use to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world, to continue to build a province built on fairness, built on compassion, built on opportunity, so people can find success. And we need to make sure, Madam Speaker, that we build an Ontario that continues to capture the values that make us, I think, different from many jurisdictions around the world, and that’s our strong education system, our strong health care system here in the province of Ontario.

I think that by moving forward on this piece of legislation, we will have the ability to do just that.

I look forward to hearing the debate in this Legislature, and I just want to end by saying that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: It’s a pleasure to stand and respond. I will have an hour-long presentation on Bill 161 in just a few moments, but I just wanted to touch on some of the comments from the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Congratulations on your first piece of legislation since being named minister. We’ve been waiting for this. You got through 20 minutes or so, and we look forward to adding some comments to the comments that you made this morning.

There’s no doubt that Ontario still is a destination of choice for people from around the world, Madam Speaker. But we’ve seen the numbers of new immigrants declining in Ontario. That’s a fact; it’s a simple fact. I’ll go over some of the numbers when I have a little more time to elaborate on those numbers. But the simple fact is, not as many people are coming to Ontario as there once was, and there is a big reason for that. The big reason for that is because Ontario is not the land of opportunity anymore.

The member opposite, the minister, spoke about the fact that when he moved to Ontario this was the land of opportunity. This was a place where people wanted to come. There was going to be hope and there was going to be freedom, and he mentioned another bunch of important words. Ontario isn’t the symbol of those words any longer. Under the last 10 years, we have seen the opportunity in Ontario dissipating. It’s just a fact. Unemployment is rising. Taxes are rising, and they want to continue raising taxes. People from around the world are doing their homework.

They’re looking at the numbers and they’re saying, “There’s a better opportunity in other jurisdictions for me to raise my family than there is in Ontario.” Just the simple facts, Madam Speaker, and I’ll elaborate later.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Kitchener–Waterloo.

Ms. Catherine Fife: It actually is a pleasure to stand up and talk a little bit and respond to some of the comments from the minister with regard to Bill 161. This is a step in the right direction, and it is long overdue. We welcome this because we share the principled position that immigration is an important part of the culture, the history and the economy of this province. There’s a lot of work, though, that we can move forward on. There are some things that we’ll be addressing, I think, in committee; certainly, the fact that this bill does not address the long-standing problem of ensuring that highly trained immigrants are able to work in their professional field.

When the former Premier of this province came to Kitchener–Waterloo, which is the fourth-largest draw for immigrants and refugees in the province, he said, to a packed house—this is some 10 years ago—“Listen, I know that there are doctors in this room who are driving cabs, and we’re going to get that taken care of.” This has been a long-standing issue. Hopefully, now that we have a piece of legislation that we can work with, we can actually make sure that people who come to this country and come to this province, who have skills that are needed, actually can apply those skills in their respective fields.

The other part of this bill that is missing, and this is something that I know OCASI feels strongly about, is that the bill recognizes municipalities and employers as important partners but is silent on the role of the community-based non-profit immigrant and refugee serving sector. I’ve served on Reception House in Kitchener–Waterloo for the last four years. They do important work. They’re on the front lines. They know their communities best, and it is a missed opportunity if we do not make sure those not-for-profit agencies are part of the solution going forward. Those are two issues that we see as problematic, but they can be solved, and we’re willing to do the hard work to get it done.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: I’m proud to rise this morning to support my colleague with respect to Bill 161, the Ontario Immigration Act, as he has indicated. When I was the parliamentary assistant at MCI, I led, I facilitated a number of consultations across the province. Through those consultations, Madam Speaker, we spoke to hundreds of people across the province. We spoke with newcomers, we spoke with agencies, and we spoke with industry and business to really provide the backbone in terms of what we’re seeing come forward in this immigration act today, so I’m very excited and proud to have been part of that process.

The reason I’m proud of being part of that process is twofold. One is that, prior to being elected, I was very active in our community with our local immigration planning committee. That was where agencies came together, and we came forward with recommendations in terms of how to strengthen our services and ensure that all newcomers that came into our community, that came into this province, had the supports that they required to be successful. I’m proud to say that in Ontario we have a fantastic system of agencies, of groups, of educators and health care that really supports our newcomers.

The other element is that although I was born in Ontario, my parents came here from Italy. I grew up listening to their stories of why they came to Ontario, why it was important for all of us to work together to ensure that we all have a successful future. It doesn’t matter where we come from when we come to Ontario’ we all have a future here, and in order to have that success we need to have the programs and services that support them.

I work quite often and I visit quite often with all our agencies in Windsor, including women’s economic skills training, W5, our Multicultural Council, our newcomer centre of excellence as well, and we celebrate our diversity. We celebrate our diversity and we ensure that we’re working together in partnership to ensure that we can move forward. This act does that. It ensures that we have all our programs and services in place so that we can be the best place and everyone can succeed in Ontario. Thank you.

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

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Again, it’s my pleasure to stand and just briefly address Bill 161, the act with respect to immigration in Ontario.

Speaker, in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, I recall back to about two and a half years ago, when I was getting to know the people of Leamington. Leamington is a very diverse, strong, rich-in-culture community. But, unfortunately, it’s been hard hit. Now, when I say “rich in culture,” there’s a strong Italian base there, a strong Portuguese base there, and of course there are other people who have immigrated into that town. And there was a reason why they came, years ago: because Ontario was what I would call the land of milk and honey. Unfortunately, the milk has soured and the honey has gotten hard.

Unfortunately, we look at the current situation right now and, of course, we see what the federal government is trying to do and wanting to do and needing to do. Speaker, I look at this and I go—Ontario is not going to get its share of provincial nominee spots until it decides to get the economy back on track. Our party does, in fact, have a plan to do that, to get things back in order, because we look at how this economy has been slapped around constantly over the last 10, 11 years, where the debt has more than doubled from when this government came into being back in 2003.

Again, will we support this? Yes, we will. We will support this. But there are things that need to be looked at more strongly to strengthen this particular bill.

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

Hon. Michael Coteau: I’d like to thank the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, the Minister of Children and Youth Services and the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex for weighing in on the introduction of the second reading of this bill.

I just wanted to say that, yes, our share of newcomers here in the province of Ontario has gone from about 135,000 to about 100,000 over the last several years. It is true, and I agree with the member from Prince Edward–Hastings. This is exactly why we brought forward the immigration strategy to the province of Ontario: to tell the federal government, who have control of who comes into the province of Ontario—they control the flow of newcomers in the country. We need to unite and we need to drop our partisan divides.

We need to unite and stand up and tell the federal government that Ontario needs its fair share of PNP spots, of skilled workers, economic-class workers and newcomers here to the province of Ontario and our fair share of newcomers as a whole. We need to get back to our number of 135,000.

I hope that the members from the Progressive Conservative Party and the members from the NDP will stand with me and this government to ensure that the federal government allows this province to chart its course when it comes to immigrant selection, but also put in place the tools necessary, through our programs that we work with them to develop and to implement and to run, so we can continue to build an Ontario that we’ve all benefited from.

I’m proud to stand here and participate in this debate, and I look forward to all the comments from all members in this House, because I know it’s an issue that matters to every single person here. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Todd Smith: Good morning. It is a pleasure to rise and speak on Bill 161,

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.

This bill is not a bad bill, Madam Speaker. It’s not a bad bill. Actually, as a matter of fact, there are probably some good things in this bill—

Interjections.

Mr. Todd Smith: That’s the largest ovation I’ve ever received here, from that side of the House anyway.

Bill 161, though, is another indication of this government putting the cart before the horse. What needs to happen first is, there need to be some fundamental changes in the province of Ontario. We’ll get to those eventually. I’ve got lots of time here to talk about this.

But first of all I would like to say that, over the last five months or so, it’s been an honour and a pleasure for me to be the critic for citizenship and immigration for Tim Hudak and the Ontario PC caucus, travelling into the different multicultural communities in the greater Toronto area in particular, but right across the province. There are so many rich communities out there that provide such tremendous culture to our province.

They’ve made so many contributions, not just to the culture of the province but to the academics of the province, to the economy in the province, and it has been a wonderful experience for me as a young guy who grew up in New Brunswick—not the most multicultural province in Canada—to come here to Ontario.

I live, of course, in the Belleville area, in Sterling, in Prince Edward–Hastings, but to come into the greater Toronto area, where the majority of newcomers to Canada do call home, and to experience the Vaisakhi in the Brampton area or in Mississauga; to experience Diwali—it’s a wonderful time; great celebrations, tremendous food, of course, which I like.

Then, to spend lunar new year, Chinese new year in the communities, mostly in Richmond Hill and Markham, over the last several months and celebrate the new year—of course, 2014 is the year of the horse, Madam Speaker—spending time in those communities understanding the issues that these people are facing in their communities, and then bringing their issues here to Queen’s Park. We celebrated Thai Pongal in the Tamil community back in January—the Tamil new year. It was a wonderful time to celebrate with them and another growing community within Ontario.

So I’ve experienced many new holidays and celebrations in these communities that I had never experienced before, and it has been a wonderful experience for me on behalf of our party to represent our caucus at these various events.

As I mentioned, I moved to Ontario over 20 years ago now from New Brunswick. The reason that I moved from New Brunswick to Ontario was because, at that time, New Brunswick was a rather depressed area. There was not a lot of opportunity. I love the Maritimes—it’s a great place to visit in the summer, Madam Speaker, if you get the opportunity—but there was going to be a far better chance of me finding full-time employment in my chosen field here in Ontario than there was in New Brunswick.

In those days, New Brunswick, as I say, wasn’t doing all that well. Ontario was the engine of Confederation, Ontario was where the opportunity was and Ontario was where you wanted to move if you wanted to make your mark. I was a young broadcast journalist, and, of course, Ontario is where the majority of the people in Canada live, as well, so I’m not telling you anything you don’t know, but there was a lot more opportunity here in Ontario than there was in New Brunswick at the time.

So I came here. I was educated in Belleville at Loyalist College, in the broadcast journalism program there, and quickly caught on a position with Quinte Broadcasting radio stations. Now I have, of course, a beautiful wife, and two children in Ontario that are in school at Bayside and doing extremely well and taking French immersion. I’m doing everything that a young guy from New Brunswick had envisioned when he moved here. I didn’t actually envision being an MPP at Queen’s Park when I moved to Ontario, but here I am, and I’m happy to be here and proud to be representing the people of Prince Edward–Hastings in the Legislature.

As the minister alluded to earlier, he and his family moved here from England. I know his father is from Grenada. His family is from Grenada, and they live the Ontario dream as well, as so many people in this Legislature actually have and as so many people in this province have.

But the Ontario that we moved to 20 years ago, 15 years ago, 10 years ago has whittled away. It has been whittled away over time. We’ve seen that opportunity disappear, and when I’m talking to people in Brampton or Mississauga or Scarborough or Richmond Hill or Markham or even in Prince Edward–Hastings, where I’m from, they all come to the same conclusion: There’s just not as much opportunity out there. They’re worried now that their children aren’t going to have the opportunities that they had when they decided to move to Ontario.

Unemployment is significantly high in Ontario. As a matter of fact, I believe the number is 80 months now—correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe it’s 80 months, that unemployment in Ontario has been higher than the national average. The economy isn’t exactly ticking at full speed, Madam Speaker. I think there are many, many reasons for that, and I think the chief reason for that is because the government isn’t doing a good enough job at making sure that we’re creating jobs in the province of Ontario. Driving up debt with multi-billion-dollar deficits year after year is making Ontario a lacklustre destination for investors in our province.

People look at the fundamentals of a province before deciding whether to invest here or whether to move here, and people are doing their homework now. I mean, 20 years ago when I moved here, I don’t even think I knew what an Internet was, but we live now in such a small world that if you’re deciding to come here from India—in speaking of Canada—if you’re deciding to locate, you’re now able to do your homework. Everything is available at the flick of a switch, on your keyboard, and—

Interjection.

Mr. Todd Smith: The Minister of Labour says, “Yes, they’re coming to Ontario.” But they’re not coming to Ontario in the numbers that they once were, Madam Speaker. They’re not, and that’s the fact. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration admitted as much just a moment ago, that the numbers have significantly dropped, and there’s a reason for that. The reason is, they’re doing their homework and they’re understanding that the opportunity that once existed here in Ontario doesn’t exist in the same way any longer, and there are a lot of things that have to happen.

Our leader, Tim Hudak, has talked about his Million Jobs Act and the fact that we have to start creating jobs again in the province.

We have not seen a single jobs plan from the government, but yet we have this piece of legislation—and this is where I go back to the fact that we’ve put the cart before the horse when it comes to this piece of legislation. Bill 161 is a fine piece of legislation, but it’s too early. We have to have a jobs plan. We have to start creating jobs in the province, and what we’ve seen is jobs disappearing at a record pace from Ontario. My colleague from Chatham–Kent–Essex just talked moments ago about what’s happened in Leamington. Heinz ketchup was in Leamington for over 100 years.

It was an opportunity, as my colleague mentioned, where people immigrated into Canada and they would work at the Heinz ketchup factory in Leamington. They would grow the tomatoes and send them on to the factory. Hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of people worked at Heinz ketchup in Leamington. The fact of the matter is that we’re still making ketchup in the world. People are still putting ketchup on their french fries and on their Kraft Dinner—my kids have it on their Kraft Dinner; I don’t quite like that but they’re having it on their Kraft Dinner. They’re having it on their hamburgers. Right?

That ketchup is still being made, but the ketchup isn’t being made in Leamington any longer; that ketchup is being made in the United States.

This is what’s happening. Our jobs aren’t disappearing; they’re just disappearing from Ontario, because we’re not the location of choice for investors any longer, and there are many, many reasons for that. There’s the high debt and the high deficit that this government continues to put on the table. We’ll look forward to seeing what happens at budget time in about a month or so here, Madam Speaker, to see if those blank spots that are in the budget ledger for the years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18 are actually filled in this time.

They talk about the fact that they want to balance the budget, but they have absolutely no plan to do that. And until we start to get our finances under control, investors like Heinz and many others are going to decide to locate elsewhere.

We haven’t even touched on the high cost of electricity, the rising and soaring cost of electricity, and what that means for investors in our province as well. I represent the Quinte area. I meet with the Quinte Manufacturers Association on a quarterly basis, but I hear from them a heck of a lot more than that, Madam Speaker, because every day they’re contacting my office, talking about the rising cost of electricity. As a matter of fact, yesterday I had a meeting on the telephone with the general manager of a manufacturing facility in Belleville.

He told me his global adjustment last month on his hydro bill was $2,100. That’s a number that didn’t exist—and that’s a small manufacturing facility. There are much larger manufacturing facilities that have seen huge increases on their hydro bills. This is the biggest concern right now in rural Ontario, and I know it’s a concern here in the GTA with our manufacturers as well: the rising cost of electricity.

I’ve mentioned many times here about Sigma Stretch Film in Belleville. Two and a half years ago, their hydro bill was $131,000 a month. That’s a lot of money, $131,000 a month. In December of this year, their hydro bill was $240,000, and according to the Liberals’ long-term energy plan, by the time 2015 hits, that hydro bill is going to be $461,000 a month. That’s up from $131,000. These are—

Hon. Michael Coteau: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Yes?

Hon. Michael Coteau: I know that we’re talking about the Ontario Immigration Act, and he’s focusing entirely on electricity. I think the member should return back to Bill 161.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): I would just remind the member to remember that it is Bill 161. Thank you.

Mr. Todd Smith: Sure. And again, Madam Speaker, I’m happy to talk about the bill. I have 47 minutes remaining, and I will of course get to the bill, but I’m trying to paint a larger picture as to why investors aren’t creating jobs in Ontario, which of course makes it very difficult for newcomers to come to Ontario, if there are no jobs here in Ontario or if jobs are disappearing at a record pace.

So I can appreciate that the minister would like me to talk to the bill, and I will be talking to the bill, but again, I’m just trying to relay that we are in a very dire situation in Ontario, and we have a government that doesn’t seem to realize that we’re in a desperate situation here. We need to make some changes, and we need to implement the Million Jobs Act that our leader, Tim Hudak, has been talking about in order for us to attract newcomers at the pace that we need to attract newcomers to Ontario.

As the minister mentioned in his remarks, we need to bring in skilled workers. We all understand that we need to bring in skilled employees to fill the job shortages that we’re about to face down the road, and I think the number that he mentioned was 2.5 million job openings in the coming years. So we all recognize the fact that we do have some challenges in Ontario, and one challenge that I think the minister mentioned was the low birth rate, but we have many, many challenges that are far more important and significant than that.

We need to create an environment where investors want to create jobs here in Ontario, and we need to create an environment such that newcomers will want to come and begin their new lives here in Ontario and not choose Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or British Columbia.

I do have a few numbers, and I will speak specifically to some of the numbers in regard to other provinces. I’m just trying to find them here, Madam Speaker. I apologize.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Take your time, Todd.

Mr. Todd Smith: Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I have lots of time, I understand.

Provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan have seen their immigration rates double and triple, respectively. Manitoba and Saskatchewan—and by no means do I mean to run down other provinces, but Manitoba and Saskatchewan weren’t high on the list of destinations for people from around the world to locate to. There’s a reason why those numbers are significantly higher in those two provinces right now. If you look at Saskatchewan in particular, there’s a province that has its act together. There’s no such thing as unemployment in Saskatchewan. People in Saskatchewan have good jobs now.

They know that when they wake up in the morning, they’re going to be able to go to work. There’s no such thing as unemployment in Saskatchewan—low single digits in unemployment, if there is any.

They’ve done such a good job in Saskatchewan at creating an environment where people want to come. They actually did have some wonderful commercials on during the Olympic Games. It is probably a very nice place to visit and to raise a family now because there is that opportunity.

So many people are choosing other provinces now, like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who have taken advantage of the provincial nominee program. When you look at what the feds have done—they allocate the provincial nominees program spaces—they’re looking at the job creation opportunities, they’re looking at what’s happening in those other provinces and so they’re allocating increased numbers there.

While Ontario has seen some increase in provincial nominee program numbers, we believe that, yes, we need to have more spaces in the provincial nominee program, which is a sponsorship program where people come here and are guaranteed to have a job when they get here in their chosen field. We believe that there do need to be more provincial nominee program spaces here in Ontario, and we look forward to the day when we actually have the investors and the businesses here in Ontario that want to create those opportunities and fill those opportunities.

The federal government has made multiple extensive changes to the immigration system here in Canada over the last decade, including the federal skilled worker program, the provincial nominee program, and others like the Canadian experience class. It’s a good program as well, where we attract newcomers here. They can come, study in our schools and then eventually receive permanent status here in Ontario. These are all good programs, but again I go back to the fact that if we don’t get the fundamentals right here in Ontario, then we’re not going to attract those people to our province.

I’ve been talking to an awful lot of people in the Brampton and Mississauga areas, and even home in Prince Edward–Hastings, about credentials. This is an issue that I believe needs to be addressed as well in Ontario. A few weeks back—I guess it was just before Christmas—I was having some small business round tables. I was previously the small business critic for the PC caucus, and the red tape critic, so I have had small business and red tape meetings right across the province and met with many people.

With the citizenship and immigration file, it has been interesting to also hear the same things within the communities of our newcomers and our new Canadians. They’re dealing with the same things. They’re dealing with red tape issues, and credentials are a big part of that.

Let me tell you a quick story about two gentlemen I was speaking with at a real estate office in Brampton just before Christmas. They were both foreign-trained doctors. Neither of them was working in a hospital or in our health care system. As a matter of fact, I believe one of them was a security guard and the other was a taxi driver—just doing whatever job they could do to make ends meet.

They told me that when they were doing their homework and deciding where they were going to relocate here in Canada, they decided—this was many years ago now—to come to Ontario because this was where they were going to be able to get a job and work in their chosen field. The way that one of the gentlemen put it to me was, when he left India on the airplane, he had his credentials. He was going to be able to get a job when he landed here. But when he actually hit the airport up in Mississauga, Lester B. Pearson international airport, he became a zero. These are his words.

He said, “I became a zero when I landed at Pearson.” He was unable to get a job. This, in a province where we’ve had some serious physician shortages, especially in some of our more rural areas. He wants to work in his field. It’s not like he was working in MASH unit somewhere. He was working at a fully functional and modern, up-to-date hospital in India, with really impressive credentials and experience—20 years’ experience working in all different kinds of situations. He wants to work here and contribute to our health care system. When he landed he couldn’t get that opportunity.

He got the red tape runaround, the bureaucratic runaround. He did a test. He passed his examinations, but he was unable to get a job in the field. He told me that he’d be willing to work as an apprentice, even, to a fully trained medical practitioner here in Ontario, be it in Thunder Bay or Kirkland Lake or here in the GTA, wherever the opportunity would arise, in order to prove that he knew his profession, that he would be able to provide a service here in Ontario in a field where we could actually use some help and some experience. But he continues to get the runaround.

We need to have an Ontario government that will address that red tape runaround. Treat this as a situation where we want to give our newcomers an opportunity to show us that they can contribute in a positive way to our health care system. They were willing to do anything, these guys: to work in a lab, to work in a family health team setting, to work anywhere in our medical field to get some experience and to prove themselves so that they could be a medical professional here in Ontario, but they’re not being given that opportunity.

There’s a young lady, actually, whom I met with last summer. She’s from the Bancroft area, at the northern end of my riding. She decided that she would go to medical school over in Scotland. She’s a fully trained, fully qualified pediatrician in Scotland, but she wants to work at home. She wants to work here in Ontario. Her family is in Bancroft. They have a beautiful home next to the golf course, and Jennifer would love to come back and work at the North Hastings Hospital in Bancroft or Quinte Health Care hospitals in Belleville or Trenton or Prince Edward county. But she’s being denied residency here in Ontario because there are not enough slots here.

We have a pediatrician shortage in eastern Ontario. I can tell you that there needs to be a pediatrician on call 24 hours a day. What’s been happening in Belleville, at Belleville General Hospital periodically, is, because we don’t have enough pediatricians, babies who are being born at the maternity ward of Belleville General Hospital—brand new babies, just welcomed into the world—are being put in an ambulance and sent to Kingston General Hospital because there’s a pediatrician there.

The families are actually getting in their cars and driving to Kingston, which is an hour away, to be with their brand new family member. And then when a pediatrician comes on call, the baby is being put back in the ambulance and sent back to Belleville General Hospital. These are the kinds of things that are costing enormous amounts of money, for one, and creating unfortunate situations for families in Ontario at what should be a very celebratory time. It’s a huge problem.

We have a pediatrician who’s from the Quinte region, who is from Prince Edward–Hastings, who would love to come back and work in their hometown hospital, but they’re not getting that opportunity because of the red tape runaround, because of bureaucracy, because of a credentialing system that doesn’t work. So that’s something that we could potentially look at when we discuss this bill in committee as well: giving those who have the credentials in another country an opportunity to work in their chosen field here in Ontario. That’s not just medical practitioners; it’s electrical engineers, it’s—you name it.

People are unable to get into their chosen field here in Ontario. We need to fix that, Madam Speaker.

But again, I go back to the fact that if we pass this bill—and I’m sure this bill will eventually make it to committee and will get support; there will be amendments, of course, to this bill—there are not going to be the desired outcomes from this bill, because the province needs to get its financial situation in order.

We decided—when I say “we,” our party and our leader, Tim Hudak, and the PC caucus—back in November and December that we would pass a number of bills that the government wanted passed so that we could see a jobs plan from this government. We had a number of very good bills that were passed, some excellent bills, as a matter of fact: Sikh Heritage Month was passed, First Responders Day was passed, and we had the tanning bed bill for teenagers passed.

There were many, many bills that we allowed swift passage to in the Legislature so that we could get to a jobs plan here in Ontario, so that we could make sure that we were addressing the financial crisis that we’re in here in Ontario. And when you’re looking at a debt that’s approaching $300 billion, this is something that needs to be fixed in order for Ontario to be seen as a desirable location for investment, and we haven’t seen that.

We haven’t seen a government that is taking a laser-like focus to eliminate the deficit in the province; we’ve actually seen a government that’s looking at introducing future taxes in Ontario, which is going to make us an even less desirable location.

They’re talking about bringing in a 10-cent-per-litre increase in the gas tax. What’s that going to do to our small businesses, our manufacturers? It’s going to make it more expensive for them again to do business here in Ontario—increasing the gas tax. We already know the electricity prices are going through the roof. Our propane prices are up almost triple in the last several months, particularly in eastern Ontario, and there are many people in my region who are dealing with propane that was once at about 50 cents a litre, now at $1.12 a litre, and it’s causing huge hardships on homeowners and residents in eastern Ontario.

It goes back to what I’ve been saying from the outset, that unless we get our fundamentals in place to make Ontario a desired location for investment, for newcomers to call home, then we’re not going to get the numbers that we need to fill the vacancies that the minister was talking about during his presentation: 2.5 million job openings in the coming years.

We need to make changes in our education policy as well and our curriculum so that we’re actually training our students for the jobs that are available—people without jobs, jobs without people. But we have to be training people for those job vacancies, and we have to be sure that we’re giving them the skills that they need when they’re in elementary school, public school and right up through in their post-secondary education so that when they do have an opportunity to join the workforce, they’re actually trained for the jobs that are available at that time. We’re not doing a good enough job.

When you look at the math test results that we had from the EQAO that were recently released, we’re not doing a good enough job in financial literacy and in improving our math scores. We need to do a much better job to ensure that when the jobs are available we’re actually training our students to fill those job vacancies.

The federal government is encouraging provinces to develop systems that will allow for them to participate in the Expression of Interest program after 2015. The feds are going to be introducing Expression of Interest immigration reform to make the immigration system much more responsive to labour market demands. The minister has touched on that as well in the legislation that’s coming forward. Again, this legislation is good legislation, Madam Speaker.

There are some very good points throughout this that we commend, but again, it’s just a situation where the province is a little bit too quick to put these in place without addressing some of the larger things that we need to address in the province.

We’re not matching our immigration to our labour needs. We need to do a better job of doing that. It’s merely allowing new immigrants to settle here based on a set of credentials. While assessing credentials is a critical element to good immigration policy, it doesn’t ensure that the individuals that settle in Ontario will have a job waiting for them when they arrive. This is the provincial nominee program. We need to make sure that we’re creating more opportunity for employers to create these types of positions and sponsorships. We need to tailor our immigration policy to our province’s labour needs.

I talked a little bit about the fact that when it comes to our health care system, there are many places where we can make improvements and eliminate some of the red tape that exists so that we’re filling in some of those positions that need to be addressed.

I go back to my first comments, Madam Speaker, in the closing minutes that I have here. I look forward to continuing this debate at a future date. The province needs to get its act together. Don Drummond, in his report that he put out a couple of years ago that has been largely ignored by the government, despite paying a significant amount of money and building up the Drummond report: 60% of it, they’ll say, has been implemented. They’ll say that 60% of it has actually been implemented. Don Drummond will actually say that you needed to implement 100% of this.

If you didn’t like something that was in the Drummond report, you were going to have to replace what you don’t like with something that’s going to end up finding the same efficiencies in savings, but the government hasn’t done that. As a matter of fact, when it came to the big recommendations in the Drummond report—those were going to be some hard decisions, and they didn’t want to make those decisions.

What I find most interesting is that the Drummond report had great fanfare. It was like an Ontario budget. There was all of this hype, and the government spent a significant amount of money in making sure that this was a comprehensive report. It was a very comprehensive report on how we can get our province back to a balanced budget. There were a couple of items that were chosen but there were a lot that weren’t, and they certainly haven’t been replaced by new ideas on how we can get to balance. There has been no mention at all on getting us back to balance.

It’s almost laughable when the finance minister stands up and says that we’re headed for a balanced budget in 2017-18, but there’s absolutely no plan on how we’re going to get there; just blank spaces in the budget columns.

We’ve done our part, as the official opposition, to put a plan on the table. The government has ignored our recommendations. The government has ignored many of the recommendations from its own report from Don Drummond.

Until we actually get our province back to balance, until we actually start to reduce the size of our multi-billion-dollar deficit, we’re not going to become a location that’s a desirable one for newcomers to Ontario, because, as I say, they are doing their homework. They’re looking at jurisdictions that they can move to where they can get a job and raise a family with some predictability. I talk about families, but you talk about business owners, investors, job creators, and they’re looking at the financial situation here in Ontario and they are not choosing Ontario, for a lot of reasons that I have mentioned over the last 45 minutes or so.

We’ve got to get these fundamentals right in Ontario. We’ve cleared the decks to allow the government to bring in a jobs plan. I look forward to seeing what their budget includes in the coming weeks, but from what we’ve been hearing and the legislation that we’re debating, aside from this piece of legislation—much of the legislation that we’re debating in the Legislature is going to make it more expensive to live in Ontario. It’s going to make Ontario less attractive for investors.

Alberta, BC, Saskatchewan and Manitoba—you know, we talk about the numbers and the fact that we’ve seen the number of new Canadians doubling and tripling in some of these other western jurisdictions in particular. There’s a reason for that. They are jurisdictions that have their financial act together. They have low deficits or no deficits and are possibly in surplus. They have low unemployment or no unemployment. They have many, many opportunities.

Right now, we’re living in a province where the government thinks that everything is just fine, and anybody looking at the provinces from outside can clearly see that we have a crisis here in Ontario financially. We’re looking down the barrel of further tax increases under the current government. We need to bring in a new government with a new plan for Ontario to make it a desirable location for businesses, with an economic climate where they know that they can grow and expand and create jobs.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): We are nearly at 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30.

The House recessed from 1013 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF MEMBER

FOR THORNHILL

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the Chief Electoral Officer and laid upon the table a certificate of the by-election in the electoral district of Thornhill.

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): A certificate of the by-election is addressed to Mrs. Deborah Deller, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, and it reads as follows:

“Dear Mrs. Deller:

“A writ of election dated the 15th day of January, 2014, was issued by the Honourable Lieutenant Governor of the province of Ontario, and was addressed to Anna Di Ruscio, returning officer for the electoral district of Thornhill, for the election of a member to represent the said electoral district of Thornhill in the Legislative Assembly of this province in the room of Peter Shurman, who, since his election as representative of the said electoral district of Thornhill, has resigned his seat.

This is to certify that, a poll having been granted and held in Thornhill on the 13th day of February, 2014, Gila Martow has been returned as duly elected as appears by the return of the said writ of election, dated the 21st day of February, 2014, which is now lodged of record in my office.”

Signed:

“Greg Essensa

“Chief Electoral Officer

“Toronto, February 24, 2014.”

Ms. Martow was escorted into the House by Mr. Hudak and Mr. Wilson.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Speaker, I have the honour to present to you and to the House Gila Martow, member-elect for the electoral district of Thornhill, who has taken the oath, signed the roll and now claims the right to take her seat.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Let the honourable member take her seat.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m proud to welcome to Queen’s Park this morning the mayor of Brooke-Alvinston, Don McGugan; his wife, Anne; councillors Frank Nemcek, Jim Hayter and Wayne Deans; and Jack MacDonald. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Ms. Catherine Fife: I’d like to welcome Mr. Graham Murray to question period this morning, joining us in the west members’ gallery. Mr. Murray certainly is no stranger to the Legislature, having published his newsletter, Inside Queen’s Park, for 27 years. I hope all members will join the Public Affairs Association of Canada this evening in room 230, where they will be honouring Graham for his years of service.

Hon. Reza Moridi: It’s my pleasure to welcome Ms. Shipra Mendiratta, mother of page Meera Chopra, and her grandparents Ram and Daya Mendiratta to the House today. They are visiting from Richmond Hill and we welcome them to the House.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I’d like to welcome three of my constituents from the great riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, who are here as part of the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. They are Brady Elliott, Gary Segeren and Samantha Stevens. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: Speaker, good morning. I’d like to take this opportunity to welcome the family of page Aqil Syed—mother, Aniza Baksh; father, Syed Mahboob; and grandfather Mashiur Syed—from the great riding of Pickering–Scarborough East to the Ontario Legislature to watch page Aqil as page captain today. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Jeff Yurek: I’ve got a few constituents here today for the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program. I’ve got constituents Jeremy Giret and Rod Crinklaw.

In the stands here today is Bayham councillor Tom Southwick. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. John O’Toole: It’s my distinct pleasure to introduce Kate Barrie Hyatt, who’s part of the class 15, Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, as well as I believe one of the leaders herself, Marlene Werry, a well-respected agricultural leader in Durham region.

Mr. Norm Miller: I’m very pleased to welcome, in the west members’ gallery the mayor of Bracebridge, Mr. Graydon Smith, and deputy mayor of Bracebridge, Mr. Rick Maloney, who are down here for the ROMA-OGRA conference. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I want to welcome a very hard-working member of my constituency office staff in Thunder Bay–Superior North. Welcome, Stephen Margarit.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to introduce some great eastern Ontarians who are taking over Toronto today. From the township of Champlain in the Glengarry–Prescott–Russell area: Paul Emile Duval—why don’t you give everybody a wave, Paul Emile? We’ve got Troy Carkner, Jacques Lacelle, James McMahon and, of course, my two favourites, Helen and Ray MacLeod.

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: We have here today, from class 15, the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, Marvin Talsma, visiting Queen’s Park from London, Ontario. Welcome, Marvin.

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’d like to introduce Joe Daunt, Troy Hamilton, Sara Little, Linda Slits, Peter Stolk and Sarah Van Nes here with the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, all from Perth-Wellington.

Ms. Lisa M. Thompson: It’s my pleasure to introduce, from the wonderful riding of Huron–Bruce, Jutta Splettstoesser, who also is participating in the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program.

Mr. Ted Arnott: I have some friends here too from the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program: CEO Rob Black, Barry Micallef of the University of Guelph and participant Carolyn Kozak. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It’s my pleasure to introduce, from the Advanced Agricultural Leadership Program, initiated by Earl Mighton many years ago, Ridha Chilmeran from my riding of Halton.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m delighted to welcome Anne Marie Gillis, a councillor from Sarnia, to the Legislature today. I hope you’ll be sitting down here soon.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): In the Speaker’s gallery today, we have the mayor of Brantford, Ontario—as Walter Gretzky calls it, the centre of the universe—Mayor Chris Friel.

RESPONSES TO PETITIONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Leeds–Grenville on a point of order.

Mr. Steve Clark: I have a point of order regarding petition P173. First, I want to thank Molly Sorensen from my riding for bringing this to my attention. I tabled petition P173, Minimum Care Standards in Long-Term Care Homes, Speaker, on October 8, and I believe I was due an answer from the ministry in early December.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): After checking with the table—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. After checking with the table, it is indeed overdue. Minister, I want to remind you that you are required by standing order 39(

i) to file a response within 24 sessional days. Your response is now overdue, and I would ask if you give the House some indication as to when that response would be forthcoming.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I will ensure it is done in very short order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I appreciate the point of order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): While I’m standing, I’ll wait for the attention of the member from Durham, who wants to have a conversation while I’m standing. Thank you.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): On February 19, the member from Timmins–James Bay raised a point of privilege relating to an unsuccessful attempt the day before by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, during introduction of bills, to receive unanimous consent to have his just-introduced Bill 156 immediately called for second and third reading.

The member from Timmins–James Bay noted that an open letter was later issued by the member for Prince Edward–Hastings that asserted it was a member, or members, of the New Democratic caucus who said “no” to the request for unanimous consent.

The member from Timmins–James Bay took particular offence to this because he asserted his caucus was, in fact, in favour of the request for unanimous consent, and therefore no member of the NDP would have, or did, say “no.” For his part, the member for Prince Edward–Hastings said it was and remains his honest belief there were “noes” from the NDP caucus and that the opposite cannot be proven. This, of course, is exactly the point of the matter.

I think this is sufficient to state the obvious, that being that on a request for unanimous consent no recording of the ayes or the nays is made and therefore no record exists of which member or members might have declined their consent. The Speaker simply hears at least one “no” and the House moves on.

It is, therefore, dangerous to make allegations about requests for unanimous consent, and even more so to attribute motive for the perceived refusal, since by their nature requests for unanimous consent are handled without debate and, therefore, without any opportunity for a member to state a position for or against.

It is important to note that requests for unanimous consent are required when a deviation from the standing orders is being sought. This is not a trivial thing, and it is perfectly within the right of any member to object, and no justification needs to be made for doing so. In the case of the request by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings, his bill had just been introduced and no other member of the assembly had even seen it yet. From my perspective, it seems a bit unfair to put other members in that position, and uncharitable to criticize when the House does not blindly agree.

In saying this, I note that more and more we seem to be seeing requests for unanimous consent that in my opinion are frankly engineered to be declined so that some sort of political advantage can be taken by the so-called “aggrieved party” that did not get its way. I can’t say that I approve of this when it occurs, but I also have to note that during my Speakership I have seen this tactic used by all parties of this House, and I am satisfied—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Indeed—in this House, and I am satisfied enough by the evidence before me that this is another one of those instances. Being the victim of an ill-advised but all-too-common political tactic does not rise to the abuse of parliamentary privilege.

I do not want to seem dismissive of the point raised by the member of Timmins–James Bay, however, and want to address the ruling from the Canadian House of Commons that the member for Timmins–James Bay pointed out. As that ruling makes clear, it could amount to a breach of privilege if anyone, including a member of this assembly, were to deliberately misrepresent parliamentary proceedings, whatever the motivation for doing so, or its result. In this case, there are no actual recorded votes involved since, as I pointed out, none are recorded on requests for unanimous consent.

The members from Timmins–James Bay and Prince Edward–Hastings are left having a dispute that the Speaker cannot resolve. I therefore cannot find that a prima facie case has been made out.

It is now time for—

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Point of order.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): A point of order, the member for Timmins–James Bay.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I would like to thank you for your ruling.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Acknowledged.

It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, this morning, I addressed the ROMA-Good Roads conference and I talked about our plan to create a million jobs in our province over the next eight years.

While we were presenting our plan for good jobs in our province and better take-home pay, the Liberal government was more concerned about restaurant menus. While we’re counting on creating more jobs, your focus is on counting calories.

Let me ask you a very direct question, Premier. How many additional jobs will your restaurant menu legislation create in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, you know, the role of government is to do many things at the same time, Mr. Speaker. In fact, I notice the grade 5 students from Blessed John XXIII who have joined us this morning, and the menu labelling initiative that we brought forward is at least in part to make sure that those young people, who happen to come from the riding of Don Valley West, have all of the supports that they need to make sure they grow up healthy.

We’re going to continue to bring forward education initiatives, we’re going to continue to bring forward health initiatives, and we’re going to continue to bring forward initiatives that will invest in businesses, support businesses to create jobs—all of those things at the same time, Mr. Speaker. That’s what government has to do.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Well, respectfully, Premier, I want to see, when students grow up and graduate, that they’ve got a good job in the province of Ontario. Really, shouldn’t that be our number one priority? I was certainly edified by your health minister’s debate about what has more calories, a cheeseburger or a raisin muffin, but respectfully, I think the bigger debate is, how are we going to get people back to work in the province of Ontario? How are we going to get our energy costs under control? How will we get taxes down so all businesses can succeed in our province?

And I know you can do this, because time and time again the New Democratic Party props you up, no matter what you do. You’ve been given a licence to bring forward secondary bills instead of dealing with the true issues around jobs and the economy. So if they’re going to prop you up again two times today, let me at least ask you this: Will you set aside your restaurant menu legislation and clear the way for my million jobs plan for people to go back to work in our province?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, the Leader of the Opposition can minimize health initiatives, Mr. Speaker. He can minimize clean air initiatives like green energy. He can undermine and try to minimize education initiatives. But from my perspective, the economy is all of those things. Having healthy people, having an educated workforce, having businesses that are supported, having infrastructure that’s in place: All of that is part of a healthy economy. So he can compartmentalize and—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): That will do. The member from Northumberland will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: He can compartmentalize, Mr. Speaker, and pretend that the health and well-being of our students is not part of a strong economy, but that is just not the case. I want to make sure that as the jobs that we are creating—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Lambton–Kent–Middlesex will come to order. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke will come to order.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: —for example, at Conestoga Meat Packers in Breslau, 425 existing jobs and 100 new jobs because of investment; at CentreLine in Windsor, 31 new jobs and retaining 482 existing positions—I hope he would support those, even in his compartmentalized view of the world.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the Premier wants to hold everyone’s hand 24 hours a day. I want to—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Rural Affairs, come to order.

Mr. Tim Hudak: —give people jobs in our province. I want to see business succeed again. While the Liberal Party seems lost in a maze of secondary legislation, we have a very clear-eyed vision to get Ontario back on track with more jobs and less debt.

I want to say, Speaker, I’m proud to introduce today the new member for Thornhill, Gila Martow. She is going to be a tremendous asset here in this Legislature. But I’ll tell you this, Premier: When Gila Martow and I were knocking on doors in Thornhill, I didn’t hear people, moms and dads, saying, “We want you to focus on counting calories.” They wanted us to focus on counting that their kids would have a job when they graduate from school.

So put that aside. Pass our bill. Let’s put people back to work in the province of Ontario.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, I want to welcome—I should have done it off the top—the new member for Thornhill to the House. Welcome. It’s great to have you here.

This sounds like flip political rhetoric that’s coming from the Leader of the Opposition, but it’s actually much more serious than that, because what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is that an economic plan and a jobs growth plan have nothing to do with the health and education of the people of this province. That is just not the case.

When Cisco Systems Canada came to Ontario and added 1,700 high-tech jobs, with the potential of 5,000 jobs by 2024, we supported that. We’re working with Cisco. We’ve created those jobs in partnership with Cisco. The Leader of the Opposition suggests that that’s not related to education. We know the prime reason that Cisco came here is because of our educated workforce. They are connected. You cannot slash those services and have a strong economy.

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is to the Minister of Health.

Minister, community care access centre executive salaries have skyrocketed over the last few years. In 2012, the average salary of the chief executive officers at the 14 CCACs in Ontario was $234,000. In one case, the salary jumped by over 50% in three years. Compare this to the average personal support worker who makes an average of about $20,000 a year, who hasn’t seen any pay increase over the last three years.

Your government is now spending over $30 million on executive salaries alone at the 14 CCACs and the Ontario association of CCACs, yet I consistently hear from seniors and families of individuals with developmental disabilities and other disabilities across the province that they are unable to access needed care.

Minister, can you tell us why you have allowed executive salaries to skyrocket over the last few years?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We are concerned about executive compensation, not just in the health care sector but in the broader public sector. I will ask the Minister of Government Services to respond in the supplementary.

I want to underline, Speaker, that our commitment to health care transformation is built on home care. We are investing more in home care so more people can get the care they need at home, so they don’t have to stay in hospital and they don’t have to go into long-term care before they really need that kind of intensive care.

Two hundred thousand more Ontarians are getting home care now—200,000 more now than in 2003, when your party was in charge. We are getting people home from hospital more quickly. We are providing better care.

I will stand with those front-line providers. I will stand with home care, Speaker, because that’s the investment we need to make.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Whatever investment the minister says has been made is clearly not being made in front-line services. I hear from people across the province who are desperately trying to access services through their CCAC. Your ministry has cut physiotherapy services that help seniors. You’ve reduced the number of diabetes test strips that are available to help people manage their own care.

As one nursing care provider stated to me, “The CCACs are great at spending dollars to save nickels.” Yet the bigger issue of why up to 40% of the funds allocated to CCACs never make it to front-line care has been something you’ve consistently ignored.

Minister, why have you failed to ensure that the health care needs of vulnerable Ontarians are being met?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’ve had to make some pretty tough decisions as Minister of Health, and that party opposite has not stood with me as I have made tough decisions. Every decision I have made is about providing more care to people in their own homes.

Our community care sector is growing. It is providing higher-quality care to hundreds of thousands of more people. We do not have it perfect. It’s a whole lot better than it was, and it is getting better.

I remain open to ideas on how to get better value and serve more people. That is what I live for.

Are there better ways? I’m sure there are; we’re listening. But I will not take lessons from the party that did not provide the home care that was necessary.

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

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: The fact of the matter is that thousands of Ontarians are not able to access home care. Executive salaries are skyrocketing. Front-line service providers are not being paid the rates that they should be paid for personal support workers. Up to 40% is spent on administration. There’s a conflict of interest, with CCACs directly hiring people. In fact, this is a mess, and the minister has stood by and let this happen.

It’s clear that we need urgent action to address the issue of the CCACs. That is why, in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts tomorrow, I will be asking for an Auditor General’s review of the operations at the CCACs. Minister, will you stand and support this request?

Interjections.

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

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Of course I’ll support the Auditor General looking at home care, which the Auditor General did in 2010 and did a report again, back in 2012, and reported that patients were, by and large, satisfied with the services. The Auditor General also noted significant expansion in home care.

The member opposite makes the case that more people need more home care. I could not agree more, and that’s why the last budget increased home care and community care by 6%, and we continue to keep expanding home care. The member opposite talked about physiotherapy. More people are getting faster access to physiotherapy now than they were under the old model.

We are transforming health care. Home care is at the foundation of that. When I see people who are able to live at home because of the services provided by home care, I know we are on the right track.

SMALL BUSINESS

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’d like to begin by taking the opportunity, on behalf of New Democrats, to welcome the new member for Thornhill to the Legislature.

My question is for the Premier. The Premier may recall that in 2011, her government promised to reduce small business taxes from 4.5% to 4%. It was on page 13 of the Liberal fiscal framework. Can the Premier tell us what progress she has made thus far?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party knows, we recently, as a result of the last budget, gave small businesses a break on the employee health tax. We are very, very aware of the needs of small businesses, and we support them. That break on their payroll was designed precisely to support them and to make sure that they have the capacity to expand and to hire more people. That’s why we made that change.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: If we’re going to grow and thrive, we need small businesses growing, creating jobs, innovating and building our economy. Is the Premier going to keep her promise to cut small business taxes?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party knows, we cut small business taxes from 5.5% to 4.5%. We have reduced. We extended the capital cost allowance to 2015. We reduced the employee health tax on 60,000 businesses, I think it is. So we have taken significant moves to support small business.

But the leader of the third party needs to know that revenue is extremely important in terms of delivering services, and cutting taxes across the board is not what we are going to do. That may be what the Leader of the Opposition believes is important. That’s not what we’re going to do. I’m surprised if that’s where the leader of the third party wants to go.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Stop the clock. I’m going to remind the Attorney General, the Minister of Rural Affairs and the Minister of Immigration that your Premier is answering a question while you’re heckling.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And I don’t need any others.

Final supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Earlier this morning I laid out a plan, not just to increase the minimum wage but also to help small business. New Democrats are calling for a $12 minimum wage by 2016, and we’re calling for a cut to small business taxes. It’s a responsible, affordable plan that will lift families out of poverty and ensure that small businesses can grow and create new jobs.

Is the Premier open to a fair and balanced approach?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, we’re actually taking a fair and balanced approach, and it would have been fantastic if the leader of the third party had fed into that consultation, had been part of the discussion, before we brought our plan forward. This is an after-the-fact reaction. Welcome to the discussion. It’s great that she has brought a position forward, Mr. Speaker.

We brought together business leaders, we brought together workers, and we brought together academics. We brought together a table of people, and they found unanimity for a predictable process going forward to index the minimum wage to inflation. We’re going to be introducing legislation to do that. I hope that the leader of the third party would support us.

As I say, we had extensive consultation. It would have been fantastic if she had taken

part in that.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also for the Premier. Statistics Canada recently released a report on the squeeze facing middle-class families, and it’s not good news. It says the “middle class isn’t growing,” and “the middle class is no springboard to higher incomes.” Does the Premier agree that the middle class is more squeezed than ever?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Mr. Speaker, we have talked about this. Absolutely, we understand that people are struggling and that it is important that they have the support of their government to make sure that they have capacity to provide the opportunities that they need for their young people, for their parents.

The discussion that the Minister of Health was just having about home care is about providing opportunities for people to have supports at home and for their children and their grandchildren to get the supports that they need. So yes, we are very aware that people in the middle class need support in terms of helping their young people go to post-secondary, Mr. Speaker. That’s what our 30%-off tuition grant is about.

We have put those supports in place. We will continue to do that work, and we look forward to working with whoever in this House is willing to work with us.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This weekend, one politician in Montreal expressed his concern. He said: “We need to ensure that governments keep costs as low as possible, especially for middle-class households. The middle class is already having a hard time making ends meet and struggling with debt. Tax increases for them are not in the cards and not on the table.”

Justin Trudeau said that on Saturday, Speaker. Does the Premier agree with her federal leader?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: But, of course, if Justin Trudeau were the Prime Minister, we might have a partner in investing in transit. We might have a partner in affordable housing. We might have a partner in child care. We might have a partner that wouldn’t cut our transfer payments and would stand up for Ontario. So I look forward to working with Justin Trudeau as the Prime Minister of this country. We will have a partnership that does not exist today.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I just want to remind the members that, as you do your interjections, I’m taking a mental note of who you are while you’re speaking right over top of my discussion.

Final supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, Premier, just read his lips that they shouldn’t be putting any new taxes on the middle class. We should be focusing on making it easier for people to get into the middle class, not squeezing them out with new unfair taxes. We should be focused on making life more fair.

Families get that, New Democrats get that, and apparently even Justin Trudeau gets that. But this Premier doesn’t seem to get it. She wants new taxes on families, and she’s getting ready to cut taxes for people who are making over $1 million a year, and she’s creating new tax loopholes and giveaways for corporations. Does the Premier really think that’s fair?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just be clear, once again, that what we believe is important is that people in this province have the infrastructure, and that means roads and bridges. Many of the members in the House have been to the Good Roads and the ROMA meeting in the last couple of days, and they know that every municipal leader there is concerned about investments in infrastructure. They know that those municipalities need to have the support, not just of the provincial government but of the federal government, to make sure that they have the investments necessary. So what I believe is that we have to make sure that that infrastructure is in place.

In my response to the first question, the point I was making is that if there were a federal partner who believed that investing in transit and roads and bridges in a systematic way across this province, that that was a priority, then we would be in a very different position.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I have to hand it to you. It’s not easy getting 324 municipalities to agree, but you’ve done it at this year’s ROMA-OGRA conference. All 324 of Ontario’s OPP-policed municipalities agree that you failed to deliver on the biggest challenge they faced: policing costs. You’re a year into the OPP billing review process and no closer to a fix. In fact, you’ve gone back to the drawing board because your first plan went down in flames. Now you’re even farther away from the answer. How’s that for leadership?

Forget the solution for a minute and answer this for everybody at ROMA-OGRA: After your performance, why should municipalities have any confidence that you’ll even get the job done?

Interjections.

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

I also want to remind a couple of members on this side that when your own member is asking the question, it’s kind of nice to allow them to put the question without heckling.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Energy will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, I’m still trying to acknowledge you; I know you’re excited.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m so excited about answering this question.

I hope the member on the other side would have been with me when I met with the 50 or more municipalities yesterday—

Interjection: Fifty or more meeting.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes—36 delegations to talk about OPP costs. I know that he was there this morning also to listen to the commissioner of the OPP, Chris Lewis, who explained that the system that we have in place is not fair and is not transparent—a system that was put in, I have to repeat, by your party, sir.

Even the Auditor General and the municipalities were complaining. The OPP knows that it’s not a good system in place, and the Auditor General also told us, so that’s what we are transforming. I’ve listened to the concerns of the community. We have consulted with all the community—

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

Mr. Steve Clark: Well, Minister, let me tell you something. You’re going to get no thank-you cards from municipalities for what you’ve done to the OPP billing costs. You’ve let those municipalities down because you don’t understand what’s wrong.

This isn’t about tinkering with a costing formula to hurt some municipalities a little less than others. It isn’t about the service, because we all know and we all respect the OPP officers and the difficult job that they do. You need to solve the underlying problem: Policing costs are spiralling out of control.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, come to order.

Mr. Steve Clark: Our leader, Tim Hudak, reaffirmed today his commitment to an Ontario PC government that will reintroduce the capacity to pay act and take the blank cheque away from arbitrators. That’s a real plan to control costs for the long term, and you didn’t need a fancy panel to tell you how to do it.

Why don’t you finally admit that you don’t have a plan, and use ours?

Interjections.

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

In case the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation didn’t hear me because he was talking while I was trying to tell him to stop—stop.

Minister.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m going to say to the member from Leeds–Grenville that what’s wrong is that there are 325 municipalities receiving OPP services. Some are paying zero and some are paying $1,000. That’s what is wrong—

Interjection: Per household.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Per household. So that’s what we’re trying to fix. We have a model that is in consultation as we speak, and this model will be transparent and fair to every municipality and every taxpayer in these municipalities.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order. The member from Leeds–Grenville: Stop.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: One thing that occurred is that they are all very, very pleased with the service that the OPP is offering. I got it from every municipality. We’re going to work with them. For those municipalities that will go from zero to another cost, and those that are paying $1,000, to the real cost they should pay, we will try to help them—

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

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Wayne Gates: My question is to the Premier. Whether it’s families that rely on paycheques from Vertis, DMI Industries or Jarvis Street Pharma, we see those paycheques gone, and people in Niagara see that the Liberal status quo isn’t working for families.

An increase to the minimum wage to $12 will ensure that families get a raise. Small business tax relief will ensure that small business—

Interjections.

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

Finish your question, please.

Mr. Wayne Gates: Small business tax relief will ensure that small businesses that are the backbone of the economies like Niagara can grow and create jobs.

Does the Premier agree that families need an increase to the minimum wage to $12 by 2016, and that small businesses deserve a break?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: First of all, I want to welcome the member to this House. I’m pleased to have a question from him.

Just a reminder to the member that we established an advisory panel that was made up of labour, business, anti-poverty and youth groups last June, in 2013. They consulted Ontarians across this wide province. They had about 400 submissions.

How many submissions did the NDP make to that panel? Zero. How many questions have the NDP asked on the issue of minimum wage in this House? Zero. How many times did this member or his leader speak in the by-election about minimum wage? Zero.

Speaker, their position is too little, too late. We’re not interested in playing The Price Is Right in this House.

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

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

Supplementary?

Mr. Wayne Gates: Thank you. Now that we’ve asked the question, maybe you can answer it.

Mr. Speaker, small business is the backbone of our economy and they’re the backbone of Niagara. Small businesses’ paycheques pay the bills for thousands of families. We need a balanced approach where families get a raise and we ensure that we create more jobs by letting small businesses grow and thrive.

Will the Premier agree to lower small business taxes to offset a meaningful increase to the minimum wage?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I thank the member again for an important question. Part of the process that we engaged in was to ensure that we have thorough understanding and consultation with businesses, especially our small businesses, across the province. That’s why we made sure that the panel consisted of representatives from both the retail sector and from the tourism sector, along with labour, along with anti-poverty groups and youth groups.

Speaker, one of the things that we heard again and again and that was reported by the panel is that businesses want predictability. They do not want an ad hoc process where numbers are pulled out of hats, like the NDP is suggesting now, which is too little, too late. What they want is a predictable system by which they can do business planning and they know exactly what the minimum wage is. That’s why we’re going to be tabling a bill indexing the minimum wage to the cost of living. I hope the NDP supports that bill.

ACQUIRED BRAIN INJURIES

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’ve got a question this morning for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Speaker, no parent wants their son or daughter to suffer an acquired brain injury, but when tragedy strikes, they need to know care will be there for them.

Families in Oakville, Burlington and Hamilton have been concerned recently about reports of changes in brain injury care at McMaster Children’s Hospital. Recently, the member for Hamilton Mountain asked why these brain injuries are no longer being treated at that hospital. I’d like to assure my constituents that the services are indeed still there and they’re available when they need them.

Would the minister tell this House what these changes mean for kids and their families in the Hamilton, Oakville and Burlington area?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’d like to thank the member from Oakville for giving me a chance to clear the air around these changes. I want to be absolutely clear: McMaster Children’s Hospital is still treating children with acquired brain injuries, contrary to the assertions made by the member from Hamilton Mountain.

In fact, the recent changes will allow patients to receive more timely care. Previously, the ABI, acquired brain injury, clinic ran twice a month. That sometimes caused a delay for patients from the time they received the injury—perhaps a concussion, perhaps another brain injury—to the time when they were seen in the clinic. Now patients with brain injuries, with head injuries, are seen within days in the pediatric neurosurgery clinic, where they’re provided with a prompt assessment and referred to the appropriate type of care. That care might be in the community, Speaker, or it might be more specialized care through the Hamilton Health Sciences Chedoke site.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I’m sure that all families in all of those communities I mentioned will be relieved to know this vital service is still provided by McMaster Children’s Hospital. Kids with head injuries will now be cared for more effectively and efficiently.

Speaker, the minister also mentioned the growing access to community care in her response. It’s well known by all of us in this House that receiving the right care, at the right time, in the right place, is a key commitment of the action plan for health care.

Would the minister share with this House how increased investments in community care can benefit patients with acquired brain injuries?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker, I’m very happy to have this question.

Living with an acquired brain injury can be very difficult for the individual and also for their families, so they need supports in their day-to-day lives.

I’m very proud to say that we have nearly doubled funding for acquired brain injuries since 2003. We’ve also increased our investments in assisted living by 124%—well more than doubled—since 2003. We’re also helping in an increased way with services like Meals on Wheels, transportation services, home maintenance and repair.

Speaker, these investments are helping dedicated workers and volunteers take care of Ontarians outside of hospitals, in their communities and in their homes. We will continue to work with people with acquired brain injuries and their advocates to continue this work.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Norm Miller: My question is to the Premier, and it’s on the Far North Act.

Premier, part of the problem with the Far North Act, which your government passed in 2010, is that it puts half of the Far North off limits for any development that might benefit the people who live and work in the north.

There’s supposed to be land use planning done so there are clear boundaries for the 225,000 square kilometres that can’t be used to the benefit of northerners. This uncertainty has been a particular challenge to those seeking to explore and develop the Far North. It’s sending the wrong message: that the north is closed for business. So my question to you is this: Have you figured out exactly what quarter-million square kilometres of northern Ontario are off limits for northerners?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Natural Resources.

Hon. David Orazietti: I’m pleased to take the question from the member opposite. I think the member opposite knows full well that the Far North planning act is designed to create exactly what he’s talking about—certainty—because, left to their government, there was considerable uncertainty. We had situations in the past where we had mining activities where we’ve had protests and blockades. We had the KI/Platinex issue. Those are the kinds of circumstances we don’t want evolving in northern Ontario.

The member knows that the Far North Act is designed to create the certainty that both First Nations want and business wants. In fact, we’ve got five First Nations communities in northern Ontario that have actually created land use planning that helped to create certainty in their communities.

Speaker, what I would say to the member opposite with respect to this issue is that the Far North Act, although it may be, for political opportunism, used to be misrepresented by people in northern Ontario—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member will withdraw.

Hon. David Orazietti: Withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): His time is up. Supplementary?

Mr. Norm Miller: Again to the Premier: There’s no denying that the Far North Act has cost Ontario jobs. We’ve been forced to watch as overlapping claims and government-imposed exclusion zones have wreaked havoc for exciting new mining projects. And when you eventually get around to mapping the half of northern Ontario that is off limits, what happens when a new remote mine or the next Ring of Fire is discovered right in the middle of it? You are set to deny northerners the jobs and prosperity from future resource development when they are needed most.

Premier, what is your plan B when you get the mapping wrong?

Hon. David Orazietti: Speaker, the effort that we are making to ensure that the Far North Act and that the land use planning that’s undertaken in the region gets it right is the partnerships that we’re building with First Nations and the communities in the Far North that want to see economic benefits, that want to see land development, but they also want the certainty of land use planning. First Nation communities have indicated their support, and Julie Denomme, the vice-chair of the Greater Sudbury Chamber of Commerce, also said, “Overall, we agree with the act and we like it and we see there’s value” in it.

So both sides—First Nations communities, people who represent business in the Far North and represent communities, agree that the Far North Act is something that is of value and creates certainty for businesses, and they support it, Speaker. That’s why we move forward with the legislation.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. For years, New Democrats have urged this government to focus on delivering front-line care to patients instead of lining the pockets of health care executives. In December, we finally heard a promise from this government, but no action followed.

This month, the exorbitant salaries and pay increases to CCAC CEOs, like London CEO Sandra Coleman’s increase of 144%, made the front page news. Once again, Speaker, the minister made a promise to do something, but again no action has been taken.

Can the minister explain why even outrageous salary increases like Ms. Coleman’s do not inspire the minister to take action right now?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: To the Minister of Government Services.

Interjections.

Hon. John Milloy: It’s great to be popular, Mr. Speaker.

I’m happy to talk about our plans for executive compensation, but at the beginning I just want to reiterate what the Minister of Health said about the improvements within community care in this province over the past 11 years. I remember, quite frankly, it was one of the biggest issues in 2003: the cuts that had taken place under the previous government. When you compare and contrast what’s happened, Mr. Speaker, I’m very, very proud of the story this government can tell.

In terms of executive compensation, as I indicated in this House before Christmas, we will be coming forward shortly with legislation which will empower the government to undertake the analysis and work that needs to be done to set forward frameworks, complete with a hard cap, to deal with executive compensation in the broader public service.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Teresa J. Armstrong: I heard the House leader say that he is proud of the story that this government has told. It’s a horror story, Speaker. So many of the people who deliver care continue to struggle to make ends meet, and they are the first ones to have their hours cut when this government is looking for cost savings in health care. Seniors who depend on a home care system keep telling us that they want improvements to the front-line care, but instead we keep seeing the money that should be invested in care going to well-paid executives, lining their pockets.

Why should Ontarians believe this minister and her latest promise to do something will result in action? Can we get a promise to see any kind of action any time soon?

Hon. John Milloy: Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I think it’s time for a few facts, so let me share some facts with you. As the members opposite will know, we used to have 42 CCACs; we now have 14. That has saved $2 million in executive compensation. The total percentage of CCAC budgets spent on CEO salaries has been cut in half.

When it comes to getting better care for patients, CCACs have been leaders in transformation. Let me give you some examples: The Home First program, which supports people at home rather than waiting in a hospital for long-term care, has been an extraordinary success. Internationally, people are looking at this practice. In the South West LHIN alone, Home First has saved, in one year, $10 million and provided a significantly higher quality of care.

There are many examples I would love to share with the House on home care improvement.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mrs. Laura Albanese: My question is for the minister responsible for seniors’ affairs. I think that I can speak for everyone when I say that our seniors have contributed in a significant way to the success of this province, and I strongly believe that seniors continue to contribute to the prosperity and the foresight of our communities, our cities and our province throughout their life.

In my riding of York South–Weston, I often meet with many seniors’ groups who remain active and involved within their community, such as the York West Active Living Centre, the St. Fidelis Golden Age Club, and club 600. Groups such as these are a great example for all of us.

With inspiring seniors such as these across our province, what role does our government play in encouraging and supporting active seniors?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Let me welcome the members from Thornhill and Niagara Falls as well. Congratulations to them.

Let me say that the member from York South–Weston is a tireless worker on behalf of the people of her constituency. Her seniors are no different than seniors in my area, the ones in Hamilton or Kingston or Leamington. They all have the same aspirations. Speaker, you know and I know that growing old does not mean losing our place in society—

Interjection: Not at all.

Hon. Mario Sergio: Not at all—it does not mean that we can no longer contribute. To help do that, thanks to help from our Premier, from other members and from stakeholders, on Friday we announced the first seniors’ grant program directly addressing seniors’ issues. I have to say that organizations such as the United Senior Citizens of Ontario, and Bernard Jordaan—

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

Mrs. Laura Albanese: Thank you to the minister for his commitment to the seniors of our province. Our government has been driving the implementation of programs for seniors that will help to promote volunteerism, expand education and learning, and assist Ontario seniors in overcoming issues such as social isolation. This grant program will go a long way in helping many of our seniors’ groups in my riding and beyond.

Can the minister provide us with additional details regarding this important initiative?

Hon. Mario Sergio: Indeed, this is the first program that directly addresses seniors in need. I’m delighted that the Ontario Seniors’ Secretariat has been working very effectively in providing an application that is ready as of February 21. It’s ready, it’s very simple and it’s accessible to all seniors’ groups. It aims to support groups of seniors—non-profit, of course. That is, to engage them, to get them out of isolation, bring them into community groups and keep them active. That is the intent. These supports as well are on top of what we have already done through the Ontario seniors’ action plan.

This goes a long way in getting to our seniors throughout Ontario. The grants are between $500 and $10,000, and it’s in support of providing more active activities and programs for our seniors.

ARBITRATION

Mr. Jim McDonell: I have a question for the Premier. Premier, municipal representatives from all over Ontario are gathered this week at the ROMA-Good Roads convention. I have met with over 20 delegations, and the most-expressed number one request was that interest arbitration must be reformed, and it must be reformed now.

Are you going to deliver on your promise to reform arbitration and save municipalities from bankruptcy?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: I appreciate the member’s question. I had the great honour to be at the ROMA-OGRA conference. In fact, I participated in the ministers’ session as well, along with our Premier. Interestingly, not a single member of the municipalities asked me about interest arbitration, nor did anybody request it from a delegation.

But that doesn’t mean that we’re not working on this very important issue. As I have stated before in the House, and as the Premier stated, we are very much committed to developing a new interest arbitration system in our province which is fair and balanced. But we will not bring any kind of scheme—as has been suggested by the Leader of the Opposition—that may be unconstitutional or that is going to expose the municipalities to the kind of cost that they don’t want and that they should not be incurring.

We are working on a model which is based on consensus, and I will provide you a little bit more detail as to that model in my supplementary.

Mr. Jim McDonell: Again to the Premier: Premier, municipalities and rural residents need action today. Your indecision over any issue that may upset your public-sector support base is causing misery.

We have a plan, and we brought it to this Legislature before. It is Bill 44, the capacity to pay act, which AMO wanted to see examined in committee. You voted it down.

Premier, do the right thing: Deliver on your commitment to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and reform interest arbitration now. Or does it take an Ontario PC bill to get things going?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Labour.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: As I mentioned, Speaker, we want to reform our interest arbitration system so it is fair and balanced, but we want to do it in a manner that is built on consensus.

That’s why I’m very proud that we have a process in place right now that has brought in the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, our firefighter partners and our police associations, who are working together, building a model together that can actually work and help ensure that we have a fair and balanced system.

The kind of bill that they proposed, which this Legislature voted against, is not the way to go. It’s unconstitutional, it’s unilateral, and it’s not going to give the kind of relief that municipalities want.

What’s important to note is what our municipalities were talking about yesterday at ROMA-OGRA. They want to make sure that we continue to invest in our infrastructure. They want to make sure that there are good roads and bridges in our communities. That’s the kind of partnership that we are continuing to build with our municipalities—along with ensuring that we continue with the $2-billion upload of social assistance costs that our government committed to, and we will continue to do that.

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

Ms. Sarah Campbell: To the Minister of Transportation: This winter, private snow-clearing contractors in the north were fined for failing to meet road-clearing standards, which confirmed what NDP MPPs have been saying for years: that the PC and Liberal privatization of road-clearing is failing northerners.

Just this month, the minister went on CBC Radio in Thunder Bay and said that the Liberal government would look at bringing some of these services back in-house. He also apologized to those in the northwest for our road conditions. When can northern Ontario expect to see this government follow through on its promise to reverse the privatization of winter road maintenance?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I met, at ROMA-Ontario Good Roads, with all of the municipalities affected, and we’ve worked out, I think, a plan and partnership to go forward, to do reform and to change the model. We’re working with the Ontario road builders, and we’re very excited about that.

But Mr. Speaker, the party opposite would take us back to $3 billion in infrastructure spending. That would reduce household incomes by $18,000 and business income by $50,000. They’re not talking about investments in public services. Both parties started this morning with a new tax cut. Do you know what? I have listened to municipalities from Cornwall to Kenora asking for better public services, better snow removal, better roads and bridges. We’re now at 2% of GDP. Municipalities are at 1% and the federal government is missing in action. When are they going to start—

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

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Minister, we’re talking—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —the question. I don’t need your interjections.

Supplementary.

Ms. Sarah Campbell: Thank you, Speaker. Maybe I should remind the minister that we’re talking about winter highway maintenance.

This Liberal government keeps shifting blame. But the truth is that under this Liberal government, privatization of snow-clearing contracts has increased and MTO oversight has decreased.

In the northwest, we’ve never seen 14 transport pilots before. In response to my question on snow clearing in November, the minister stated, “I will come to your constituency. I will meet with the contractor with you and we’ll make sure you get satisfaction.” Since that time, I have contacted his office numerous times and received no response. Is the minister not responding because he’s nervous about driving our roads? Or is he planning to wait until spring when the snow is gone before following through on his commitment to come and see the conditions first-hand?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: Mr. Speaker, we added 50 vehicles to northern roads this year, which was an unprecedented increase. I have met and talked with every mayor. We are maintaining standards and improving them.

We met with about 17 municipalities this morning, who have all said since those changes have been complete, the service in the north has been quite remarkable and good. Since the additional 16 vehicles were added, every single mayor said to me that they are pleased with the reforms in that, and we’re not stopping there. We have agreed to a practice of reform for next year to make additional improvements. I’m still waiting for the third party to actually start addressing the issues raised at ROMA and Ontario Good Roads, which is: What is their position on infrastructure funding?

Will they maintain $15 billion, $14 billion? What is their position on municipal funding? Do they have a position on anything that’s important—

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

New question.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Ma question est pour la ministre des Services aux consommateurs, the Honourable Tracy MacCharles.

Speaker, as you’ll appreciate, purchasing a home—a place of one’s very own—is part of the Canadian dream. Such purchases are usually the biggest transaction that people are likely to engage in during their entire lives. This is especially true in my own riding of Etobicoke North.

As stewards of this marketplace, the government of Ontario must help people feel protected, informed, knowledgeable and fully apprised of their options. This is not just a real estate transaction, but a visible and tangible correlate of people’s hopes, dreams and aspirations. In Ontario, Speaker, quite reasonably, we’re finding more and more people requesting a home inspection before finalizing the purchase agreement. But how can we ensure that those home inspection reports are valid, sound and up to standard?

I’d ask the minister to please inform this chamber: How can we work collectively to make sure that Ontarians are protected when making this important, life-changing purchase?

Hon. Tracy MacCharles: I want to thank the member from Etobicoke North for this fabulous question. It’s very timely. Speaker, the House may or may not know that more than 70% of resale homes being inspected in Ontario are taking those inspections, which is 140,000 homes next year. That’s a lot of home inspections.

The member is correct in saying that a home i