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

March 26, 2014

40th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2014-Mar-26 (PDF)

L118 - Wed 26 Mar 2014 / Mer 26 mar 2014

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 26 March 2014 Mercredi 26 mars 2014

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

FOR BRAMPTON–SPRINGDALE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO IMMIGRATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMMIGRATION

EN ONTARIO

WEARING OF RIBBONS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

JOB CREATION

PAN AM GAMES

PAN AM GAMES

PAN AM GAMES

PUBLIC TRANSIT

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

PUBLIC TRANSIT

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

WINTER HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

VISITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CYSTIC FIBROSIS

KINGSVILLE FOLK MUSIC FESTIVAL

BANGLADESH INDEPENDENCE DAY

TEACHERS

AGNES MACPHAIL AWARD

PAKISTAN REPUBLIC DAY

AGRICULTURAL COLLEGES

EPILEPSY

EPILEPSY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO BIKE MONTH ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR LE MOIS

DE LA BICYCLETTE EN ONTARIO

394557 ONTARIO LIMITED ACT, 2014

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT

ACT (CLEARING VEHICLES

OF SNOW AND ICE), 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

(ENLÈVEMENT DE LA NEIGE

ET DE LA GLACE DES VÉHICULES)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

ORGAN AND TISSUE DONATION

LYME DISEASE

TENANT PROTECTION

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

OFF-ROAD VEHICLES

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

RENEWABLE FUELS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER BUSINESS

CLIMATE ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 VISANT

À INSTAURER UN CLIMAT

PLUS PROPICE AUX AFFAIRES

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER

FOR BRAMPTON–SPRINGDALE

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I beg to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of Linda Jeffrey as the member for the electoral district of Brampton–Springdale, effective March 25, 2014.

Accordingly, I have issued a warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for a by-election.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO IMMIGRATION ACT, 2014 /

LOI DE 2014 SUR L’IMMIGRATION

EN ONTARIO

Resuming the debate adjourned on March 20, 2014, on the motion for 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): Further debate?

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It’s my pleasure to rise today and debate Bill 161,

An Act with respect to immigration to Ontario and a related amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act. Thankfully, there’s a

short title for this bill: the Ontario Immigration Act.

In 2015, the federal government will be introducing the expression-of-interest immigration reforms to make the Canadian immigration system more responsive to changing labour market demands. Due to these impending reforms, the federal government has in fact encouraged the provinces to develop systems that will allow them to participate in the EOI system after 2015. The Ontario Immigration Act is this provincial government’s attempt to get in line with upcoming changes.

Regardless of whether or not this legislation passes, Ontario must jointly share responsibility with the federal government when it comes to immigration. Bill 161—that I will be supporting; I want you to know, Speaker, that I will be supporting Bill 161, in case that hadn’t been clear already—we will be supporting at second reading, but not without some reservations. This bill does a number of things well, and I look forward to discussing some of these areas, but at the same time the bill does contain a couple of causes for concern.

The bill seeks to create yet another government bureaucracy, and while the Liberal government claims the new layer of bureaucracy will be revenue-neutral, I’m worried that this will not be the case once this bill is introduced.

Perhaps most importantly of all, this bill fails to get to the root of the matter for immigration in Ontario. To actually ensure Ontario continues to attract the best and brightest from around the world, we must address the province’s job crisis and balance the books as soon as possible. Anything less, in my opinion, would be a disservice to the countless immigrants who have decided to call Ontario home.

During my time in office, I’ve had the remarkable opportunity to meet and chat with people throughout the province, and have met many newcomers as well. You really do learn something every day in this job, and learning about the many different cultures that make up Ontario is one of the most rewarding experiences that I really have ever had.

In my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, we have people from around the world immigrating here—well, there—people from Asia, Africa, Europe, Australia, South America and, of course, other parts of North America, including the USA and Mexico. It all seems that cultures are united by their love of three things: family, friends and food. But in all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, Ontario is a province built by immigration.

These newcomers to Ontario are often fiercely proud of the province and country that welcomed them with open arms. Hearing their excitement, their enthusiasm to simply be here should serve as a constant reminder to all of us of just how lucky we are to live in such a great part of the world. Some are born here; others come by choice. But at the end of the day, we’re all proud to call Ontario and Canada home.

For those who have decided to move to Ontario rather than any other place in the world, we owe it to them to deliver on the promise that their new home is indeed a land of opportunity. There needs to be a real chance to gain meaningful employment for all Ontarians of this province to continue to attract the best and brightest from around the world. To current Ontarians, we have the responsibility to ensure that our immigration system responds to the needs of the province.

That’s not what my constituents want to see and, quite frankly, I don’t think anyone in Ontario wants to see that. My constituents want to see a government that’s willing to work with others for the betterment of all, not jeopardize our ability to compete on a global market by failing to work in good faith with other governments. Ontarians want and need to see action from their government. By playing political games, the Liberals may have compromised Ontario’s ability to attract highly desired skilled immigrants to the province.

For the sake of my constituents, I hope that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has been able to take a more diplomatic approach than some of his cabinet colleagues have shown in recent weeks.

One of the key areas that Bill 161 seeks to address is the provincial nominee program. This program is designed to fill labour shortages by allowing employers who can’t find qualified Ontarians to sponsor prospective immigrants and allow the province to nominate these individuals on their behalf, tailoring immigration to the province’s labour needs. Currently, Ontario has 2,500 provincial nominee spots available, while provinces like Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have 5,000 spots available.

Provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan, that have taken full advantage of this program, have seen their immigration rates double and triple respectively. As a result, these provinces enjoy some of the lowest unemployment rates in the country.

Meanwhile in Ontario, our overall share of immigration continues to fall. It’s not hard to understand why. When looking at Ontario, immigrants see a province with high debt, high taxes and an increasing lack of job opportunities. Many immigrants leaving countries with corrupt governments place a high value on accountability and transparency. Prospective Ontarians may think twice to move to a province whose government is under police investigation for the deletion of public documents. Government secrecy and a lack of accountability is what many immigrants have left behind, and they will not tolerate it in their new home.

The Ontario PC Party believes that every single new Canadian should have a chance to work and prosper here in Ontario, and I really hope that that is also shared by the other parties in this hallowed sanctuary, the Ontario Legislature. That is our province’s tradition—that’s how Ontario was built—a chance for people to prosper and work in a place where they can be free and grow and enjoy the fruits of our country.

On this side of the House, we’ve been waiting to see a comprehensive jobs plan from the government for months. The opposition cleared the decks at the end of last year to allow the government to bring forward a jobs plan. We’re still anxiously awaiting the arrival of this jobs plan.

To truly serve our new citizens, we must ensure that their new home is prosperous. They come to Ontario seeking opportunity and the chance to get a good job, with the hope of future generations to find even more success. We fear that Ontario is losing that prosperity. What was once a shining beacon of opportunity is now a faint glimmer of hope.

Ontario alone received half of Canada’s newcomers in 2006. As of 2012, Ontario only received 38% of newcomers to Canada. That’s a shocking statistic.

New Canadians do their homework. Picking a new home is one of the most important decisions you could ever make, and it’s clear to new Canadians that Ontario is not the engine of Confederation that it once was. Increasingly, new Canadians are deciding to move to other provinces where prospects are in fact better. This trend may have severe consequences for many of our communities.

I might add that we’ve put together a plan that will once again allow Ontario to be the engine of what I would call prosperity, which will attract more people. The old adage “Build it and they will come”—let’s build an economy where energy rates are low, where red tape is cut, and where there’s plenty of opportunity. Let’s increase manufacturing. We can do this, and we can do it together, but we need to have that opportunity.

Between the 2006 and 2011 censuses, the population in Chatham–Kent, my riding area, dropped by 4.2%. I might add, Speaker, that in our riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex, we have lost over 11,000 manufacturing jobs since 2003. That is drastic. That’s tragic. That is so unfortunate.

I see people, a lot of these people—back in my earlier years, I played sports with them; I taught some of their kids in some of my training programs, and so on. I see these people now hurting and suffering because they have lost their jobs. Companies have actually pulled up, left Chatham, and gone elsewhere—in the world, I might add.

Leamington’s overall population remained roughly the same through this period, but there are some troubling realities in the census data. The numbers show that, other than the age groups between 45 and 69, and those 80 and older, Leamington saw a decline through all age groups.

Since then, the news has not been good. Plant closings and downsizings have hit my riding hard over the past few years, while last month—actually, it was several months ago now, back in November—Heinz announced that they were closing. Last month, there was an indication that they are in fact going to be recouping about 250 of those jobs, but that’s still down from 740. It’s good news; it’s still good news. But, unfortunately, it may not be enough to slow the loss of the population in the area as well.

The initial loss of 740 full-time and 300 seasonal jobs, and the impact on 46 tomato growers, was the darkest day in the history of Leamington. A more positive announcement of a new company creating 250 full-time and additional part-time jobs, as I said before, definitely was welcomed. It’s wonderful news. But I still ask the following question to the government: What about the 500-plus people who will still be out of a job? What is being done for them? Therein lies the challenge.

New Canadians come to Canada because they would see Canada as the land of milk and honey. But soon they discover, thanks in large part to what the government has done over the last 11 years, that that milk is sour and the honey has become hard.

While the reform found in this legislation to help Ontario take further advantage of the provincial nominee program is beneficial, it’s only one piece of the puzzle. More must be done to attract immigrants beyond the relatively small number of nominees in the program. Solving those issues moves beyond the scope of this particular bill.

The Ontario Immigration Act seeks to allow for the establishment of an employer registry or a recruiter registry. This would mean that there would be a registry for employers to select foreign nationals who provide or offer certain services for a selection program. This

section of the bill came about largely to make the province compliant with the expression-of-interest regulations that the federal government will in fact release in 2015. This registry has been called for by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce. This will allow employers and immigration consultants to navigate the EOI system. Put simply, it means that we will be better able to address the skills shortages in our labour market more effectively.

The government has in fact suggested that the creation of enforcement and compliance officers will be a revenue-neutral initiative, and therein lies some concern that I have. But without knowing the full scope of what will be needed or how many enforcement officers will be required, the government cannot definitely state that this exercise will in fact be revenue-neutral. We’ve seen costs quickly get out of hand in this Liberal government, so we’ll watch closely to see if these costs grow beyond this initial forecast.

Recently, a Toronto Star headline read “Pan Am Games Security Price Tag Jumps to $239 Million,” and further stated that with still more than a year until the 2015 Toronto Pan Am Games, the cost of security is already skyrocketing. On this side of the House, we take all cost estimates with a massive grain of salt.

Bill 161 also includes an amendment to the Regulated Health Professions Act that should be highlighted. The amendment would allow for the creation of regulations that speed up the process of registering as a member of a particular college, requiring that the college of a health profession make registration decisions in “a reasonable time.” Well, what exactly is a reasonable amount of time? I’m sure that the respective health profession colleges will work with the government to determine what a reasonable amount of time is.

When it comes to addressing our province’s doctor shortage, action can’t come soon enough. Sadly, many Ontarians do not have a family doctor, and in rural or remote portions of the province, many residents only have access to a registered nurse on a day-to-day basis. Constituents in my riding of Chatham–Kent–Essex certainly understand this reality. Many are unable to find a primary health care provider.

During my time in office, I’ve been fortunate enough to shadow at both the Leamington District Memorial Hospital and the Chatham-Kent Health Alliance. They were absolutely wonderful hosts. There I was, in scrubs, shadowing doctors and nurses. It was a lot of fun, and it was an incredibly valuable experience for me to see and witness first-hand. While I was there, I was able to see first-hand the kind of quality care that the doctors, triage nurses, volunteers and gerontology emergency management nurses provide.

I was also able to see them struggle to keep up. In Chatham-Kent, there is a massive doctor shortage that the municipality is working hard to try to overcome. I’ve been told that Essex county alone is in need of over 100 doctors. It’s clear that we cannot fill all of these positions solely with doctors from Ontario. For my constituents, it is unacceptable that qualified doctors are unable to practise due to an inefficient bureaucracy, while they are desperately in need of access to health care professionals.

If this government is truly committed to preventive health care, they must take action on this issue now. The health and well-being of our aging population is at stake, as is the health of future generations. This problem today is obvious. It’s a problem that exists now, and it could be a crisis tomorrow if steps are not taken.

My constituents hope that this bill can in fact speed up the process of qualified newcomers registering as members of their health profession college. My riding desperately needs more health care providers. I will gladly support an amendment that will help address this crucial concern. It’s vital; it’s needed.

It’s not just my riding. If I look throughout this—

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Northumberland–Quinte West.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: Northumberland–Quinte West. You know, I could start rattling off a number of the other ridings as well. They’re desperately in need of health care professionals.

Furthermore, if we don’t address these critical issues immediately, we run the risk of Ontario becoming a less attractive option for skilled immigrants and foreign entrepreneurs looking to invest in Canada or start a business. We must act to create an environment that promotes investment in this province. We can do that by getting our fiscal house in order and stabilizing the province after years of credit downgrades and soaring debt. You simply can’t continue to attract the number of skilled immigrants that this province requires if you do not have a thriving job market or enough health care professionals to give them proper care once they arrive.

Unless urgent action is in fact taken, Ontario will continue to receive a diminishing share of skilled immigrants. That’s unacceptable. We need to again restore the land of milk and honey, not sour milk and hard honey. I remember a saying I learned in school: “Good, better, best, never let it rest / Until the good is better, and the better best.” Bill 161 is a good bill; it’s a good bill.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: That’s an old saying.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: It may be an old saying. I may have read it somewhere.

You know, it is in fact important to Ontario’s immigration system, and for that reason I will be supporting it, but we must address the bigger picture if our province is to remain a competitive province in the future. We must reverse the trend that sees Ontario losing more and more of its share of skilled immigrants each passing year. And perhaps most of all, we need a strong economy that can provide opportunity to all Ontarians. Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Peggy Sattler: I want to thank the member from Prince Edward–Hastings for his comments. It’s not often that MPPs on this side of the Legislature agree with some of the comments that have been made by my friends on the right, but there were a couple of things he mentioned that I found particularly insightful. One is about the barriers that face internationally educated professionals in integrating into our labour market.

I was out in my riding of London West on the weekend. I was in a low-income housing area, and I spoke to a family. The mother was an internationally educated veterinarian; the father was an internationally educated orthopaedic surgeon. Both of them were living on Ontario Works in a low-income housing area and just completely unable to get into our labour market. This is a family that brings incredible skills, incredible expertise and would add real value to our community, and were facing barriers in entering and practising their profession.

The other comment that the member made that I found really insightful was around the need to enable internationally educated health professionals to also get into our labour market—not so much because of population aging, but also because of our increasingly diverse population. We need to have culturally competent health care that responds to the different traditions and cultures that diverse people bring to our communities. So enabling internationally educated health professionals is important to grow our health care workforce but also to respond to the health care needs of our many diverse populations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Michael Chan: I appreciate the comment by the member from Prince Edward–Hastings and also from London West. Speaker, our proposed legislation is really the beginning, not an end. It is the necessary first step Ontario must take where we are to chart our own course when it comes to attracting more skilled immigrants to drive our economy and really keep Ontario moving forward.

The proposed immigration legislation will strengthen the province’s role in immigrant selection and settlement. If passed, it will put the necessary tools in place to keep Ontario welcome to the skilled immigrants it needs to meet future labour needs, improve compliance and enforcement measures, and increase transparency and information sharing to improve immigration selection.

Everyone—really, everyone—has a different recipe for economic success. In Ontario, immigration is a stable ingredient, along with the great public education, skills training, infrastructure renewal and supporting a dynamic business climate.

The proposed legislation is part of the government’s economic plan that is creating jobs for today and tomorrow. This legislation, in my opinion, will really be able to attract those economic—and also the immigrants coming to Ontario so that our labour force in particular can be supported moving forward.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: I’ve listened with interest to the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex on this important bill. I wonder if the people who are considering coming to Ontario from other countries are warned about the College of Trades and things like that, and if they’re told if they have a trade that when they come to this province, it’s going to cost them more money than what they thought because they have to join organizations such as this. They may think twice about coming to Ontario.

And we’ve seen this. We’ve seen our own children move west because of different apprenticeship ratios, and they don’t have to pay extra fees and taxes just to live in Ontario.

I think we should certainly welcome anyone who wants to come to this province. We do have a doctor shortage in this province, especially rural Ontario. It’s getting difficult, even though the Minister of Health claims that we’ve got 5,000 more doctors in this province.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: Where?

Mr. Randy Pettapiece: Where are they? They’re certainly not in parts of rural Ontario; they’re certainly not in Perth–Wellington.

We would have a more welcoming environment in Ontario, I’m sure, if we didn’t have these extra fees and taxes that this government seems to be perpetuating all the time, inventing all the time, and nobody wants them. Certainly people in Ontario don’t want them, but this government seems to have an attitude that, “We know best,” and we know that that’s certainly not true.

Although I’m certain we will be supporting this bill, we need to make some changes to make Ontario more welcome.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I enjoyed the presentation made by the member from Chatham–Kent–Essex. I enjoyed the humour, which was good, in a controlled sort of way. I thought that was a very, very useful contribution, and the critique was a good one on the whole. In terms of the economic suggestions, I’m not sure we will agree on that and I’ll have an opportunity to speak to our differences on that.

But the point around the regulated professions, and the medical profession, in particular, is always debatable. Just to be fair to your government, your previous government, you did open up that regulatory body and allow for 50 medical doctors to come on board. It took a while. Your previous Conservative government opened the door a little bit, and that was a good beginning. The regulatory bodies were resisting it, to be fair, and gradually, over the years, we went from 50 to 100 to 150 to 200.

You understand the interesting progression that we made, you made, and the Liberals have made, and there’s probably still room for more. Whether we could go to 1,000 immediately, I’m not quite sure, but we have opened up the door in a progressive way that has allowed many of the immigrants who have come to this country with qualifications to be able to practise, and that has been a good thing. Could we be doing more? Probably. But we are moving in the right direction.

I want to speak to the economic differences, but we won’t have time. I’ll do that as soon as I get my 20 minutes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex has two minutes.

Mr. Rick Nicholls: I didn’t realize that I covered so many different ridings when I was being referenced, but just for the record: Chatham–Kent–Essex.

I do want to thank the member from London West; the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport; my colleague and friend from Perth–Wellington; as well as the always-entertaining member from Trinity–Spadina. He is always a joy to listen to and watch; his theatrics are extremely impressive. But he’s also a very knowledgeable man too, and I respect him for that; I truly do.

In the area of Chatham–Kent–Essex, I recall that back in my earlier days—and not the “good, better, best” days, but a little bit beyond that, or closer to where I am now—I worked for a major manufacturer. They employed a number of skilled tradespeople who had come over to Ontario from Great Britain—they were skilled tradesmen; they were journeymen—to see how they would work. These people helped to grow the economy; they helped to grow their companies. They worked hard. They made a good living—decent wages and whatnot. Again, as I said before, they worked very, very hard.

We need to continue to provide those employment opportunities to people so that they can in fact come to Ontario. We need to create the right working environment, and to me, that’s all about creating a business climate conducive for companies to invest in Ontario, to come with their money to invest, to create jobs, and to help grow the economy.

That is the land of milk and honey that I’ve talked about in the past, and I know we can restore that in the future.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you. The member from Durham stood up and spoke all the time while, right beside him, his speaker was speaking. Amazing.

Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: We will be supporting Bill 161, so we want to get that out of the way quickly.

I also want to say that I really congratulate the member from Beaches–East York on his presentation. It was an hour long, God bless, but it was a very informative critique of this government and its policies over the years. Those who did not get the opportunity to listen to him should review the Hansard, because I think they will find it very, very useful and informative.

He does give an historical view of immigration in general and, in particular, of what this government has done and not done. He’s absolutely right when he says that the provincial Liberal government has absolutely done little on this file for the past 11 years.

So when we have a quote of this sort by a Minister of Immigration that says, “We want a really fair relationship with the federal government to ensure that Ontario can have a little bit more control of its destiny when moving forward with immigration,” one has to say, “How long does it take for the government, this provincial government, to establish a fair relationship with the federal government when dealing with immigration issues?” Why does it take 11 years to do something?

It could be that progress with the Liberals is very, very slow, as we’ve often seen. They tackle problems in a way that is safe, usually not very radical—although every time they bring forth a bill they call it “radical; revolutionary; God, the world is changing,” even if it moves at a snail’s pace. But that’s beside the point. I think part of the problem is that in the last 11 years we’ve had eight Ministers of Citizenship and Immigration, which could speak to the fact that nothing happens in that ministry when you change them every year.

It takes literally a whole year to learn the file, and by the time they learn the file, somebody else is in that portfolio, which could explain, in part, the inaction of the government. I suspect it’s not the whole reason, but it could be partly an explanation for why they move ever so slowly on these files.

The province has “long complained it does not get enough say in immigrant selection.” I think this comes from the Toronto Star, where they say Liberals have “long complained it does not get enough say in immigration selection.” If that is true, it comes to the point I’ve already made, which is: Why does it take 11 years to actually get to where they want to be?

So we finally have a program that talks about improving the provincial nominee program, where they go from 2,000—I believe the maximum is 2,000—to 5,000. Part of the problem is that they haven’t even used up the quota they have. Even though they could bring in 2,000 provincial nominees, they have not for a long time exhausted the entire amount of provincial nominees they could bring into the province.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you, Minister of the Environment. Good to see you.

So you say to yourself, “Why is the government not using the quota that it has control over and then complaining that they don’t get a fair deal from the federal government?” Something is inconsistent and wrong with that kind of policy. The provincial Liberal government does not even use the tools it has to solve many of the immigration problems that it speaks to. And so we have a little problemo when it comes to these kinds of things.

The immigration issues are not strictly reserved to the provincial government—quite correctly, as the member from Beaches–East York. This is a federal matter. I have to tell you that I’ve been a critic of the federal government—both Conservative and Liberal, to be fair to both political parties—on immigration issues for quite some time, because they bring all these immigrants into the country without ever once saying to these wonderful professionals we bring in, “Oh, by the way, you may not get a job in your profession.”

We bring them in and ship them out to whatever province they want to go to, and they struggle to find a job in their field. There’s no attempt to tell them, “By the way, if you come with this profession, it might be problematic. Perhaps in this province it could be more problematic than others.” But there has been an interest and desire to bring in highly qualified professionals, only to find them working in minimum wage jobs, in part-time jobs.

Interjection: Driving taxis.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Driving taxis is the most typical of all the jobs that are often referred to. It demeans their qualifications. It demeans the qualities they have as human beings—as immigrants. Yet we bring them in, ship them away to whatever province they want to go to and leave them without the resources they desperately need.

As a critique, by the way, of the former provincial government, the one named Mike Harris—

Interjections.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Just a little mention.

When it comes to immigration settlement services, we used to have what were called Welcome Houses, which the member from East York talked about, in terms of the incredible value they brought to immigrants who came into the country, into our province. We had five Welcome Houses across the province, to be able to bring them in and integrate them and give them the supports they desperately needed to settle. And what did the previous provincial government do? They eliminated those Welcome Houses.

On the one hand, the Conservative members talk about how we need to provide more jobs for immigrants who are highly qualified as doctors, to be able to practise, because we desperately need more of them, because we know there are close to one million who don’t have a doctor. On the other hand, we’ve had their government that eliminated the Welcome Houses that provided the support for people to be able to settle in responsible, reasonable, adequate ways—just a little mention.

We have to be consistent with these things, as we speak in support of one thing and, on the other hand, we undermine them by taking away all the supports that they need.

The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex asks, “Well, what is the solution?”—because we have become a province that is begging for federal support. The answer from the Conservative member, and the Conservative Party members in general, is that we should simply be cutting red tape. I don’t think it has anything to do with the colour of the tape. That’s not going to create any jobs whatsoever. The colour of the tape is irrelevant. We already had a previous government that talked about red tape for years and years, and we didn’t see the kind of economic benefits that come with the colour of the tape.

I often said that, mercifully, we had some of that red tape in the economic collapse that befell most of the world, in the US in particular, that brought the whole world down, because of a deregulated world where we have conservative politicians all over the world talking about getting rid of red tape. I said that, mercifully, we have a little red tape here in Canada, enough that we were able to diminish the potential collapse of our own Canadian economy. Every now and then, a little of that colour of tape is helpful in economic, deregulated disasters that the Americans give to us.

The other matter that the Conservatives speak about, in terms of how we create a province that will give better job opportunities and make our province a province that immigrants will flock to again, is the idea of cutting corporate taxes. That is one of the primary objectives of the Conservative Party, as a way of bringing jobs back to the province. My view is, that is a failed economic idea. Even the Liberals have finally come to the conclusion that perhaps that is not the way to go. The Conservatives started it, heavily, by cutting corporate taxes, and the Liberals continued.

They not only continued with corporate taxes; they continued with income tax cuts, and they were proud of it. They were proud of cutting income taxes as well. Now they’re thinking maybe it’s time to raise them again. So while they cut provincial individual taxes—and they did that with glee, with a big smile, saying how happy they were that people got a tax cut—now they’re saying, “We might have to increase them again.”

They have come to the conclusion that continuing with the corporate tax cuts might not be the way to go. But we’re not certain of that, because for the last couple of years—we think there’s still a desire to continue to do that, but I think a lot of the Liberals have become nervous, and, hopefully, they will not continue to do that.

The idea of cutting corporate taxes as the magic solution to creating jobs is, in my mind, an error, an egregious error that would take billions and billions of dollars out of provincial coffers, that we desperately need.

We argue that there is absolutely no evidence that cutting corporate taxes is going to create jobs—absolutely no evidence whatsoever. So when you folks talk about that as your magic proposal for creating jobs—I think you’ve got to modernize your policies a little bit, just a tad.

The whole idea of attacking the College of Trades, and your whole idea of simply reducing ratios as a way of magically creating 230,000—again, it’s fanciful and lacking in any evidence whatsoever.

I wanted to repeat that for the record, because it’s useful to do.

This bill moves in the right direction. It doesn’t solve the settlement issues, as I said. It doesn’t deal with that, and it should. It doesn’t solve the ongoing problem of bringing immigrants into the province without providing the supports they desperately need so that they can practise with the professions that they brought, that they desperately want to practise in this province. It doesn’t solve any of that either, and we should be looking at that.

I think, on the whole, it is something that we—this bill, it is something. This bill moves in the right direction, and I believe that we can make it stronger. Sending it to committee would allow people to come, give their professional opinion and find ways to strengthen some of these measures that are brought forward to the table.

With that, Speaker, I say thank you.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. John Milloy: I’m pleased to comment on the honourable member’s speech that I think we all listened to with great interest. I want to thank him for some positive comments he made about the bill itself. I certainly agree with him that it would be great if we had a relatively quick debate here at second reading and were able to send this off to committee for further study.

This is really about a start, or another step, if I can put it that way, in terms of the evolving immigration story here in the province of Ontario. As speakers have already noted this morning, we of course are within Canada. Canada is a magnet for newcomers from around the world. Within Canada, Ontario is one of the key players in terms of attracting newcomers.

My own community of Waterloo region—many, when they think of Ontario, think of Toronto as the main magnet, but in fact there are a number of communities such as Waterloo region—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: No, it’s Ottawa.

Hon. John Milloy: —and Ottawa and other areas that can boast a large number of newcomers.

It is crucial that we get this right. It’s crucial because, obviously, we want to maintain our history and tradition of being a welcoming society, but it’s also the fact that a strong newcomer base adds to the economy, adds to our growth. We are in a situation where so much of our internal growth, which is key to progress on all fronts, is because of newcomers.

I’m very pleased with this piece of legislation. It’s another important step in making sure that Ontario has a proper framework to welcome newcomers. I welcome the positive remarks of the members and in my colleague from the New Democrats’ speech today, supporting the intent of the legislation. I agree with him 100%: It would be great, after preliminary debate, to get this to committee for some further study.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill 161 in a brief period of comments. I want to thank the member from Trinity–Spadina for raising his comments, and, as well, the government House leader for raising his.

Obviously, to follow in the same spirit as the government House leader, I say this as somebody who represents a riding within the city of Ottawa—one of the fastest-growing communities in all of Canada, in the nation’s capital, where people are coming not only from the rest of the country but from around the world. That is the changing and important face of Ontario.

I, myself, was a newcomer at one time to this province, coming from Nova Scotia. This was a place—and I will say this, Speaker—that people dreamed to come to. They knew that you could get a job, you could raise your family, buy a home, and you could retire securely here. Things have changed within our economy; however, we still boast a wonderful province that is beautiful and ideal for many people to settle in, so I would certainly encourage people from around the world and from the rest of Canada to consider making Ontario their home for the opportunities which we believe, in our party, we can once again restore and bring back.

That said, I think it’s important that this assembly does debate a newcomer strategy, particularly for those who come from very far places. I also had the profound opportunity to spend some time travelling and talking with the other member about what it means to be an Ontarian and a Canadian. We sang together and we worked together, and, I must say, he knows what it means to be an Ontarian; he knows what it means to be a Canadian.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s always a pleasure to hear my benchmate, the member from Trinity–Spadina, speak about anything, quite frankly. He’s one of, I think, admittedly, the most eloquent members of this House.

Of course we’re supporting this bill, and we’ve said so. I think real work needs to be done on actually using and utilizing the skills that our immigrants bring, because that’s not happening. Just very quickly, I’ll tell you the story of someone who moved to my riding, a surgeon from another country—totally trained in his own country—and, after all, the human body is not that different. He came over here and he was told by the professional association here that it would take him 10 years to qualify. This gentleman was already in his early 40s; he didn’t have 10 years to requalify. So what does he do now?

He goes back to his home country and works for six months, his family stays here, and he comes over here for six months.

Meanwhile, half of my riding is looking for a general practitioner, a family doctor. It’s very, very difficult in this province to find a family doctor. We don’t have enough doctors. Here is somebody trained and yet cannot work in his profession and would have to spend 10 years. That’s not an uncommon story. We have, of course, many immigrants who are trained that are driving taxis and working for minimum wage. Again, that’s a complete waste of human talent; a complete waste of resources.

I had another resident complain to me that he couldn’t find people with the necessary skills. There’s a real gap between the necessary skills and what we’re training our students to do, and there’s a real gap between the skills we have that we’re not utilizing in our immigrants. There’s a problem—a big one—and I think the member alluded to that.

Yes, this bill is a first step—finally, after 11 years in office, the first bill on immigration. That’s kind of sad, I think, but here we have it. Let’s go with it and let’s make it even stronger.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Questions and comments?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak to this act. I’m glad to hear that we have support in terms of moving forward with this. I speak on behalf of this not only as the former parliamentary assistant to the Ministry of Citizenship and Immigration but also as someone whose parents did come to this country, to this province, for a better life for their children and their families—a fact, I may add, that continues to this day.

When I was parliamentary assistant, I did the round tables, much of which information is reflected in this immigration act, in this act that we’re bringing forward. Much of the discussion that we had with the individuals that we met with—these were people that had come here from other countries with various agencies—was about the challenge that we were having here in Ontario with respect to our economic immigrants. Part of that isn’t that people don’t want to come to Ontario; it’s not that, as the party opposite would say, they’re coming here and then leaving.

In fact, Ontario has a retention rate of 93% of individuals that come to Ontario: the highest across the country. Some 93% of people that come to this province stay in this province. They stay here and they want to succeed and they do succeed.

What we should talk about are some of the changes that have occurred over the last number of years in terms of the federal programs and the impact that it had in Ontario. One of the things that we spoke about when I was doing the round table was the elimination of the backlog that the federal government went through of 200,000 skilled immigrants who had been waiting to come to Ontario. With the flick of a pen, the federal government stated, “No, we’re not even going to process those 200,000 applicants.

We’re not going to look at them”—and are spending more time ensuring that the provincial nominee programs are increased for other provinces. We need to work with our federal government. They establish the numbers; they establish the targets for the different provinces. Over the last 10 years, the proportion of economic immigrants to Ontario has gone from 64% down to 50%. So again, I rise and speak to the importance of our newcomers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): The member from Trinity–Spadina has two minutes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I do understand the points raised by the Minister of Children and Youth Services. I think that we will be able to—we will, we can, we should—lobby hard. Other provinces have gotten better deals over the years. Even though they control this, we need to fight for the same kind of privileges that not only Quebec has fought for since 1978, but the same privileges the other provinces did. So even though they have primacy over this affair, we can and should fight for the same kind of deals everybody else did, and I’m sure we’re going to get it.

I agree with the comments made by the member from Nepean–Carleton when she talks about the fact that we’re all Canadians. She’s absolutely right. This is the best country in the world, where immigrants can feel so much at home—which doesn’t happen in many parts of Europe, but it happens here. But there are incredible challenges for the immigrants today that we didn’t face in the 1950s and 1960s in the same way. In the 1960s, my father could buy a house for $14,000. Today, an immigrant won’t be able to afford to buy a home in Toronto for less than $800,000. It’s just not possible. The challenges are immense.

So if they can’t find work in their professions, they are in trouble. To the extent that we can bring them here, it is good, but to the extent that we can make sure that they get better-paying jobs, that is the answer to the problem of immigration. That is something we desperately have to work on, but maximizing the potential of use of temporary foreign workers is not the answer for me. We bring in close to 500,000 of them. We exploit them. Let’s bring them in as immigrants who will become Canadians. That’s the answer; not temporary foreign workers.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Further debate?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Much to the chagrin of the government, it seems that I’m standing to speak today, because I was certainly expecting that in the normal rotation here, the government would have appointed a member of the caucus to speak to the bill. Speaking of which, maybe there just aren’t enough members of the government here today for one of them to have actually to paid attention to what’s going on here today. Probably a lot of them are suffering from “I’m not in the cabinet” syndrome this morning and have decided to either come late or not show up at all.

At the outset, I think our critic, Todd Smith, who has done a tremendous job on this file, has indicated that we will be supporting this piece of legislation. In fact, there are many good things—we may not support everything in it, and we’ll be looking to get this bill into committee so that we can hear some of the comments from other people who do not occupy this chamber but do occupy the real world and may want to make their submissions to the committee and thereby the Legislature as a whole with how this bill might be improved. That is part of the process that we go through here with this and every other piece of legislation.

As I said, this is something that, in fact, we’ve talked about for years: that as Ontario changes, as in fact Canada changes, we need to have an immigration bill that addresses our needs in Ontario and matches the skills that are needed with the skills that are being brought from immigrants from around the world.

My colleague from Trinity–Spadina so aptly pointed out, as he usually does—when he’s not lambasting Tories, he actually says some things that make a lot of sense sometimes, and one of the things that he talked about is that you really have to have your act together. If you’re going to be offering placements for immigrants, you have to be able to answer the question, “What is there for me when I get there?” If your economy is one that—you know what the Liberals have done to this economy.

The way the previous government left the economy might have been an ideal time to have this kind of law in place, because we were creating jobs; in fact, in an eight-year period, the previous government created 1,088,000 new jobs in the province of Ontario, and that was a tremendous benefit not only to the people who are permanent residents of Canada and who were born here but to those immigrants from around the world that saw Ontario and Canada as indeed a place of opportunity.

Hon. David Zimmer: What?

Mr. John Yakabuski: I say to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs—he has joined the debate here, or at least he’s showing up for work; he doesn’t want to get docked in pay, I guess. Maybe they do what we were going to do, and that’s if cabinet ministers don’t show up for work, they’re going to get their pay docked. So, good to see you here this morning. We don’t want to hear a lot from you; we just want to see you.

If the minister would recall—

Mr. Bob Delaney: Point of order—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Point of order, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeated references to the presence or absence of members, and that is not in keeping with the standards of this House.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): I hear your point. He didn’t point out anyone in particular, but he did welcome the minister this morning. I don’t really think that’s a reference of him not being here.

But I do know the minister didn’t acknowledge the Chair when he came in.

Hon. David Zimmer: My apologies.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Thank you.

So continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I’m glad that the new official whip of the government is on his toes this morning and in attendance as well, and that he pointed that out to you, Mr. Speaker. I congratulate the member for Mississauga–Streetsville on being appointed whip for the government caucus today. We’ll probably be spending more time together now. In my job as the chief whip of the official opposition, Mr. Delaney and I will have more dialogue than we’ve ever had. I am so much looking forward to it.

Speaker, what I was saying to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs before he interrupted me and we got off on this discourse, you and I—and I’m glad that he finally did recognize the Chair—Ontario was actually once called “the province of opportunity.” For those of us who are old enough to have been around before the 1973 licence plates came out—that used to be on the licence plate in Ontario: “Province of opportunity.”

Those skilled workers that come from other nations today have to ask themselves, “Is this still the province of opportunity, or should this be called now the province where I must languish while I wait and hope and pray that somehow there will be a job here that matches the skills that I have brought with me?” I would say that that’s a bit discouraging for immigrants today.

Immigration has changed too. At one time, almost all the immigrants that came to Canada would have come to cities like Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver, our three major cities. I think it’s reflected in the communities within those communities that are culturally similar. In all of our large cities, there will be enclaves of people who shared a particular culture and felt very comfortable in settling in a particular area in that community because, while they wanted to be here in Canada and be Canadians, they also felt extremely comfortable being around people who came from a similar cultural background.

Hence all the colloquialisms like Chinatown, Greektown on the Danforth, and different parts of Toronto—that kind of thing. People felt very comfortable in those respects.

But it has changed. And you have to ask yourself, is it the immigrants who are changing it, or is it the lack of opportunities? If you look at immigration today, on a percentage basis, the number of immigrants coming to Ontario is actually dropping. They’re going to other medium-sized, smaller cities and stuff like that across Canada because they are going where the work is. And that’s not just immigrants. How many people have sons or daughters or nephews or nieces or cousins—and I’m talking about people who sit in this Legislature, who now know that their son or their daughter or granddaughter or grandson, a relation of some kind, has gone to Alberta or Saskatchewan to find work.

Mr. Rob E. Milligan: My cousin is in Calgary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: My friend from Northumberland–Quinte West says his cousin is in Calgary.

As families, we want our children to have work, but do we want them to be farther and farther away from us to find that work?

So the question remains: What are we doing to create those opportunities here in the province of Ontario?

Under this government, if you’re not getting a job with the government, you’re probably not getting a job, because the only jobs they seem to be creating in this province are ones that are on the public service payroll.

Manufacturing jobs have left the province in droves. I met with some folks last night, and they’re looking at the cost of doing business in Ontario. They’re looking at the cost of hydro. They’re looking at the taxation. They’re looking at all of the things that incrementally add up to the sum of the cost of doing business across Ontario. They’re saying, “Wow,” but this is getting scary and there seems to be no willingness on the part of the government to change direction.

We hear from Premier Wynne that she’s going to continue going down this road, which, from a fiscal point of view, gets us into more dangerous territory every day, in terms of our ability to recover. It only stands to reason: The deeper you’re in a hole, the farther you have to climb out. That’s what she is doing to Ontario today.

If we’re going to offer opportunities to our immigrants, we have to get our house in order, right here. When those people come here, we want them to be able to find work in the field that they were trained in, within a reasonable length of time. We don’t want doctors driving taxicabs. Some of them might be real good drivers, and they might get to know the city real well, and they certainly are good conversationalists, and they might even be able to help me with something if I’m in the back seat of that cab, with respect to asking a medical question.

But they shouldn’t be practising medicine while behind the wheel of a Toyota Camry or a Ford Taurus. They should be doing that in a hospital or in a doctor’s office. We have to ask ourselves why.

I believe that part of the problem is that some of these people are misled when they’re being helped to get over here. There are unscrupulous people in other countries, too, who sell people a bill of goods and say, “When you get to Canada, they’re going to have some work for you. They’ve got work for everybody”—da, da, da. So they spend a lot of their money in order to get here, maybe all of their money, and when they get here, it doesn’t pan out. That was a common practice in the past, and to some degree it still exists, and that is regrettable.

I want to comment again on what a great job my colleague Todd Smith did. He has been our point man on immigration and culture.

Just a couple of points that Todd made when he was speaking earlier: Approximately 51% of immigration to Ontario falls into the economic immigration category, and that is the lowest of any Canadian province. The national average for economic immigration across Canada is approximately 70%. So if it’s 51% who are coming for economic reasons, what is the other 48% or 49%—not even 48%; it was 51%. So where is the other 49% going? A good question, isn’t it, Speaker? Our numbers should be at least as high as any other province.

If this is in fact the province of opportunity, where people used to come because this was where they were going to build a new life, a successful life, a life that they could support their family on, well, most people expect that to be a job—a steady, good-paying job that pays the bills. If we’re down to 51%, we’re not offering a whole lot of hope to 49% of the immigrants who come to Ontario. We have to do a better job of that.

I commend the minister, Mr. Coteau, for bringing forth this legislation. Having more control over immigration is something that we have spoken about in the past. It is something that Quebec has enjoyed for some time, but Quebec seems to have always been able to extract a better deal out of the federal government than any other province, and will probably continue to do so because they play the separation card and play it extremely well.

Having said that, we’re not interested in separation in Ontario. We’re interested in integration. We’re interested in leadership. We’re interested in making Canada the strongest federation that it can possibly be, and one of the things that makes your federation stronger is strong immigration policy—good, sound, workable immigration policy. That’s what we want to have here in the province of Ontario.

This is something that we did in fact promote in the past. That was an immigration policy for the province of Ontario that gave us more input. We had more input. We had more autonomy in what we would use to attract immigrants and how we would match the immigrants with the needs of the province, so that, when they did come here, the odds of being able to find a good-paying job went up considerably. If you’re not matching the immigrants, you’re just throwing a pile of stuff at the problem and hoping that somehow, within that group of people—that cadre of folks who come over—you’ll find the ones to fill the holes and gaps that you have here in the province of Ontario.

But that’s kind of a hit-and-miss proposition. Being able to say, “We need to be able to target the needs with the available roster of immigrants to fill those needs”—if we can match that up in a better way, obviously we can probably improve those kinds of numbers. We can maybe go from 51% and start to climb.

That’d be a great start, but we still have to fix the fundamental problem. We still have to fix the fundamental problem that sees our economy shrinking from the point of view of the percentage of the Canadian economy. The percentage of the Canadian economy in Ontario is dropping. It’s shrinking. We were the economic engine. We led the country. We always led the country.

Mr. Bob Delaney: Quote your sources.

Mr. John Yakabuski: The new whip says, “Quote your sources.” I’ll let him do the research. He loves to research. It doesn’t matter if it’s about Ontario, Canada, the earth, or even some other planet; he loves to do research, and maybe he can find some sources on that one there.

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Interplanetary.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Yes.

Interjection.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, if the minister wants to, in a two-minute hit—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): Well, the Speaker would like the conversation to go through him, not through each other. Thank you.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Thank you, Speaker.

If the member wants to challenge anything I’ve said, he is welcome to do that in his two-minute hit. If he’s got some numbers that he believes can challenge mine, have at it, but everyone understands and knows that Ontario’s economy as a percentage of Canada’s was higher in the past than it is today.

We’ve seen growth in other provinces: the economies of the west, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The economy of Newfoundland has grown. On a per-capita percentage basis, ours has not.

Interjection: We’re a have-not province.

Mr. John Yakabuski: We’re now a have-not province. If what I’m saying was not true, I say to Mr. Delaney, we wouldn’t be a have-not province. Under your leadership and your party’s leadership, for the first time since Confederation and for the first time since equalization payments have been brought in in this country, Ontario is a recipient of those payments—under your leadership.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paul Miller): We’ll end it on that lovely note, since it’s 10:15. This House stands recessed until 10:30 this morning.

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oak Ridges–Markham on a point of order.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a point of order. I believe that you will find that we have unanimous consent that all members be permitted to wear purple ribbons in recognition of Epilepsy Ontario Purple Day.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Oak Ridges–Markham is seeking unanimous consent to wear the purple ribbon. Do we agree? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I’d like to welcome two guests from Epilepsy Ontario who are here for Purple Day: Rozalyn Werner-Arcé, the executive director, and Suzanne Nurse, the epilepsy information specialist. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Jeff Leal: Mr. Speaker, of course, the Ontario Waterpower Association is headquartered in the great community of Peterborough. I want to introduce some members in the east gallery today: Paul Norris, who is the president of the Ontario Waterpower Association, and Valerie Helbronner, who is the chair of the Ontario Waterpower Association.

In the public gallery, associated with the Ontario Waterpower Association and their advisers, are Stephanie Landers, Paul Young, Zachary Vorvis, Marc Mantha, Bob Allen, John Wynsma, Adam Chamberlain, Frank Perri, Karen McGhee and Bill Touzel.

I also have the honour of introducing some people in the members’ east gallery today from Hill and Knowlton, one of the great GR firms in Ontario and Canada today. They are two people who monitor question period. I’d like to welcome Genna Schnurbach and Miriam Sherkey, who are with us today in the members’ east gallery from Hill and Knowlton.

Mr. Bill Walker: It’s my pleasure to introduce Sarah Devries in the gallery today. She’s the proud mom of page captain Calvin Devries, from the great riding of Bruce–Grey–Owen Sound.

Hon. Michael Chan: I would like to welcome the returning Olympians and Paralympians from the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. They will be attending the Lieutenant Governor’s reception in their honour this evening. I would like to invite all MPPs in the House to join us at the reception tonight.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I feel special, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for recognizing me.

It is my pleasure to introduce, from Epilepsy Ontario, Rozalyn Werner-Arcé, who is their executive director, as well as Suzanne Nurse, who is the epilepsy information specialist.

We also have in the west gallery residents of York region’s Alternative Community Living Program. They include Heather Osborne, Helen Fostaty, Evelyn Tilley, Norma Thornton, Doris Carmichael, Carol Langdon and Henri Latrielle. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mario Sergio: I have the greatest pleasure of introducing my new seatmate: the newly minted Minister of Labour, Kevin Flynn.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s my pleasure to introduce the family of page Eli Park, from Parkdale–High Park: his mother, Joanne Oxley; his father, John Park; his cousin Winnie Beven, his cousin Brian Beven, his cousin Marisa d’Ambrosio and his cousin Luigi d’Ambrosio. They will be making their way shortly.

Hon. David Zimmer: It’s my pleasure to introduce the following executives from the Ontario Korean Businessmen’s Association: Dong Hun Lee, the chair of the board of directors; Don Cha, the general manager; and Ted Kim, who is also with the association. Welcome.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: I’m pleased to welcome a group of injured workers from the Niagara region today: Richard Prudhomme, Willy Noiles, Randy Bezo, Bob Niven, Chester Marczewski, and Pat Rosano. They’re here today to speak to me about proposed changes to the WSIB and the current failures in the system to protect and support injured workers. I want to thank them for being here today to speak with me.

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to extend a special welcome to seniors and people with disabilities who have made their way to Queen’s Park today. There will be more than 100. They’re trying to get into the galleries. They’ve come down on three buses, and they’re here to hear the Premier’s responses to some questions that will be placed today.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I will remind all members that my request has been that you introduce your guests, and you may give a title or who they are, and that’s it.

Mr. Rick Bartolucci: I want to welcome the new Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, Bill Mauro, and say how proud all northerners are.

Mr. Monte McNaughton: I’m proud to introduce Brooks Harvey to the Legislature today. Brooks will be spending the day with me here at Queen’s Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Further introductions? Last call for introductions.

M me France Gélinas: I think it’s more of a point of order. I just wanted to thank everybody who took the time to wear purple today in honour of Epilepsy Ontario Purple Day at Queen’s Park. It’s very much appreciated. Thank you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It wasn’t an introduction. It would have been classified as a point of order, and then I would have ruled it wasn’t a point of order.

We have with us today in the Speaker’s gallery a delegation from the Parliament of Finland. They are members of Parliament who sit on the subcommittee for municipal and health affairs. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests from Finland.

Applause.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Parry Sound–Muskoka: a point of order or an introduction?

Mr. Norm Miller: An introduction.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): An introduction from the member from Parry Sound–Muskoka.

Mr. Norm Miller: I want to introduce Jane Twinney, who is a candidate for the riding of Newmarket–Aurora. She is a former councillor for the Newmarket area. She’s here in the west members’ gallery to watch the proceedings this morning.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): It is now time for question period.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is to the Premier. The Premier will note that the galleries are filling with people from York region. They are seniors; they are people with disabilities. They’re on their way in, and they’re being joined by a number of personal support workers. These are seniors who are receiving on-site, 24/7 personal care through York region’s Alternative Community Living Program.

My question to the Premier is this. Folks are listening. They would like to know from the Premier herself: Why has the Ministry of Health disqualified the region of York from continuing to provide the essential alternative community living services on which they depend?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I welcome everyone to Queen’s Park who is concerned about this issue, because we have made a commitment, as government, to ensuring that our seniors are getting the right care at the right place in the right time period. That includes homemaking, security checks and care coordination.

Here’s my understanding of what has happened. I’m happy to have this discussion with the member opposite. I understand that the region of York recently made a business decision not to provide assisted living services to both high-risk and low-risk seniors. However, the Central Local Health Integration Network is ensuring that every patient currently receiving assisted living services will continue to do so. In fact, that care will be continuous, although it’s being delivered through the local health integration network. That’s my understanding of what’s happening.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: The Premier does not have a good understanding of what happened. These people did not make their way here today to hear the Premier tell them half-truths. It is disrespectful of the Premier to even—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m going to ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Frank Klees: Withdraw.

It is disrespectful of the Premier to even attempt to represent that what is a cut in service to seniors and people with disabilities is somehow the fault of York region. Here is the truth: The truth is that Ministry of Health policy disqualified York region from continuing to provide that service. And here is the result: Mohammad Asifuddin is 70 years old. He’s blind, he is a double leg amputee, he’s a diabetic and he has recently undergone cancer treatment. His services are being cancelled. He is being asked to actually pay for additional services. I want to ask the Premier: What’s her response to that?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, you know, I think what is responsible is that people have all the information, and so to scaremonger and to suggest that somehow service is not going to be provided is not appropriate. Currently, the patients of the region of York’s assisted community living program are being transferred to experienced providers who will be able to provide the enhanced care offered through the new policy. As of April 1, the new providers will be offering 24-hour, 7-day a week on-site care at all the region of York buildings where this service was previously provided.

There is a change in the delivery. But to suggest that the care is not going to be provided is absolutely not accurate and, in fact, what is happening is that the care will be continued and will be enhanced.

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

Mr. Frank Klees: Here is the accurate representation—and I’m sorry that the Premier has to read from her speaking notes that someone wrote for her that are inaccurate. Here are the facts: Last week, CHATS told Mr. Asifuddin that because he needs two people to help him with his lift and sling, he will have to pay for the extra person at the rate of $20 an hour. At the end of the day, it will cost this man $3,000 a month to have the same service he had before. And the lift that was provided under the previous service is being dismantled and he will have to pay to have it reinstalled, at a cost of more than $3,000.

I’m going to ask the Premier this: Is that what she considers a continuation of service? That is a disgrace. It is immoral. I will ask you now to stop it and to restore—

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Indeed I was reading from notes, because I wanted to make sure I was giving accurate information. We are ensuring that people who are receiving assisted living support will have that support continued. I will absolutely have a conversation with the Minister of Health. I will talk to her about this issue to make sure that we have absolutely all the information.

But we are in the business of increasing care to seniors. We are in the business of increasing care in the community, making sure that people get the supports that they need where they are living and in a timely way. That is the work that we are doing. Those are the investments that we have been making. If there are specific issues and specific cases that the member opposite would like to bring us information on, we’re happy to look into those. But we are providing that continuum of care. The region of York made a business decision. The local health integration network is continuing that service.

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees: I want to follow through on this same question. The reason is—to the Premier—that the facts that she has—

Interjection.

Mr. Frank Klees: Don’t be telling me the facts are wrong. Enough carping from you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The Minister of Infrastructure.

Mr. Frank Klees: I know exactly what the facts are.

Interjection.

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

First, Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure, come to order.

Second, direct your comments to me.

Mr. Frank Klees: Speaker, I’m happy to direct the comments to you, and I’m hoping the Premier is listening, as well as her colleagues.

The fact of the matter is, we are speaking here about people’s lives. We’re talking about the most vulnerable in our communities. We’re talking about seniors and people with disabilities who depend on these services to live a relatively independent life. This government is taking that away from them.

I want the Premier to stand up and stop reading from her speaking notes and speak from the heart and tell us that she will do what needs to be done to restore the ACL on-site independent service.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Bill Walker: There are 1.2 billion ways.

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

Carry on.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I will say to the member opposite that we are absolutely and fundamentally committed to providing the services that seniors and people with disabilities need, in a timely way and in their homes. That means that there will be changes in the way services are delivered, Mr. Speaker. But I don’t think it’s responsible to undermine decisions made by the region of York, to undermine decisions made by the local health integration network, to undermine decisions made by the health providers in York region.

We are working with communities. We are funding increased care to make sure that seniors living in York region and across the province get the care they need in their homes, in the community, when they need it. That’s what our investments are about. Quite contrary to the party opposite, we are not going to slash those services. That’s the policy of the party opposite.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Frank Klees: Well, Speaker, I believe the Premier should undermine those decisions made by the region of York, should undermine the decisions made by the LHIN, because those decisions are wrong. Those decisions undermine the quality of life of the seniors and people with disabilities in our province.

It is the Premier’s responsibility to show some leadership. Just because some other organization makes the wrong decisions doesn’t mean that she should support them. In doing so, what this Premier is saying to people in our province, to seniors, to people with disabilities is, “We don’t respect what you’ve done for our province.”

What the Premier should be doing is standing up and saying, “We will cancel whatever wrong decisions have been made. We’ll make it right. We’ll restore those services.” She should stand up and say that today.

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Well, it may be in the best interests of the member opposite to undermine decisions made by local bodies like the region, like the local health integration network. He may have his own political reasons for wanting to do that, but that’s not how we function.

We want to work with local authorities, we want to work with municipal government, we want to work with the local health integration networks, because those are the people on the ground who know the services that are needed in their communities, Mr. Speaker.

I care deeply about providing services to people in this province. I care deeply about making sure that seniors have the supports they need. They have earned them. They have made this province strong throughout their lives, and we have an obligation to make sure that they get the supports they need. That is why we are investing hundreds of millions of dollars into their care and working with the local authorities to make sure they get the care that they need, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

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

Final supplementary.

Mr. Frank Klees: The people in the galleries who are being affected by this wrong-headed decision are not giving an ovation to the Premier. The only people who are are the people who are trying to defend the indefensible.

The fact of the matter is that wrong decisions have been made. There is time to fix it. We’re appealing to the Premier to do exactly that.

It is the ministry’s policy that has directed the region to do what they’re doing. It is the ministry’s policy that has directed the LHINs to do what they’re doing. It is the Premier’s responsibility to set that right.

One more time, to the Premier: Will you stand up and will you say that you will stand with these seniors and people with disabilities, and you will set right what has been done wrong, that you will restore those services to the people who are here and who depend on those services for their independence, for their safety, and for their health?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The people in the gallery are exactly the people with whom I stand. What I say to them is that we are working very hard to make sure that you get the support that you need. I know that there may be a change happening, and what we are trying to do is to make sure that people get the 24-hour, seven-day-a-week care that they need. There is a change that is being made, but our intention is—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Excuse me. Stop the clock. I apologize for not catching this earlier. Direct your questions, comments and answers to me.

New question.

JOB CREATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, 162 families in Welland received devastating news that they will be laid off, as Energex Tube has decided to idle its operations. Like many families across this province, they will be looking for work this spring and wondering whether or not they’re going to find any.

Over the past week, the Premier insisted that the Liberal status quo is working when it comes to jobs. What does she have to say to the families that have now lost their jobs in Welland this week?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just say that it’s always a blow when a company makes a decision and there is job loss. My heart goes out to the workers and their families. But what I will say is that we will do everything in our power to make sure that those workers have the opportunity to make the transition to new employment and to new retraining.

Beyond that, we are working with companies who are coming into the province and we are working with companies that are expanding their job creation. That’s the work that will make the economy stronger into the future. We’re not going to stop that work. We’re going to continue that work, because it’s creating jobs, including working with communities to invest in infrastructure. But my heart goes out to the people in this particular instance.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There is no doubt that manufacturers are facing challenges all over North America, but the Premier’s response ignores the problem and suggests that everything that they’re doing over there is actually working. Instead of targeted approaches to help business that are hiring people or investing here in Ontario, she’s defending loopholes and giveaways that hand millions of dollars to companies that then outsource jobs. Instead of working to get electricity rates under control, she insists that sky-high salaries, bloated agencies, and subsidized electricity exports actually make sense. Does the Premier really think that her plans are working?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: We have created more than 400,000 net new jobs since 2009—100,000 new jobs last year.

If the leader of the third party, underneath her rhetoric, is asking me is whether we’re going to support the $2.5-billion scheme that she would like to bring forward, the scheme that was adopted by President Barack Obama and then rejected by President Barack Obama because it wasn’t working, the scheme that in many jurisdictions has been shown to not work and to actually spread money in places where jobs were already being created in a very non-discriminatory way, if she’s asking if we would take that reckless path, no, we will not.

We will continue to work with businesses to do that in a targeted and strategic way, and to help them expand and create the jobs that we know are the future of this province.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, 300,000 manufacturing jobs have been lost in this province and have not been replaced, and the Premier well knows it. Families losing a paycheque this month deserve better from their government. Instead of a plan to help them with change that rewards actual job creation and cleans up the mess in our electricity system, they see a government that once again is focused on the challenges of the Liberal Party, scrambling to plug holes left by departing ministers and shoring up vulnerable MPPs.

Why is this government more concerned about saving the jobs of MPPs from Oakville and Thunder Bay than thousands of Ontarians losing theirs?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Employment.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I know the leader of the third party is pinning her hopes on her job creator tax credit scheme, but it has been discredited virtually right across North America. Barack Obama considered it; he proposed a similar 10% tax credit. But at the end of the day, he dropped it because his experts were telling him that it wouldn’t work, that it would be abused, as it has been in a number of states. It had practically no effect, according to the NPR editorial they had on it. Many people in Congress and the Senate said that they should be cautious about it because, quite frankly, it doesn’t work.

Our finance ministry has estimated that it would cost more than $2.5 billion a year. In fact, the Jobs and Prosperity Council rejected it—the Jobs and Prosperity Council that had Jim Stanford, the respected economist from Unifor, as part of that committee.

I don’t understand why they’re pinning their hopes on a failed tax credit that is a giveaway where evidence shows that 92% of the jobs are going to be created anyway.

PAN AM GAMES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I can tell you that the status quo isn’t working for hundreds of thousands of people who are underemployed and unemployed in the province of Ontario.

My question is to the Premier. People in this province are also concerned that their tax dollars aren’t being respected. They were told the original cost for security for the Pan Am Games was supposed to be $113 million. Then the cost suddenly jumped to $239 million.

My question is a simple one: Where is the accountability?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: As the leader of the third party may know, the minister offered a technical briefing for opposition members and, unfortunately, your member wasn’t able to be there.

It’s very important that everyone who wants to ask a question about the Pan/Parapan Am Games has all the information about the procurement process that was gone through in term of security, has all the information about the transportation costs and understands that it is our obligation to make sure that the security of the Pan/Parapan Am Games is the very best it can be to protect all of the attendees, whether they’re coaches, whether they’re athletes or whether they’re tourists. People are going to be coming to the Pan/Parapan Am Games for this amazing event. We need to make sure the security is the best it can be.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, after hearing about soaring costs, people are now learning that a US firm with a history of violations and fines here in Ontario has been awarded the Pan Am Games security contract. Was the Premier aware of the history of violations and fines before this contract was awarded?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Again, had the leader of the third party’s colleague been able to attend the technical briefing, she would have known that for this process, we were relying on the expertise of the OPP. It has been a process that has been led by the OPP. I think the OPP inspector, Mike McDonell from the integrated security unit—I’m just going to quote him: “The government conducted a fair, open and transparent process” overseen by the Office of the Fairness Commissioner.

Mike McDonell went on to say, “The contract was awarded to the firm with the strongest bid and demonstrated experience in large-scale security initiatives while meeting all the required private security parameters throughout the games.”

Mr. Speaker, we are putting our faith in the experts on this file because we must be assured that the security at the Pan/Parapan Am Games is the best it can be.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: What I asked the Premier about is: When did she know about the fact that this contract was being awarded to an American company that has a history of violations and fines here in Ontario? When did she know that that contract was being awarded? That was the question I asked.

In light of these revelations, will the Premier now do the right thing and call on the Auditor General to take a look at the Pan Am security contracts?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: All four members of the RFP selection committee for private security services for the 2015 Pan/Parapan Am Games are members of the OPP and serve with the integrated security unit. I am not going to interfere in that process. I am not a security expert and I don’t believe the leader of the third party is a security expert. We are going to leave that to the experts because we need to make sure that everyone who comes to the Pan/Parapan Am Games—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott Russell will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Nepean–Carleton.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): And the member from Prince Edward–Hastings; it actually could have been his warning.

New question.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Rod Jackson: My question is to the Premier. The Premier knows that the Pan Am Games are a scandal under this current minister. She requires him to report to her biweekly for lack of confidence, and she has allowed TO2015 to create a new communications nanny position to mitigate the minister’s ongoing blooper reel, yet somehow the minister dodged a bullet with the latest cabinet shuffle.

When are the costs of retaining this minister too high, Premier? You just lectured the third party leader that it’s important to know all the details about the Pan Am Games. Why don’t you tell taxpayers—today, right now—what you’re paying Neala Barton?

Interjections.

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

Premier?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I spoke yesterday about the reality that the human resources hiring—the issues to do with human resources—are being handled by TO2015. The federal government, the provincial government and the municipal government are all working together, making those HR decisions. We’ve had a conversation about the reality that this minister is providing technical briefings and opening up the process so that the members across the way can ask all of the technical questions that they want, and can have that information.

The reality is that this is a complex, large games. There are many moving parts. The venues are spread around the region so that other communities—like Barrie, like Hamilton and across the region—will have an opportunity to have a legacy as a result of these games. I hope that the member opposite takes the opportunity to get all the information from those technical briefings.

Mr. Rod Jackson: I was happy to be at the technical briefings. Unfortunately, the minister wasn’t. No doubt the Premier knows every decision through her biweekly reports, so pleading ignorance is seriously amateur hour.

Let me help you out, Premier. Your Liberal friend Neala Barton is making more than you are. She’s buying when you go to dinner, Premier, because this scandal-hopper is netting between $250,000 and $300,000 in taxpayer dollars. All this for Neala Barton, a Liberal staffer who’s been there for eHealth, for McGuinty’s and Redford’s resignations, and now for Pan Am.

Premier, you can save that money by just removing the source of the problem today. Now that you know the cost of Liberal cronyism, will you intervene immediately and replace the minister and Barton?

Interjections.

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

Premier.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The Minister of Tourism, Culture and Sport.

Hon. Michael Chan: This member can, day after day, attack the games, but at committee on Monday he said that the Parapan American Games should combine with the Pan Am Games—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Northumberland–Quinte West is warned—

Mr. Rod Jackson: Read the Hansard, Minister.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): —and the member for Barrie will come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Clearly.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you, Speaker. He suggested that para-athletes from all over the world—

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: You should have been fired yesterday.

Mr. Rod Jackson: Read the Hansard. Get your facts straight. The least you could do is to get that right.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member for Barrie will come to order—second time. The member for Nepean–Carleton will come to order. Maybe the third time; I’m not sure.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): But if you question my seriousness, keep going.

Hon. Michael Chan: On a day where we will be hosting Paralympic athletes, he lacks the understanding to realize that para-athletes are world-class competitors who should be celebrated—

Mr. John Yakabuski: Shame on you.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Be seated. The member from Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke is warned.

Carry on.

Hon. Michael Chan: His comments are not only arrogant and ignorant, but aim to destroy—

Interjections.

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

The member will withdraw.

Hon. Michael Chan: I withdraw, Speaker.

These comments are misguided and aim to destroy the spirit of para-athletes all over the world who compete in sports. He owes all para-athletes an explanation for this terrible comment.

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): The member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell, if you wouldn’t mind getting into your seat so I can tell you to stop—but maybe I’ll tell you to stop now.

New question.

PAN AM GAMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier.

Speaker, the Pan Am security contract just keeps getting worse. We’re now learning that the US firm this government selected to provide security for the Pan Am Games pled guilty to violating its licence during the G20 summit and was fined $45,000 here in Ontario. Was the Premier or her minister aware of these violations, the guilty plea and the fine before this contract was awarded?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, let me just start by saying that I’m very excited to be in my new role. I want to thank the Premier for giving me the opportunity to serve as Ontario’s Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. I also very much look forward to working with my colleagues the member from Leeds–Grenville and the member from London West so that we can work together and find ways to make our province even safer and more secure for every single Ontarian.

I’m new on the file so I’m learning all the ins and outs, but I know one thing for sure, and that is that our government is developing a world-class Pan American Games for 2015 right here in our province. These games are going to be hosting world-class athletes from the Americas. They’re going to be welcoming tourists from around the world. We are going to work with our security experts to make sure that these games are one of the most secure games around the world.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: I’d like to thank the minister for no answer again.

How can this government have even considered a bid from a security firm that has broken laws in our province specific to the provisions of our security services? There’s even a question about whose bid was lower and who had saved Ontarians money. The company that you didn’t pick was Ontarian.

Can the Premier or the minister explain why this government awarded the contract for the Pan/Parapan Am security to a US firm with a checkered security history that was charging more, when there were qualified firms here in Ontario with clean track records?

Hon. Yasir Naqvi: Speaker, the security of the games is a very serious issue, and we must rely on experts like the Ontario Provincial Police to make a decision as to what is the best form and who is the best one to deliver security. In matters of security, armchair quarterbacks are not welcome. That’s not what we want to be doing. That’s why we have an integrated unit at the Ontario Provincial Police that is responsible for contracting the security. They are responsible for all the details around the security. I will listen to their advice any single day over any member in this House, from the government or from the opposition.

Let the OPP do their job and make sure the Pan Am/Parapan Am Games are world-class games right here in the province of Ontario.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Steven Del Duca: Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation. I’ve heard the minister speaking about our government’s record investments in public transit, and the people in my riding of Vaughan have certainly taken notice.

My constituents rely on GO trains and buses to get to and from work on a daily basis. They travel between school, friends, families, homes, and for a social evening downtown or in my riding. Vaughan residents recognize that public transit investments make transit a better choice for commuting. They reduce congestion on our roads and contribute to a better quality of life for all Ontario families, especially those in my riding.

Speaker, through you to the minister: Can you please speak to the investments in my riding that were recently announced when it comes to GO services?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: It’s a great pleasure to rise, and I want to thank my friend the MPP for Vaughan for his advocacy and his leadership on transit. We, as you may know, recently announced the extension of a morning and an afternoon train on the Barrie line, and we will be increasing that from 10 cars to 12 cars. That will add 320 additional seats or, if you want to look at it this way, take 320 more cars off just on that one addition alone.

We will actually be adding two new weekly morning trains on the Barrie line, from Maple to Union Station, which will create more capacity. This is in addition to a plethora of other investments we are making in different forms of transit, and the subway, which is provoking great development right now in the Vaughan Metropolitan Centre.

I want to thank the member for his leadership.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Steven Del Duca: I want to thank the minister for the update regarding the all-important Barrie GO line. This announcement is great news for my community, for the people of Vaughan. Increased GO service has long been necessary, and I’m delighted that our government is committed to taking these important steps.

I have been and residents in my community have also been troubled to hear about the plan, or the lack thereof, that’s being suggested by the opposition and by the third party. The Leader of the Opposition has suggested that he would be making the kinds of investments that would directly and adversely impact the communities of Vaughan, those across York region and elsewhere. My understanding is that his proposals would almost cease completely the infrastructure spending in communities outside of the Toronto core, like mine. And from what I’ve seen, the NDP has no plan at all when it comes to transit.

Speaker, through you to the Minister of Transportation: Can you please outline the investments that our government is making in communities like Vaughan and across Ontario?

Hon. Glen R. Murray: We have at this point invested $9.1 billion in GO services alone, and this is important, because the investments that Metrolinx make have impacts all across the province. For my friend from Thunder Bay–Atikokan, the new Minister of Municipal Affairs, the cars are made there; and for the member for Barrie, all the tunnels for the Eglinton line are being made in Barrie, Ontario.

But it’s also important to note that we’re the only party committed to 2% of GDP, which is 10 times as much as the opposition party. We’re still trying to figure out where the third party is on infrastructure, because their history in government is to spend 10 cents on transit for every dollar that we spend, and that doesn’t buy you a bus; it merely fills a pothole.

FISCAL ACCOUNTABILITY

Mr. Victor Fedeli: Good morning, Speaker. My question is for the Premier. This morning, I have a large group of financial services people tuning in to carefully listen to your answer. They’re not interested at this moment in what you have to say about the fall economic statement. What they’re interested in is what you had to say last May during the budget announcement. Let’s review.

Last spring, you were told by the Ministry of Finance you were “not on track to meet the 2012 budget deficit targets.” A few days later, you issued a news release that stated, “The government is on track to meet deficit targets outlined in the 2012 budget.”

Premier, why did you tell the financial community, the bond-rating agencies, this Legislature and the public one thing when you knew the complete opposite to be true?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Minister of Finance.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance?

Hon. Charles Sousa: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member opposite seems to fail to understand that while recommendations and proposals and initiatives are put in place, while conditions change by market forces around the world, a leadership government must take action, and as a result of the actions we’ve taken, we reduced spending. We took the initiatives necessary to recalibrate so that we could in fact stay on target. The bond-rating agencies and all the others that you make mention of, we do speak to as a result of those results.

As a consequence, we’re on track to balance the books by 2017-18, and we do so because of the actions that we’ve taken to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Victor Fedeli: So, Premier, conditions changed in a couple of days from when you were told one thing and said the other. You’re not giving us the facts. You were told one thing, but you went out and told the public and this Legislature the complete opposite.

You’ve got a $4.5-billion gap and you tell the bond-rating folks, “All is well.” This is like déjà vu all over again. Last year, throughout the gas plant scandal, you told us the cancellation would cost $40 million, but it took the Auditor General to tell us what really happened. It was $1.1 billion. You deleted emails, and the OPP had to get called in.

There’s a pattern happening here, Premier. When you get caught, you delete or, in my case last week, you try to stop information from being made public. Instead of writing a jobs plan, you spend your time keeping the facts from getting out. Exactly what is it that you’re hiding?

Interjections.

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

Minister of Finance.

Hon. Charles Sousa: The members opposite have had a history of hiding the facts. That is why there was a $5.6-billion hole in the budget when they were last in power.

We brought forward measures of transparency and accountability, to the point now where the C.D. Howe Institute and others are saying that Ontario is one of the highest-rated provinces and governments by way of transparency and disclosure and integrity in the numbers that we present. As a result of that, we’ve become the leanest government in Canada. We’ve beaten our deficit targets year over year, and we’re continuing to do so. We’re investing in jobs and investing in the economy, to create greater economic growth and more jobs, something that that party opposite is actually threatening.

As a result of what he has just mentioned—months-old information that we had already exposed and put out there for all to see and consume—we are taking actions to ensure that we balance the books, and we’ll continue to do so.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Mr. Taras Natyshak: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I want to first congratulate the minister on his recent appointment and wish him well.

The minister had a private member’s bill that would require 60% Canadian content for transit vehicles purchased by municipalities. My first question to the minister is very simple: Will the minister introduce this bill as his first—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): I’m glad you brought it back to the ministry, because I would have ruled it out of order. But now that you’ve brought it back as to whether or not he will introduce certain legislation, it’s fine, so I’ll carry on.

Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Hon. Bill Mauro: Speaker, thank you very much for the question. I want to thank—the member, thank you very much for the question.

As he is aware, as a minister, I’m not able to bring private members’ bills forward, but what I can tell you on a specific issue is clearly this: We have made a strong commitment—and I would thank the member opposite from North Bay. Both of us, in our previous lives and in previous times here in this Legislature, introduced private members’ legislation on this particular issue. I, personally, as a northern member, find it as very important. I think it’s key to part of the revitalization of the forest industry, which has already begun to occur, I would suggest.

We have some great news in northwestern Ontario, certainly in my riding of Thunder Bay–Atikokan. This piece, I believe, would help that.

But I will say that paramount to us are the issues related to safety, when it comes to this particular issue. We feel like we’ve done some pretty good work. The previous minister has done a tremendous amount of great work, in terms of lining up that support to ensure we’re meeting all of our people and stakeholders who are interested in this issue.

On a go-forward basis, there is more I will say in the supplementary. There’s another important piece I feel it’s necessary to share with the member.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Taras Natyshak: The minister knows how important Canadian content is in mass transit vehicles for Thunder Bay’s Bombardier plant. He said, “The regulations called for in the proposed bill would help protect these jobs and encourage future job growth in the mass transit sector.”

With his appointment as a minister, his private member’s bill has now essentially died on the order table and will not be up for debate tomorrow. My question is, will the minister commit today to making his bill for Canadian content in mass transit vehicles a government bill and a government priority?

Hon. Bill Mauro: The Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Order, please. I’m just going to provide you with some feedback. This is why we tightrope-walk when we have these changes and things that have happened the way they have.

The instruction I’m going to leave with you is to try to make sure that the question you ask of the minister is directed to ministry responsibilities. I know that there was a little bit of weaving back and forth, both in the answer and in the question. I’m glad that the minister has punted it to somebody who probably has the responsibility within his particular domain.

I’m trying to offer some guidance, because it is a difficult matter, and I appreciate what the members want to say and do. I’m just offering all of us a reminder that when we do offer those kinds of questions, they’re directed directly to the ministry’s responsibility, and I thank you for that.

I thank the minister for giving it to the Minister of Infrastructure and Transportation.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: I too want to welcome my colleague from Thunder Bay–Atikokan to cabinet. I know the Premier is very, very well aware of the new minister’s views, and I’m sure that was weighed in her thinking, that Canadian content and the economic implications of our infrastructure investments are a priority for this government.

Right now, we have worked very effectively. The downside of being too protective is that we hurt Canadian companies competing in the large US market.

But right now, we go back seven years, formerly MPP Mauro as a city councillor, in his previous life, advocated—this is a seven-year campaign that my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing has been on, so I don’t think it’s going to disappear any time.

Hon. Bill Mauro: It’s 1,200 jobs.

Hon. Glen R. Murray: This would be 1,200 jobs.

We will continue to work with the third party and in this Legislature to realize the maximum benefit of all our infrastructure investments in each part of the—

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

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Here in Ontario, we should be proud that we have a ministry that is dedicated to providing children and youth with services and supports they need. In my community of Scarborough–Rouge River, I meet families and vulnerable youth every day. They share stories of how the work of our government is helping to make their lives better.

Speaker, doing what we can to ensure the well-being of all children and youth in the province is not only important to us now, but it will define the quality of men and women who will live in Ontario in the future. Giving a child a boost and the supports they need will lead them in the right direction and provide them opportunities to make the right decisions in life. An investment in our children and youth today is an investment in the province’s future.

Can the minister tell us about the work that the ministry is doing to support children and youth in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: I’d like to thank the member from Scarborough–Rouge River for not only the question today but also his regular and ongoing advocacy for children and youth not only in his riding but across the province. Today, for everyone to know, we’re celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services, and we’ll be having a little celebration later and some cake. Everybody is invited to join us later today.

I’m proud that our government took the initiative to create this ministry and ensure that children and youth throughout the province are properly represented. As stated by our first minister, “By focusing on positive results for kids from prenatal health through early adulthood, we have a unique opportunity to make a real difference in the lives of Ontario’s young people.” That statement remains valid today.

I’ve heard that the party opposite would abolish the Ministry of Children and Youth Services. That would be a mistake. For the past 10 years, thanks to tireless work, we’ve made terrific gains.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon: The minister is correct. It would be wrong to abolish this ministry—despite calls from some members in this House. In Scarborough–Rouge River, there has been a reduction in crime and gang activities since 2004. I personally attribute that to the actions of this government by providing children and youth better options and greater opportunity.

From the increased supports for youth leaving care or increased investments for special needs services or the many initiatives in the poverty reduction strategy, vulnerable children and youth in my community have greatly benefited from focus by a dedicated ministry.

Speaker, the 10th anniversary of the creation of the Ministry of Children and Youth Services is a milestone that we should all celebrate. As I said earlier, an investment in our children and youth today is an investment in our province’s future. The best way to justify this ministry to those who think it should be abolished is by reminding them of the major accomplishments made in the past 10 years.

Speaker, can the minister tell us—

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

Minister?

Hon. Teresa Piruzza: Again, thank you for the follow-up to that question. I can most certainly speak to the many accomplishments this ministry has had over the last 10 years, because they have been many.

We introduced the province’s first-ever Poverty Reduction Strategy, with the Ontario children’s benefit as its focal point. We transformed the child welfare system to make it sustainable and ensure that children in Ontario will be protected for generations to come. We’ve dramatically increased our support for crown wards, supporting the work of the Youth Leaving Care Working Group. We’ve introduced a new Special Needs Strategy, a Youth Suicide Prevention Plan, a Youth Action Plan and a new mental health strategy. Since we took action in 2003, the youth crime rate has fallen by 29%. This has been a very busy ministry.

Building on our achievements, we will continue to help children and youth in Ontario reach their full potential.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr. Rob Leone: My question is for the education minister. Minister, I delivered yet another letter today asking you why you refuse to safeguard extracurricular activities for our students. You may have noticed that your teachers’ collective bargaining bill sits in committee, stuck in clause-by-clause, and will stay there until you work up the courage to stand up for students.

I’ll remind you again that our only ask on behalf of parents in this entire piece of legislation is to ensure that co-curricular activities are not ripped away from students, yet you continue to reject this outright. Is the threat of withdrawing support that the special interests hold over your head so strong that you cannot risk politically incurring their wrath?

Minister, you can run for election to lead a union or you can be our Minister of Education, but you can’t be both.

Clean up your act, get your facts straight and support the important amendments for students and parents across this province. Will you do that today, Minister?

Hon. Liz Sandals: The answer is the same as it was last week. When I think about what happened during the Harris years, what I remember was legislation, regulation and attempts to change funding and collective agreements in order to impose new rules of work without new compensation. In fact, they took a billion dollars out of school board funding.

I also remember that what we had during the Harris years was eight years of chaos. Kids didn’t get extracurriculars. They didn’t even get to go to school, because people were always on strike during their time. So, am I going to do what he suggests? Absolutely not.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary?

Mr. Rob Leone: I’m still waiting to hear an answer why you could possibly reject this request outright. This is not a ploy or a tactic. This is not a game. Parents have been clear that they want their politicians to safeguard extracurricular activities come the fall. I want this, too, but I cannot do this without your help.

Minister, if this is about pride, please, I ask you, let us put our egos aside and think about what really matters: the education of our students. However, if this is about losing your political allies, please, I ask you, find the courage within yourself to stand up for what is right, rather than caving in to the special interests at the expense of the student experience in the province.

We know you were once on the side of parents. We know you can be again. Will you support this amendment and support the students of this province? For once, Minister, please stand up with us and help students get the experience they need.

Interjections.

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

Minister of Education.

Hon. Liz Sandals: I am absolutely on the side of parents and children and making sure that kids have extracurricular—and I know from a lot of experience that the best way to do that is when everybody works together.

We can all work together. It’s you that can’t work with anybody.

SENIORS’ HEALTH SERVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la première ministre . Today, busloads of seniors and caregivers from the York region are at Queen’s Park. They are here because some of the most vulnerable people in the region’s community living programs are about to lose the round-the-clock care that they require.

The government has been trying to put the blame on York region, saying they cannot do much, yet the Minister of Health was able to extend this in-home care by a period of one month.

Will the Premier tell the seniors and their caregivers who are here today if she is prepared to protect their health care services permanently?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m not sure exactly where the blame has come from. I’m not blaming anyone. What I’m saying is that my understanding is that the services that have been provided in one way are going to be provided in another way, that the region of York made a business decision that they were going to get out of this particular delivery, and that the local health integration network, the Central LHIN, is going to be ensuring that every patient who currently receives service will continue to receive service.

The reality is that not all seniors were receiving 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service. We want to ensure that that is in place, that they have access to that service as they need it, where they need it, and in a timely way. That’s what the change is about.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Supplementary.

M me France Gélinas: Let me make it clear: When it comes to frail, elderly seniors and people with disabilities, 24/7 coverage by caregivers, by PSWs who know them, who know and understand their needs, is the gold standard. This is what they had.

I see it time and time again: The Liberal government can talk a good game when it comes to keeping frail, elderly, vulnerable people in their homes. They repeat “right care, right time, right places,” but when cuts are being made to gold-standard programs that do just that, then their talk starts to sound like nothing more than empty words.

I ask again, is the Premier going to protect these vital, gold-standard health care services and the seniors that they support?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: Let me just repeat again: Currently, patients of the region of York’s assisted community living program are being transferred to experienced providers—because I agree with the member opposite that it is important for seniors to have the care of experienced people who understand what their needs are, because if they are fragile, if they are in a precarious situation, they need to have that trained person there. They’re being transferred to experienced providers who will be able to provide this service.

As of April 1, new providers will be offering that 24-hour, seven-day-a-week care on-site at all of the region of York buildings where this service was previously provided. That is what is to happen on April 1.

If there are questions about that, I will absolutely make sure that they get answered by folks in the Ministry of Health. But that’s what’s happening. The care is being transferred.

RURAL INFRASTRUCTURE

Mr. Phil McNeely: This question is to the Minister of Rural Affairs. Minister, we know cities have many transit options, but in northern and rural areas, roads and bridges are what are important.

We all take notice when we drive over potholes or can’t get across a bridge in disrepair. Not only are roads and bridges vital to local communities, but they serve as important arteries to help Ontario’s economy grow.

Ontario’s small and rural municipalities have infrastructure needs that differ greatly from the urban municipalities, and I want to be assured that this government has taken those needs into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, through you, can the minister please inform the House on what is being done to address the infrastructure concerns of rural municipalities?

Hon. Jeff Leal: I want to thank the member from Ottawa–Orléans for a very superb question this morning.

I’ve had the great privilege of being Minister of Rural Affairs and getting the opportunity to travel Ontario north, south, east, and west, and meeting with my municipal colleagues, who I have a great relationship with as a former municipal councillor myself for some 18 years.

When we brought forward that $100-million infrastructure fund for small, rural, and northern municipalities—I haven’t seen such enthusiasm in years as when we announced that program, and AMO and ROMA—the opportunity to engage with those fine elected officials that represent communities, oh, so well.

Just recently, on my travel on that day, we announced $1.5 million, rehabilitating a well in Hanover—Mayor Maskell is a wonderful lady—

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

Hon. Jeff Leal: —upgrading sanitary sewer services in Owen Sound. Mayor Haswell—

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): Thank you. I stand; you sit.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Dave Levac): No, no. I stand; you sit. Don’t finish.

Supplementary.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Minister, for your response. I’m pleased to hear the Ontario government takes the needs of small and rural municipalities very seriously.

Rural Ontarians have raised concerns over stable and predictable infrastructure funding. Having been involved as a consulting en