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

April 29, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Apr-29 (PDF)

L024 - Thu 29 Apr 2010 / Jeu 29 avr 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 29 April 2010 Jeudi 29 avril 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L’ENSEIGNEMENT POSTSECONDAIRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOURISM

TOURISM

TAXATION

MINING INDUSTRY

CURRICULUM

MINING INDUSTRY

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

CURRICULUM

TAXATION

TOBACCO CONTROL

PUBLIC TRANSIT

WORKPLACE SAFETY

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

LABOUR RELATIONS

TOURISM

UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

POLICE

JOHN PAUL THE GREAT FAMILY CENTRE

OLIVIA ROSS

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

GLENN KIFF AND LINDA WAYNE

PHARMACISTS

BAHA’I COMMUNITY

POLISH CONSTITUTION ANNIVERSARY

EARTH DAY

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOWERING ENERGY COSTS

FOR NORTHERN ONTARIANS ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA RÉDUCTION

DES COÛTS D’ÉNERGIE

POUR LES ONTARIENS DU NORD

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

NORTHERN ENERGY CREDIT

FIRE RANGERS

NORTHERN ENERGY CREDIT

FIRE RANGERS

FIRE RANGERS

NORTHERN ENERGY CREDIT

PETITIONS

PRESENTATION OF PETITIONS

TAXATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

IDENTITY THEFT

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ONTARIO PHARMACISTS

TAXATION

TAXATION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HEALTHY LIVING /

SAINES HABITUDES DE VIE

BRITISH HOME CHILD

DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DES PETITS IMMIGRÉS BRITANNIQUES

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

(RESOURCES PROCESSED

IN ONTARIO), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

(RESSOURCES TRANSFORMÉES

EN ONTARIO)

HEALTHY LIVING

BRITISH HOME CHILD

DAY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE JOUR

DES PETITS IMMIGRÉS BRITANNIQUES

MINING AMENDMENT ACT

(RESOURCES PROCESSED

IN ONTARIO), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT

LA

LOI SUR LES MINES

(RESSOURCES TRANSFORMÉES

EN ONTARIO)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTION STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES ÉLECTIONS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE

L’ENSEIGNEMENT POSTSECONDAIRE

Mr. Phillips, on behalf of Mr. Milloy, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 43,

An Act to amend the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000, the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005 and the Ontario College of Art & Design Act, 2002 / Projet de loi 43, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2000 favorisant le choix et l’excellence au niveau postsecondaire, la Loi de 2005 sur les collèges privés d’enseignement professionnel et la Loi de 2002 sur l’École d’art et de design de l’Ontario.

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

Hon. Gerry Phillips: I’ll be sharing the vast majority of my time with the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I think, after that mercifully brief introduction, I’m getting the majority of the time.

Interjection: The vast majority.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: The vast majority.

Our government has long recognized that investing in education and training is absolutely critical to the success of our province. With Ontario’s economy undergoing some huge structural changes, our investments have never been more important. Advantages of the past—low wages, a low dollar, cheap commodities—are becoming far less important as we move to compete internationally.

Experts tell us that some 70% of new jobs require a higher education and that if we want those jobs, we’ve got to be smarter, we’ve got to be better trained and we’ve got to be better educated than the next guy. That is why our government continues to make education our highest priority.

In a recent speech from the throne, our government unveiled Open Ontario, a new five-year plan to create new opportunities for jobs and growth, and investing in education is a critical part of that plan.

The late President John F. Kennedy used to say there is no better measure of our progress as a nation than our progress in education. He was right. After all, it is today’s students who will go on to become the entrepreneurs who will build tomorrow’s knowledge-based economy: the dreamers who will tackle the world’s toughest problems and the innovators who will turn exciting new ideas into things that have the power to change our very lives. We believe that every qualified Ontarian who wants to go to college or university should have that opportunity.

Open Ontario includes raising the number of Ontarians with a post-secondary education credential to 70%. To reach this goal, our plan includes a provision to build 20,000 more spaces at our colleges and universities this fall. We’re going to create a new Ontario Online Institute that will offer students a new option for higher learning in the increasingly digitized world of the 21st century. Another part of the plan is to shine a spotlight on Ontario’s outstanding post-secondary education system, so that in that spotlight we can make our province the destination for those who are seeking higher learning.

We currently have more than 37,000 international students enrolled in Ontario colleges and universities. We will open our doors to the world and we will increase international enrolment by 50% over the next five years. President Obama was recently quoted as saying, “Those nations that out-educate us will soon be out-competing us.” I think he’s right. By encouraging more foreign students to come to Ontario, we can build new international relationships and increase our competitiveness.

To continue to attract those students and to ensure that the people of Ontario have the best possible post-secondary education system, we need to put our very best foot forward. We need to work diligently to protect the quality of our post-secondary education system. That is why this week—this very week—our government introduced the Post-secondary Education Statute Law Amendment Act, 2010, which moves forward on three different fronts. Let me explain: Through this act, we have proposed amendments to the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, 2000; the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005; and the Ontario College of Art & Design Act, 2002.

Ontario is moving to protect Ontario’s reputation for excellence in post-secondary education, both at home and abroad. Our action will assure students that post-secondary programs offered here in Ontario are of the highest quality and meet our standards of excellence. Our proposed amendments to the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act, or PSECE, would, if passed, protect both international and Ontario students. The PSECE Act came into effect in 2001 to expand access to degree programs, improve student protection and implement quality assurance for new degree programs.

The act allows private institutions from inside and outside of Ontario and public out-of-province institutions and colleges of applied arts and technology to apply to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to offer a degree program. Previously, colleges of applied arts and technology and private institutions located in Ontario could not apply to offer degrees in our great province.

The act created the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board, or PEQAB, as it’s affectionately known, which has implemented rigorous quality controls and has been successful in protecting Ontario students from degree mills since that time.

But we’ve experienced an increase in organizations challenging the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act. They are challenging our ability to ensure the quality of our post-secondary education brand. Currently, there are no options provided in the act for financial penalties. The only enforcement available is prosecution under the Provincial Offences Act, a quasi-criminal proceeding. We believe that we need more and stronger tools of enforcement, much like the changes we have made to our Private Career Colleges Act.

If passed, the proposed amendments would strengthen the ability of the government to shut down unscrupulous and unauthorized educational organizations and prevent them from taking advantage of international and Ontario students. Our proposed amendments would allow the government to impose financial penalties and restraining and compliance orders against unauthorized degree-granting institutions.

Another key amendment would, if passed, allow us to reduce the red tape for publicly assisted colleges and other institutions by making the application process for consent to offer a degree program more cost-effective and less time-consuming, and that has got to be good news for all of us.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Oh my God, it’s just so good.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I appreciate the affirmation from the bench opposite. That one who’s so knowledgeable, who says without any hesitation, as an immediate reaction to the words I uttered, how good this act is—I appreciate that.

Currently, the minister must refer every application for consent to the Postsecondary Education Quality Assessment Board. The minister cannot make decisions early in the process, even when the proposed new program is an unjustified duplication of existing programs or when few job opportunities actually exist for graduates of that particular program. It just doesn’t make sense. That’s why we want to change it.

In addition, the act also does not provide any choice about requiring a quality review by PEQAB, even in cases where a quality assurance review has already been done by another reputable body. Our proposed amendments could and would reduce this potential duplication.

As well, we are proposing amendments to the act to define and clarify ambiguous terminology such as “degree,” “distance education” and “educational institution” in order to clearly identify the activities that are subject to the Post-secondary Education Choice and Excellence Act.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: That should do it.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Thank you again for that wonderful affirmation. I knew, coming in this morning, that the honourable member opposite would be nodding in total agreement with the thrust of this bill. I do appreciate his enthusiasm. He’s a good friend who knows post-secondary education very well.

Anyhow, I’ve noted that our Private Career Colleges Act has strong enforcement measures that will allow us to finally protect students.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There you go: “We didn’t do it right five years ago; we’re going to do it right today.”

Mr. Ted McMeekin: The honourable member is right: We are going to do it right today. I appreciate that. That is thanks to a number of changes in our approach to the private career colleges sector over the last few years.

We brought in the Private Career Colleges Act, we established the training completion assurance fund and most recently we did introduce financial penalties. We’ve doubled the number of inspectors from six to 12, we’ve appointed new provincial offences officers with the power to issue court summons and we’ve introduced financial penalties for private career colleges that break the law. We’re also reaching out to students through a public awareness campaign to ensure that students understand the importance of choosing a registered private career college and an approved program, so they get the high-quality education they deserve.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Make sure they know: Buyer beware; it’s not our problem.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Protecting consumers, particularly those in post-secondary education, as I’m sure my good friend the wonderful Minister of Consumer Services from the great riding of Hamilton Mountain would appreciate more than most.

We’re also working on a number of fronts to enhance quality and accountability across the private career college sector.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: There’s more?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Of course there’s more.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Hold on; let me put on my earpiece.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: You wouldn’t want to miss this. There are two key measures that I think will take the sector to a whole new level. Are you ready?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Yes. I’m taking notes.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I noticed that. You might want to do a thesis on this one day; it’s such an important move.

Today, I want to highlight proposed amendments that will further strengthen our enforcement of this act. If passed, these amendments would raise the maximum financial penalties for provincial offences from $25,000 to $50,000 for individuals, and from $100,000 to $250,000 for corporations. These penalties would be in keeping with other consumer protection legislation such as the Consumer Protection Act, 2002. This would help us improve student protection and the quality of private career colleges and programs.

Mr. Mario Sergio: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: “Hear, hear” is right. That is an important step—very important. We are going to compete in the global economy, and Ontario is going to win, because we’re going to have the most highly educated and skilled citizenry in the world right here. I see my honourable colleague over there is nodding in agreement. It’s very, very good to see that.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Parkdale–High Park.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Parkdale–High Park—how could I forget?

You know, people from your riding have been lining up for days to tell us how excited they are about this bill.

Mr. Dave Levac: The galleries are full.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: That’s because they’re so confident that our government has this right.

The member from Brant, of course, has an international reputation for his educational acumen, and he has been very helpful in terms of moving this forward.

On the Ontario College of Art and Design, the third part of our act covers proposed amendments to the Ontario College of Art and Design Act. OCAD—I know this, because one of my daughters was involved with OCAD—is one of the leading art and design—

Mr. Mike Colle: My daughter too.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Mr. Colle’s daughter as well.

Mr. Mike Colle: Bianca.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Bianca Colle.

Mr. Michael A. Brown: And Monte Kwinter’s a graduate.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I didn’t know that. Did you know Monte Kwinter was a graduate of OCAD?

Interjection: Yes, I did.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I knew he had that artistic flair, but I wasn’t quite sure where it came from.

Interjections.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: The member from York Centre.

Interjection.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: He’d be welcome to do this speech, I can assure you.

Mr. Jeff Leal: You’ve got the member all choked up here, Rosario.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: It’s such a great day, I’ve got to tell you.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Let’s take a pause and have a drink here.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I think I should, yes.

As Ontario strives to further develop an innovative economy, OCAD is an important player in supporting our goals in developing leading-edge innovations. OCAD has forged strong ties with industry leaders in the creative, information and communication technology sectors. It is a key player in supporting Ontario’s innovative economy.

Known for its innovation and links with a variety of arts and technology sectors, OCAD is producing high-quality graduates with the skills and competencies to meet the demands of the new economy.

Ontario is proposing amendments to the Ontario College of Art & Design Act that will finally give OCAD university status as an institution.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Finally.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: Right on, member from High Park. Thank you for that.

OCAD has been able to grant a bachelor’s and master’s degree since 2002, and the new amendments would reflect the academic evolution of the institution.

If passed, these amendments would change the name of OCAD to the Ontario College of Art and Design University. Changes to the act would also establish a university senate and appropriately amend the powers of the board of governors.

In conclusion, our Open Ontario plan recognizes the importance of post-secondary education in creating more opportunities for jobs and growth to compete in the global marketplace.

Ontario’s post-secondary education system is recognized for the quality of programs offered by our great colleges and universities. We are a leader in quality assurance for our post-secondary education system. This is a reputation we value highly and are committed to protecting.

Mr. Mario Sergio: We are proud.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: We are indeed proud. Ontario needs to act now, out of a sense of pride, out of a sense of hopefulness for the future, and with the certain knowledge that we can compete against anybody in the world. We just have to make sure that our most precious resource—our people—have the tools to get the job done.

Interjection: Determination.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: We are absolutely determined to act now to ensure that the Ontario brand remains strong.

I urge all members of this House to support the proposed Post-secondary Education Statute Law Amendment Act, with its amendments, secure in the knowledge that this would strengthen our ability to maintain the integrity and quality of Ontario’s post-secondary education system both at home and abroad. Isn’t that why we’re here and isn’t that what this place is all about?

Thank you so much.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’m pleased to rise and make a few comments at the beginning of this reading of the bill. There’s one thing I want to put on the record: I actually had an opportunity to listen to quite a bit of the member’s speech, and I’m very concerned about some of the comments I heard last night when I visited the hospitality reception room for the career colleges of Ontario—a lot of private career colleges are here. One group in particular, the Northern Ontario Welding College—they’ve been in Barrie for the last decade, and they’ve done a remarkable job training people in welding.

They feel somewhat intimidated by the Ministry of Training, Colleges and Universities about some of the actions it has taken. I only want to say that I hope, when we complete this debate and go on to committee hearings, that people who might be affected in a negative way by this particular piece of legislation—that they will, in fact, listen to possible amendments.

You have to remember that a lot of the private career colleges we have are operating with very little government assistance, and they’re doing a good job training people in the province of Ontario. Any time we can train someone and put them to work, that’s a very positive step. I had an opportunity to talk to only a couple of the people who had display booths at the reception last night, but both of them felt that the government wasn’t addressing some of their concerns.

I also noticed that there were virtually no government members at the private career colleges reception, and I’d like to know why.

Anyhow, those are my comments. I’m hoping there will be positive amendments coming forward on this, and I hope the government will address in the debate or in amendments to the bill any negative comments we hear from anyone.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I listened very, very closely to the comments by my friend from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale—that’s another big riding, I’m telling you—and I’m going to be as critical of his remarks as I was of the remarks by the minister yesterday, because I think we have a system that we cannot be too proud of. I know that you say you’re proud of the reputation you’ve got. The Ombudsman wasn’t too proud of the reputation you have. In his dissection of a number of problems he has studied, the ministry has nothing to be proud of.

You talk about being a leader in quality assurance. You’re not. You talk about moving to protect Ontario’s reputation. Yes, you must, because our reputation is not that strong. You talk about the Private Career Colleges Act having strong enforcement measures to allow us to protect students—at least the minister did yesterday. If indeed there were strong enforcement measures, why has he not applied them to those rogue institutions that have been set up and have cheated many students of a year or two of tuition and a year or two of their lives, when many of these institutions are not registered?

The member from Simcoe North talks about some of these private colleges being intimidated or afraid. Well, if they’re registered and they have followed the quality assurance measures that are requested of them, there’s no problem. And if these private institutions are not registered, that is against the law.

I’ll have more opportunity to speak to this in a half-hour or so.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further questions and comments?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: First of all, I want to congratulate my colleague the member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale for his wonderful speech about the importance of amending this bill to make sure that all the people who come from everywhere to study in Ontario will be protected, that Ontario is open for international students and also that when they come and study, whatever college they study in should be accredited and looked after very well. The importance of this amendment and of Bill 43 is to create a protection mechanism.

Also, the member from Simcoe–Grey talked about yesterday’s event, and that there was nobody from the government side. Yes, there were a lot of members. I went.

Mr. Jim Brownell: Absolutely. I was there.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Yes, I was there, and many people went yesterday. We were in and out. It’s not about this. We believe that everyone in the province of Ontario, everyone who registers, everyone who has a legitimate concern should come to this place and voice their concern. This is what’s important about this place: It’s open for all the people from across the province to come and talk to us. That’s why we’re here: to listen to the people and address their concerns.

The most important thing is education—how important it is when you allow people from across the globe to come to Ontario, learn and not just get an academic education but also learn about the culture, the traditions, so that when they go back, they can create some kind of a special tie with Canada and Ontario, and maybe create trade missions.

I think it’s important, and that’s why the most important thing is how we can create a mechanism, and how we can allow the colleges and universities to update and upgrade their capacity to be able to absorb those massive numbers of students coming from international backgrounds.

Also, the most important thing is to cut the red tape and make it more accessible, with special protections and guarantees for all the people who want to come to Ontario.

I want to congratulate the member from Ancaster—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments?

Mr. John O’Toole: I have listened carefully. In fact, the content of the remarks by the member were engaging and entertaining. I’m very disappointed that the minister isn’t here.

Interjection.

Mr. John O’Toole: I shouldn’t say that. The minister—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Order. I’d just remind the honourable members that we don’t comment on whether someone is here or not here. They may very well be in their offices, working hard, or in committee.

The honourable member for Durham.

Mr. John O’Toole: That was inadvertent and I apologize for saying that.

I’m just saying that this bill is pretty significant, given the context of what was in the budget speech and the expansion of the pressures on the system. This was in the budget speech that was read by the minister. I’ll be making comments on that in a very few minutes, with the indulgence of the House.

The member did speak of the importance of some of these changes that were, I believe, in direct response to André Marin’s reports on the inaction that I believe has precipitated this bill.

Our critic is predisposed to listen closely today on this, because I’ll be sort of speaking earlier than I should be.

The comments by the member were valid. I’ll make a couple of comments that say that there are a lot of good things in the bill and we’re going to listen. We certainly hope it will go to committee.

With that, we’ll wait until my time to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: I want to thank my honourable colleagues from Simcoe North, Trinity–Spadina, of course the great riding of London–Fanshawe, and Durham for their comments.

This bill is basically about three things. It’s about responding to challenges and creating opportunities, it’s about enhancing quality, and it’s about protecting students. Those are three pretty important imperatives.

The honourable member from Trinity–Spadina talked about quality. I’m reminded that Aristotle once said—

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: A good Greek.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: A good Greek, says my honourable colleague from Hamilton Mountain, who knows good Greeks.

Aristotle once said that if you want to know if the shoe fits, you have to ask the person who wears it, not the person who made it. In that context, we do very well. You talk to students about how they view their post-secondary education, and it’s virtually universally positive. There are studies to show that. We of course have one of the highest post-secondary graduation rates in the western world, if not the highest.

We’re going to move ahead. Of course we’re going to listen to any thoughtful amendments. Our government is all about listening to thoughtful amendments so that we can enhance any legislation.

We’re not here to fear the future, but to shape it. In order to do that, we need to hold fast to the best of our past and race, as this bill does, to embrace the very best of our future.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Further debate?

Mr. John O’Toole: Mr. Speaker, I would like to seek unanimous consent to stand down our lead speech.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Is it agreed that the lead be stood down? Agreed.

Mr. John O’Toole: I might just mention directly that our critic on this has given me as much help as he possibly can in the short time that we’ve been allowed. In fact, he’ll be listening to every remark, because he’s sitting in the chair.

I want to start by saying first of all, I’m sort of a product of lifelong learning. In fact, it has taken me longer to learn than most people here, I suppose. But I mean that quite sincerely. I attended three or four different universities and graduated from two of them. Now, the deal here is that all of us, including the young people here today, should realize that we’re in an environment of lifelong learning. It is institutional to some extent, and it’s coincidental to some extent.

If you look at access to information today, the virtual world of information—Google and the Internet—the piracy that occurs, plagiarizing etc., is profound. I can say in our own family I have a couple of nephews who have Ph.D.s from Canadian universities and American universities. My youngest daughter just graduated with a master’s degree from a university that I believe is in Scotland. She got her undergraduate degree here in Ontario. I’m so proud of how my wife is an educator, a retired teacher. Education was the primary goal in our lives, and I believe for many new Canadians, it’s the primary goal. They come here because there is a rich opportunity and a rich environment.

I also think locally: My riding of Durham is home to one of Ontario’s newest universities, the University of Ontario Institute of Technology. I want to thank Dr. Polonsky, who generated the enthusiasm and the conceptual idea to develop what was a college into a new university, and now we have the Durham equivalent, UOIT. Dr. Ronald Bordessa, the president there, comes from a background at York University, and I think as well from Royal Roads in British Columbia.

We also have Durham College, which is a technical college, a quasi-university, I guess, that works with universities. Don Lovisa is the president there, and he is bringing that into the new world of the new generation of energy and energy technologists—that program. They’ve instituted in the midst of the building some of the infrastructure for renewable energy right on-site for hands-on training and learning.

I think all of our communities are really committed to partnering, whether it’s a college with a university—and the crossover programs today are very important. I think recognizing credits in the college sector, to transition into the university sector, is important. Many university graduates today with an arts degree go to college to get some practical learning to apply to the workplace.

I think it’s very important: Success today, it’s often said, is a knowledge-based economy. In that, it’s global. We cannot be isolationists. Let’s be realistic. There are two or three books that were written recently, and I refer to them often. I think Richard Florida’s book on the creative culture is important, about the jobs of the future. I ask, what are the jobs of the future? We see the erosion and loss of jobs in manufacturing cascading out the of this country, and we see the problems in the typical, traditional economies of northern Ontario. Those northern Ontario economies based on resources, whether it’s pulp or minerals in the ground, show that the economy there has to change.

The interesting part of this whole debate on the revolution of colleges and universities and knowledge is that you don’t have to be in Toronto or Ottawa or Waterloo. You can actually learn virtually. Many of the programs today—in fact, when I was still working 15 years ago, I was in a program working on my master’s degree in mechanical engineering at Northwestern University. I never got the degree. I finished the first four courses, I believe it was, in statistics and stuff like that. But it was all done virtually.

You went to the Northwestern campus for a week or something and then you came out and studied online in collaborative mode, learning with other students on problem-solving. That’s the reality today.

I went to the University of Toronto—that’s where I graduated from—but my point is this: The way we learn today is profoundly different. Now, I don’t know whether it addresses this, but in their budget—I wish I had more time. I’d like to have the lead on this if I could, but I know the Speaker would not allow that because it’s his job.

But in the budget on page 60, Open Ontario’s goal is to raise Ontario’s post-secondary attainment rates to 70%. A very laudable goal; we would support that objective. You’ve got to keep the standards high. If the number’s so important, don’t lower the standards. If you want to say you’ve got 70%, how do you compare on some of the Euclid tests and Descartes tests and all these other tests that test the high quality of math, science and real knowledge?

It says the first step is that the budget will provide $310 million in new funding for 20,000 new spaces in colleges and universities this year. I question whether or not that’s enough money. I’m not asking them to spend; I’m asking them to think outside the box. The reason I say that is because learning in a virtual university is not a negative thought. The quality has to be there.

Here’s a good example: MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, probably one of the most prestigious universities. If you read Friedman’s book The World Is Flat—and he has a second book now, Flat, Hot and Crowded, which is pulling together globalization as well as global warming—what they say there is that the most patents that were issued, for the first time in history, last year, were issued in India at Bangalore University. They graduate more electrical engineers in India than all of Canada and the United States combined. That’s the competition globally. Get with the game.

Now, if you were going to get a lecture in advanced theoretical physics, where would you like to get that lecture from? I’d want it from the very best practical theoretical physicist in the world, and that’s possible today by conferencing and visual interaction by computer. My children live in three different countries: Australia, England and the Isle of Man. I say this all the time: We speak to them almost every day online, and to our grandchildren, on Skype. Corporations today have virtual contact throughout the world: online, real-time.

When the president of some large company speaks, he speaks from some country to their international partners. That’s the world today. Let’s get over it, that it’s some direct institution. I agree with the sentimental values and the importance of the socialization and real contact with real people at the university, totally agree with that, totally understand, especially for undergraduate students. But for graduate students, they want the very best.

I’m going to read one example of a paper this morning. In the media this morning there were a couple of articles on this which I think were very appropriate, and this complements something in the bill. There’s a particular

section in the bill which I think is important and necessary in a knowledge-based economy. Here’s what it says, and this is from CBC News: “Private Universities Target of Ontario’s Crackdown”—that’s one part of it. It says:

“Currently, Ph.D. students can start the process of acquiring permanent resident status in Canada only if they already have a permanent job offer.” The changes announced will do the following. This is as reported by Mike Crawley of CBC News, who “spoke with Irada Ibrahim-Zada, a Ph.D. student in the U of T’s Department of Laboratory Medicine and Pathobiology who is from Azerbaijan. She is doing research about why certain cancer drugs do or don’t work well with different patients depending on their genes.

“Ibrahim-Zada said removing the rule that requires a permanent job before applying for permanent resident status will boost her chances of being able to stay and work” here “in Ontario.”

That’s ultimately what we want. We want that. That is a provision in this bill which I would support. I would encourage our leader, Tim Hudak, and our critic, Jim Wilson, to support that.

She goes on to say, “Right now, knowing that I can graduate from a Ph.D. program and directly apply as a provincial nominee makes my life easier.”

New Canadians are going to bring new growth to this province, and that needs to be supported. We attract—based on what? I think we attract them—we’ve heard for the last couple of decades that new Canadians are coming here with Ph.D.s or engineering degrees and driving taxis. We need to change that. We need to change it and make full use of all of the skills and knowledge that are here. It will pressure our institutions to respect and respond.

The budget speech I mentioned went on to say, and I’m going to quote from that again: “Tens of millions of families around the globe want what Ontario offers—a quality post-secondary education that leads to a good job and a secure future.” Who doesn’t want that? My five children do; that’s why they’re in different countries. They go where the action is. It’s a global deal. If you want to be with the best, you’ve got to run with the best.

Here’s what it says. The minister said that we are aggressively promoting Ontario’s—I’m not sure the word “aggressively” is the right word. It should be based on quality, and that will be the eventual outcome. We are aggressively promoting “Ontario’s post-secondary schools abroad and increase international enrolment by 50% ... guaranteeing spaces for qualified Ontario students.” Wait a minute here—a 50% increase; $310 million. That’s not nearly enough money.

Do you know what this is about? Tuition for foreign students is double or triple the regular student tuition. It’s a money-maker. Let’s call it what it is. It really is. I say that not to be cynical or critical. Let’s say what it is. They’re going after the market, like New Zealand and Australia are doing as well. I should add that New Zealand and Australia, where my daughter lives, are doing the same thing. There’s money in it, big-time money.

These students come, they pay tuition in the hundreds, maybe thousands of dollars—Ph.D. and graduate students—maybe hundreds of thousands. They live here, they buy here, they buy groceries, they rent, they do things, they bolster the economy. What’s good about the bill is they’re going to allow them to stay as permanent residents and bring their skills and knowledge here.

I want to say also that everyone here, I think, realizes everything I’ve said. I’m just putting it on the record. What’s really important, though, is to put some context around the real purpose of the bill, as the member said this morning. Opportunity, quality and protecting students were the three prerequisites, I think.

I think it’s very important to look at the work done by the Ombudsman, André Marin. He has issued two reports on this. There’s work to be done, and this bill reacts to some of that.

The goal is to increase the number of Ontario students, as I said, with post-secondary education to 70%—watch the quality numbers. Don’t just get caught up with the numbers. Let’s measure the quality.

Some of the academics argue with this measurement of quality. Let’s put ourselves up to the world’s best. It’s like the Olympics. How successful, how wonderful to see our Canadian athletes in the Winter Olympics. What a terrific inspiration for all of us. We can do it. The leadership has to start here. You can’t force it on the students. You have to show the rewards are there for excellence. In fact, my belief is—and I’m on my own, saying this; I would encourage our leader, Tim Hudak, to say this—I think the top students’ tuition should be free.

Interjection: How come you’re saying you’re alone?

Mr. John O’Toole: Well, basically, you and I are the only ones here.

The truth is, though, I would say the top students in my day and age, when they were an Ontario scholar—there were two Ontario scholars in my grade 13. Both of them have Ph.D.s today. They were brilliant. In fact, they knew the answer to the question when the lecturer put the equation on the board. One of them is head of fine art, I think, at Carleton. The other is a physics teacher at Queen’s, I believe. Today, there are two pages of Ontario scholars, from every high school.

I don’t know whether they’re—I put it that the kids are smarter, perhaps. There’s certainly a lot more information around, and more easily accessed.

Here is the deal: Even the ones who get the award for top student—I’d be giving them a significant scholarship. They used to give $500 when I was back in school; they get nothing today—maybe $100 or something—and tuition in Ontario is the highest in Canada. If you really want to do something about increasing access, make it affordable; make the loans affordable; have an income-contingent loan repayment plan—some real plans for this 70% goal. We don’t want them graduating with $50,000 in debt or more. It’s unacceptable. This is our future. We’re going to depend on them all achieving their best potential in the least obstructive way.

What André Marin said was this: While these goals—of 50% and 70%—are commendable, do these increases come at the expense of students and graduates such has been the case at Cambrian College and Bestech Academy? I’ll mention more about that in a minute; it’s in the Ombudsman’s reports. He has two reports: Too Cool For School, which was introduced in July 2009, and Too Cool For School Too, in August 2009. He’s got it. He gets it. I’m not sure if this fixes it. It does give the minister much more authority, I’ll say that.

The minister calls for stronger tools of enforcement, yet Marin goes on to say, in a scathing report by the Ombudsman—here’s what he said:

“Despite the fact that it is illegal to operate a private ... college that is not registered with the ministry, a considerable number of unregistered training facilities exist in Ontario, presenting a risk to unwary consumers”—who are students. “The Ministry is fully cognizant of this reality. However, it does not vigorously pursue information about or enforcement against rogue operators.” That’s our Ombudsman.

They fired the Ombudsman. André Marin is too direct. I think he has been one of the best Ombudsmen we’ve had. He’s quite outspoken—I will say that—but that’s his job, to comment with facts and evidence.

Here’s what it really comes down to: Looking at this again, this is a report from April 26. This is very current, and I need to speak quickly here. Here’s what’s actually happening: “The institution”—that we’re talking about—“which is headquartered at Prestige Restaurant in Hawkesbury, Ont.”—what’s it called? Wait a minute; it’s called Hawkesbury University, and it operates at a restaurant in Hawkesbury, Ontario. I’ve been to Hawkesbury. I lived in Quebec for a while. I used to drive through Hawkesbury on the way home.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: They have a university?

Mr. John O’Toole: Yeah, it’s in a restaurant.

It “has no approvals from the Ontario government to do business in the province as a university or as a private career college. Earlier this month, the province issued a restraining order under the Private Career Colleges Act”—which is an existing act; it was in 2005 that that act came in—“barring the unregistered school from advertising its unapproved programs.

“Owner Ashraf Hossain Siddiky had been advertising the school on a bright yellow website, which remains up despite the restraining order handed down April 19. Efforts to reach Mr. Siddiky were unsuccessful.” Can you imagine? He’s probably out of the country.

“The ministry says the website was tweaked during the investigation to say the school was ‘proposed’ and that it is ‘not yet operating.’”

What’s happening here is—this is a real case; I’m not making it up. This is in the—I hope it’s not the Toronto Star, because they’re usually pretty good to the Liberals. They never say anything critical, anyway. We call it the Liberal briefing notes. This is actually in the Globe and Mail, which is a very balanced media piece as well.

But this is about enforcement. What does the actual bill say? Well, I have a copy of it here. I haven’t had time to read it because it was just issued Tuesday. I have most of it read, though. I assure you that I look at them; I don’t just kind of go over what —the ministry gives these guys over here the speech, and we saw that this morning, and they read it. That’s the end of it. Some of them might go to the briefing. I think Mr. McMeekin is probably the parliamentary assistant for something.

I’m sure he’s going to make sure that—I want to see how many amendments and hearings are actually listened to, because our critic, Mr. Wilson, was on the board of governors for the University of Toronto, and I know that he will bring some substance and content to his observations.

Here’s what it says: “The inspection

section of the act,

section 9, is amended to more closely parallel the inspection

section in the Private Career Colleges Act, 2005”—I just mentioned that—“and the act is amended by adding provisions dealing with administrative monetary penalties” etc.

It goes on to say: “The provincial offence penalties are increased from $25,000 to $50,000 for individuals and from $100,000 to $250,000 for corporations.” This guy in Hawkesbury—a quarter of a million dollars will shut him down in no time flat.

The point here is that we want a knowledge-based economy. We want the best possible thing. I think that some of the things they’re doing here are laudable, commendable and supportable. Our leader, Tim Hudak, is big on jobs and the economy. That’s his whole deal: opportunities for young people who will pull us into the future where Canada can be the leader.

A lot of this is missing. A lot of it’s not here. The ink isn’t dry. We’re going to require it to go to committee, and you can count on it that we will be there, making sure that we have the right tools in the right place at the right time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: As always, it’s interesting to listen to the member from Durham. He brings passion to the place. There are a couple of areas where we could agree with him, from the New Democratic Party; just a couple. One is the sorry, sorry state of post-secondary education in this province right now under seven years of Liberal watch. Here are the facts: We are now 10th out of 10 in per capita funding for post-secondary students. We are now the highest-priced place to get a post-secondary degree out of all the provinces and we have the highest level of indebtedness upon graduation.

Now, where does it look better? Well, everywhere, just about. We are increasingly becoming like the United States: We have students graduating with $50,000, $100,000, $150,000 worth of debt. Contrast this, might I say, with most of Europe, in particular those social democratic countries where, guess what? People are always astounded when I say this: Post-secondary education is free. That’s what we should be aiming for here, free post-secondary education so that it’s open to everyone.

The member from Durham said, “It should be free for the best students.” Well, it is free for the best students in many jurisdictions in the world. I mean, imagine, students here. You should be in the streets. You should be out in front of Queen’s Park. You should be demanding not only a reduction in tuition, but real steps towards the goal, which is to make it accessible; to make it open and accessible to everyone—i.e., free.

I remember a wonderful

article in NOW Magazine. Its title was, “Did You Know that Your Professor Makes Less than You Do?” That’s the other ugly secret about post-secondary education: Professors here are being treated worse than workers in other professions and make less, sometimes, per hour than baristas at Starbucks.

Here is the educational system in Ontario. This is the reality. This bill isn’t going to do much to change that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: In response to the honourable member from Durham, I want to offer a couple of observations. Thomas Friedman, in his book The World Is Flat, pointed out to us that in a world where you can purchase resources, borrow capital and copy technology, the only real advantage any country has is, in fact, the degree to which their citizenry is educated, is trained and can be a competitive workforce in the global economy.

The member opposite suggested that today, international students want to go where the action is. We agree with that, and I guess what we’re trying to do in this bill and in some of the other initiatives that we’ve taken is make Ontario the place where the action is; make Ontario the destination of choice so that those wonderful international students who want to come—we’re making it easier for them to come, study and stay—can contribute to building a stronger, healthier and more caring and prosperous Ontario. Those who come and study and go home can become our partners in the economic situation that the global economy is all a big part of today.

The reference to student aid was interesting. I just want to say that in addition to freezing tuition for a couple of years, you may recall that students in Ontario have access to the most generous student support in the country. We’ve doubled our investments in student aid and tripled the number of grants available. In fact, independent studies have shown that of all the provinces in Canada, students graduating from Ontario are doing the best in terms of low debt. They’re also doing the best in terms of access to student support, and I think we can be proud of that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Questions and comments?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: I want to commend the member from Durham for his presentation on Bill 42. I wasn’t in the chamber when the discussion started, but I came in and I heard the member speaking very passionately about the education system in general. In fact, I think a couple of times he mentioned that he wasn’t sure that he was right on the topic of the bill, but he wanted to have some input into the system in general, the bigger picture. I very much appreciated that. He mentioned here this morning that if you read the bill—and maybe not everyone has read the bill.

As I was driving home yesterday, I was listening to the radio. They kept playing this clip on the radio. If I heard it once, I heard it 25 times. It was the Premier of the province of Ontario saying on the education bill and the changes that were being made, “It’s 206 pages. To be frank,”—I’m not sure if the word was “frank”—“I haven’t read it.” That was last night. The tape was from yesterday afternoon. He hadn’t read the bill, with all the curriculum changes that were being proposed that he withdrew and then came back and was going to put back in.

He was quoted on the radio on a regular basis for an hour: “I haven’t read the bill, because, well, you know, it’s 206 pages. I can’t read 206 pages that quickly, so I haven’t read the bill.” Incidentally, that bill was introduced months ago.

Mr. Dave Levac: That’s classy.

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: It was; that was on the radio, member from Brant—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. Further questions and comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Durham has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. John O’Toole: I do want to thank the member from Parkdale–High Park, and I’m just going to briefly respond. She talked about being 10th out of 10. Those are the facts. I guess I’m waiting for the member from Trinity–Spadina. He’s quite respected on the education file. I would say that she talked a bit about student debt, as well. I did briefly touch on that. It’s not so much in this bill, but it’s about this bill.

The member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale—I think his passion is completely correct, what he said. But the thing is, they say one thing and do another. Here’s the reality: When I look at the reality here, with Open Ontario, what did we do with the single largest file in this province, the energy file? What did they do? They gave $7 billion to Samsung, a Korean company, when my university is the top university in nuclear engineering. What the heck is going on? We have to go to Korea to get our future built? Come on here, wait a minute. You say one thing and do another. This doesn’t make sense. We should be sending our students to Korea. So I’m really upset.

The member from Oxford has it right: The Premier is ambivalent at times. Respectfully, he is the Premier; he was elected by his party members and that. But he’s starting to waffle. He screwed up on the transit plan in Toronto. I think the energy file is completely ruined. Brad Duguid doesn’t know anything about the file, quite frankly; Gerry Phillips does. My beef is this: This is so important that we’d better get it right, because it is a knowledge economy. We’re 10th out of 10 on support for it; our students have the largest amount of debt.

This plan here is saying we’re going to expand it by 50% more enrolment of foreign students—a cash grab. Look, let’s make sure quality supersedes all other goals. Our students are what we’re here for, and that should be the number one objective.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): I just remind honourable members to refer to each other by their riding names. Further debate?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m happy to speak to Bill 43, happy to have the time to be able to cover as much territory as I possibly can. I want to say a few things. Next week, when this bill comes back for debate—because I won’t be able to finish my lead—I’ll touch on the fact that this government has a strong interest in bringing 20,000 new students to our post-secondary institutions. I will speak about some of the problems connected to that. I’m going to mention distance education, online education, because I’ve got some concerns about that. I’ll briefly touch on OCAD, because it’s part of this bill.

It’s an unusual thing to do when you introduce this kind of bill to introduce OCAD into it. I’ve got no problem with it but I’ll speak to that next week.

I want to start by saying that the minister introduced this bill two days ago, and we are debating this bill today. It’s a bit unusual in my mind to have a bill presented two days ago and debated two days after. We have been given very little opportunity to do a review of previous bills. It’s true that the government has a few more resources than we do. We’ve got 10 members; they have over 70. They have a whole lot of research; we don’t. We do our best with limited resources, but it would have been nice to have been given a little more time to do a little more careful research.

I wanted to point out that it should be a right that opposition members get to be able to have a little more time to consider these bills.

I was a bit surprised that the minister wasn’t here to debate the bill. I’m sure he’s got other things to do, no doubt. But normally ministers introduce their bills by way of debate in this Legislature. The member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale did the 20 minutes on this bill, and that’s fine. I just wanted to point out the unusual nature of the time frame of when a bill is produced and when we’re debating in the Legislature, and the fact that the minister wasn’t here to present and debate on his own bill.

Secondly, I know that the minister, in his statement two days ago, talked about the following: “I have noted that our Private Career Colleges Act has strong enforcement measures that allow us to protect students. Today, we are proposing amendments to further strengthen our enforcement of this act.” I want to say how laughable that statement is, because we—you as a government; we collectively as parliamentarians—don’t have a good record on this matter at all.

And I am wary of presenting the comments by André Marin, who wrote his report Too Cool for School, because I know fully well that he is applying for his job again. To bring forth his name and to bring out his comments I fear could hurt his chances of reappointment, because he has done such a good job. I’m hoping it doesn’t, but I fear it could, because he has been so effective, doing his job so well.

I am proud of civil servants who make us accountable—I am. This is not to say the previous Ombudsmen and -women were not good at what they did. But this Ombudsman has made us accountable, and rather than praising him, we are punishing him. The government conveniently says, “Oh, no, we’re not. He can reapply, and he is. What’s the big deal? It should be the norm that people reapply for the job.” Maybe so. It hasn’t been the case in the way we dealt with others, where there have been automatic reappointments. But that’s fine; I think he’s quite happy to go through the reappointment process.

I want to quote him because I want to contrast the opinion of the minister that I just read out on the record with the opinion of Monsieur Marin as it relates to private colleges. He says in the overview, “Despite the fact that it is illegal to operate a private career college that is not registered with the ministry, a considerable number of unregistered training facilities exist in Ontario, presenting a risk to unwary customers.” Remember the statement of the minister: “I have noted that our Private Career Colleges Act has strong enforcement measures.”

I continue with the reading of the comments made by Mr. Marin: “The ministry is fully cognizant of this reality.” In other words, they know. “However, it does not vigorously pursue information about or enforcement against rogue operators.” Again, I quote the minister when he says, “Our Private Career Colleges Act has strong enforcement measures that allow us to protect our students.” Contrast it with the remarks made by Mr.

Marin: “When an unregistered trainer does come to its attention, the ministry typically expends considerable time and effort, not on aggressive enforcement,” member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, “but on education and persuasion, attempting to bring the violator into compliance with the act through encouraging voluntary registration.”

Mr. Ted McMeekin: That’s why we’re bringing forward the act.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale. No, no, no. The point is, the bill that you have in place has enforcement mechanisms. You do not apply them, and you do not apply them vigorously. In fact, you sit down with the violator and say, “No, no, no, not like that. You could do better. This is what you should do not to be in violation of the act.” You understand, member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale, who I like, how laughable it is when I hear you and the minister say that you’ve got tough measures in place, and tough enforcement, and Mr.

Marin says yes, you do, but you don’t apply them. “Sometimes this approach works, and sometimes, as in the case of Bestech Academy Inc., this passive course leads to unmitigated disaster.” So much for your protection of students.

“The ministry had cautioned June Ballegeer, the owner and president of Bestech Academy Inc., in November 2006, that in order to advertise and provide vocational training for gas and oil burner technicians, she had to be registered under the act. In spite of the ministry’s warning, Ms. Ballegeer began promoting Bestech Academy and enrolling students without the ministry’s knowledge.” Member from Ancaster, you have to listen to this.

I know you haven’t had an opportunity to read this document, because I know how busy we all are, and I have much respect for all the members of this place, including and especially the Premier, who has a big job. He makes $220,000 running a $100-billion place. I don’t envy him at all. And he can’t read every document that comes before him; he cannot. He earns a whole lot less than a whole lot of civil servants in this place, and this man gets slapped around day in and day out.

I have a lot of respect for someone who makes so little and gets slapped around day in and day out, versus other civil servants who make $2 million and $1.5 million, $1 million, $800,000, and they run little institutions,

whereas this Premier runs a $100-billion operation. I’m telling you, a lot of respect.

“In April 2007, the ministry became aware that Bestech Academy was providing illegal fuels industry training at its Stoney Creek campus.” That’s in the area close to where you are, member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough–Westdale. “By December of that year, the ministry learned that Bestech Academy was also falsely marketing itself as a registered vocational college. Instead of trying to shut down Bestech Academy to protect student consumers, as a result of confusion and miscommunication, the ministry instead proceeded to support the school through the Ontario skills development program.

In the end, the province spent upwards of $60,000, a substantial amount of which represented tuition fees, to send seven mature students for retraining at Bestech Academy.”

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Member from Ancaster–Dundas–Flamborough-Westdale, I say this to you with all due respect: You don’t have a good record. By that, I don’t mean you; the ministry doesn’t have a good record. It is a shameful record that I understand you’re trying to correct, but you’ve got a bill in place at the moment that you’re not applying. What confidence can anyone have that once you pass a new bill to make enforcement a little better, it’s going to have any better result?

Speaker, I know; I can see you’re edgy. You’re standing to say the time has come, but we’ll continue with this discussion next week, I’m sure. Thank you very much.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): It being 10:15 of the clock, this House stands in recess until 10:30, at which time we’ll have question period.

The House recessed from 1016 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Ernie Hardeman: Today it’s my pleasure to welcome the family of page Kyle Rutherford from the great riding of Oxford. I’d like to introduce John and Sandra Rutherford and Ralph and Irene Baker, Kyle’s grandparents. It will seem like all of Oxford is here, but these folks are here in the gallery, and they are all relatives of Kyle. Parents Mark and Carolynn Rutherford are here as well, along with Kyle’s uncle and aunt, Paul and Marilynn Vanden Borre, sister Jenna, cousins Cole and Tanner Pirie and his friend Mark Vanden Borre.

I know they caught the very first train to get here in time to see Kyle enter the chamber with the morning procession. I would like to join with the Legislative Assembly to welcome them to Queen’s Park today to watch Kyle perform his duties so admirably as a page.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I’d like to welcome the mother of Kate Hickey, the page who is currently here from the riding of Timmins–James Bay. Jane MacAdam is down in order to watch question period and see what her daughter has really been doing for the last three weeks.

Mr. Pat Hoy: I’m pleased to introduce some folks who are very important in the life of Andrew Bacic, one of our pages here from Chatham–Kent–Essex. His mother, Monica, is here; his father, Bob; sister Joyce and brothers Matthew and Justin. Would everybody welcome this very Bacic family?

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I’d like to welcome the family of page Ara Mooradian. Her father, John, is here, and her sister Talin, and her aunt Debra Roberts, are here today as well.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I’d like to welcome to the Legislature Steven Jack, Max Walton, Clive Walton, Zoe Walton, Kyra Walton and my partner, Shawn Kerwin.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’d like to welcome Mr. Nick Jasper and the grade 5 class from Sommerville Manor private school. They’re here to watch question period and take a tour of Queen’s Park.

Mr. Frank Klees: I’d like to welcome Swapnil Abrol, a student at Sir William Mulock high school in Newmarket who also happens to be a co-op student in our constituency office. He’s here with us today, as well as Daniel Stackaruk, a political science student who will be working on Parliament Hill for the summer and is here to observe us today. Welcome to both of you.

Mr. Peter Kormos: I’m pleased to introduce to the Legislature the family of Darcy Feagan: Mary Anne Feagan, her mother, and Mike Feagan, her father, in the members’ gallery, along with friends, companions, relatives and all sorts of folks from Port Colborne and beyond.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: It’s my pleasure to introduce to the assembly a number of people who travelled far by bus last night from Timmins, Smooth Rock Falls and area: members of the Save the Met Site Coalition, who are here to watch the debate on Bill 36 this afternoon.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to welcome back to Queen’s Park former student usher Jenni Simon and former information officer Svitlana Yurchenko, both seated in the Speaker’s gallery this morning. Welcome.

We have with us in the Speaker’s gallery today a parliamentary delegation from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam, led by Mr. Tran The Vuong. Please join me in welcoming our guests. They’re here today learning about the establishment of constituency offices.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I beg to inform the House that today I have laid upon the table an order in council reappointing Gord Miller as Environmental Commissioner, commencing May 1, 2010, to October 31, 2010.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TOURISM

Mr. Ted Arnott: Millions of people visit Niagara Falls every year, but apparently the Minister of Tourism isn’t one of them, so this question is to him. The Niagara region is one of Ontario’s most important tourism destinations. Niagara’s tourism industry leaders want to meet with the minister to share their vision. But in the 100 days since he was appointed minister, they tell us the minister is ignoring them. They wonder if he’s even set foot in the region. Is the Minister of Tourism avoiding Niagara Falls because he has nothing to say, or is it because he can’t explain why the Premier handed out an untendered contract for Casino Niagara after the ban on untendered contracts?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the opportunity to talk about tourism in Ontario. During my 100 days—the opposite member was right—I’ve been very busy with a lot of briefings in terms of culture and tourism. At the same time, in terms of the Niagara Falls area, we have appointed a new chair for the Niagara Parks Commission. So there are lots of things going on. I myself visit Niagara Falls every year, and many, many times. I will be visiting that area in the near future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: The Casino Niagara deal was handed out in open defiance of the Premier’s ban on untendered contracts. In fact, it was so blatant that the RFP could have been written by Smitherman. The minister need not avoid Niagara for that. In Niagara, they all know about the decision to abandon the RFP, and it came after the casino’s existing landlord hired Liberal lobbyist Bob Lipinski. Meanwhile, their once-lauded Sorbara report on tourism is gathering dust on the minister’s shelf.

Is the minister avoiding the Niagara tourism industry so he doesn’t have to face this question, or is it so that he doesn’t have to explain Bob Lipinski’s mysterious success fee to lobby for the Maid of the Mist?

Hon. Michael Chan: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: As minister responsible for the OLG and the Niagara casino situation, I am proud that this government has made a record investment in convention and tourism in that area by building the new convention centre. The process associated with Fallsview and the Niagara casino has been, in my view, appropriately handled. We are investing to ensure the future success of that gaming facility. It’s an important part of our gaming infrastructure. We remain committed to it. That’s why we made the investment in the convention centre. That’s why we will continue to work with the region to promote not only the casino, but all the wonderful tourism opportunities in the Niagara region.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The supplementary question is to the Minister of Tourism, and I would respectfully request that he take the question and not refer it. This minister has been in the portfolio for 100 days, but what has been accomplished? It would seem very little. We don’t even have an explanation as to why he’s sitting on the Sorbara report. It’s not that the minister has lacked opportunities to meet members of the tourism industry in Niagara. Just yesterday, the Minister of Training made an announcement at Great Wolf Lodge in Niagara Falls, but the tourism minister missed the opportunity to join him.

Is he refusing to meet with the Niagara tourism industry because he’s embarrassed by the Liberals’ paralysis on tourism, or is it so he doesn’t have to explain why they appointed Fay Booker to the Niagara Parks Commission when her main qualification appears to be her Liberal Party membership?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you once again for the question, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about tourism in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister, no—

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I refer it to the minister.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: It is Ontario’s highest priority to build a stronger, more competitive economy. So the tourism industry in Ontario is facing numerous challenges, including increases to passport fees and the rising dollar. We are facing these challenges head-on. Our government is fostering a competitive business environment that will attract jobs and bring investments to Ontario, as well as to the Niagara Falls area. This is why we are moving forward with the implementation of 13 new tourism regions. This will improve and coordinate tourism marketing, attract more visitors and generate more economic activity.

In the 2009 budget, we announced $40 million in annual funding to support the industry.

TOURISM

Mr. Ted Arnott: This question goes again to the Minister of Tourism. The minister has had 100 days to meet with the Niagara tourism industry but he appears to have confirmed that he has not. The HST is scheduled to take effect in 63 days. The minister has just 63 days to help the Niagara tourism industry by cutting some of the taxes that are crippling its competitiveness. Can the minister name just one tourism industry leader from Niagara who favours the HST?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you again for the question. I’m going to talk about the HST the opposite member talked about.

Come July 1, the HST will be in place. This will help all businesses in Ontario, as we know that there’s a tremendous business tax reduction. It would help create jobs. According to the Jack Mintz report, the HST will generate close to 600,000 jobs, attracting $47 billion in investment to Ontario. This is good for tourism because it creates jobs. People are going to go back to work, and when they are working they generate revenue, they generate income through their households and they have disposable income to go around Ontario promoting our domestic tourism market.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: Twelve days ago, I visited Niagara-on-the-Lake. If the Minister of Tourism took the time to meet with the tourism industry in the past 100 days, he would have heard from Janice Thomson. Ms. Thomson is the executive director of the Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce. She says, “The HST will be increasing the tax on accommodation when people have less money to spend already.”

The HST may be on top of destination marketing fees that add a 3% tax on overnight visits. What makes the minister think that charging 16% on accommodations will make Niagara more attractive to potential tourists?

Hon. Michael Chan: Refer to the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I say to the member, I appreciate the question in regard to revenue. Specifically, I can say to the people in the tourism industry and I can say to the good people at the Niagara-on-the-Lake Chamber of Commerce, I’d be happy to visit them as I’ve visited—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister?

Hon. John Wilkinson: The tourism industry, particularly hotels and restaurants, have been very clear that the nature of our tax reform lowers their cost of business. For the first time, the PST that they have been paying, which has been embedded in their prices, will come back to them by way of an input tax credit that lowers the cost of business. So not only are we lowering—

Interjections.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: The tourism industry doesn’t want to hear from the tax man, they want to hear from a Minister of Tourism who will stand up to support them.

Day trips from the US have declined dramatically because of a high Canadian dollar, and the Liberals’ greedy tax grabs will not make overnight stays any more attractive. The tourism industry wants a plan, not another attack on their competitiveness. They thought they had a plan with the Sorbara report, which is now gathering dust on a shelf. Instead, they’ve ended up with a government that is now adding a new tax on top of destination marketing fees, on top of a municipal marketing fee of 3% or more, meaning visitors may actually pay up to 19% tax on accommodations.

What is the minister doing to fight for the tourism industry in Niagara Falls and across the province that is under attack by the Liberal government’s tax agenda?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I refer that to the Minister of Tourism. It’s a tourism question.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question. The member opposite was right.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: The member opposite was right. It has not been easy in the last year or two and the tourism industry has faced many challenges. The rising dollar is one challenge we will face head-on.

This is why we are committed to investing in key marketing campaigns like There’s No Place Like This. This campaign helps us better market Ontario and Niagara Falls. From the spring of 2007 to the fall of 2009, the campaign generated more than 1.5 million trips. We will continue to build on this campaign to ensure that Ontario remains a must-see destination in domestic, national and international markets.

TAXATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier’s minister in charge of unfair tax schemes is finally coming clean. At the 11th hour, he’s telling Ontario families to buy now to beat the HST. Will the Premier be taking his minister’s advice and scrambling to the nearest buy-early and—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The member from Peterborough, I’ve been listening to references to a Premier from another province. I think it’s important in this chamber that we talk about issues that pertain to the province of Ontario, and I don’t need to continue to hear about my good friend who is the Premier of Nova Scotia.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Speaker, can I start over again because there was a flow to that question and I feel that I need to start over again? Okay.

The basic question is this: Will the Premier be taking his own minister’s advice and scrambling to the nearest buy-early and buy-save event here in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Personally, I thought the question worked and the flow was there. I just want to be clear about that.

There’s been a lot of information of late about the HST and its implementation coming on July 1. One of the things I wanted to do was to just remind Ontarians about the 83% of goods which are not subject to any tax changes. The following is just a partial list of those things which remain unchanged as a result of the HST: groceries, prescription drugs, municipal water bill, luggage, child care services, books, children’s clothing, children’s footwear, adult clothing, child car seats, cars, car repairs, home maintenance equipment like lawn mowers, snow blowers, sprinklers and the like. There is no change of any kind when it comes to the taxation of those kinds of items.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Minister of Revenue is suggesting that paying upfront for gym memberships, summer trips and theatre subscriptions is going to save Ontario families big bucks. Does the Premier agree that his minister’s sage consumer advice sounds like a lot like an admission that the HST, as New Democrats have said all along, is going to cost Ontario families more each and every day?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We’ve always been pretty straightforward about this. There is going to be an increase on some items, but we’ve also indicated that we cut personal taxes as of January 1 this year. We’ve indicated that one of the most important reasons why we’re going ahead with our package of tax reforms is to create 600,000 more jobs.

When you talk to Ontario families, they’ll tell you that not only do they want to ensure there are jobs for themselves today, they are also prepared to do whatever it takes to make sure there are jobs for their children and grandchildren tomorrow. So this is a long-term investment in a healthy economy, one that will support our schools, our health care system and jobs for our families. We think it is worthwhile to pursue that kind of an enterprise.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Well, unfortunately for Ontario families, people can’t stockpile gas for the car. They can’t prepay heating bills for an eternity, or get next month’s haircuts for the kids today. Since the revenue minister’s advice to families seems shallow at best, will the Premier finally admit that his unfair HST hit is going to really hurt unsuspecting families in Ontario at a time when they can very least afford it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Not only have there been independent reports telling us this will create 600,000 more jobs over the course of 10 years and produce $47 billion more by way of investment in new business, but there’s also another independent report, and I think the title says it all. It says, Not a Tax Grab After All. It points out that for middle-income families and low-income families, they will come out at about the same level, all told.

What we will not do is adopt the NDP policy, which was adopted in the province of Nova Scotia, to increase the tax by another 2%. We think that Ontarians are paying enough by way of taxes. We’re prepared to go ahead with the comprehensive package of tax reforms because it will result in 600,000 more jobs, something that I know Ontario families deeply support.

MINING INDUSTRY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Earlier this year, Timmins residents were shocked to learn that their community would be losing hundreds of good-paying jobs. Despite being profitable, Xstrata announced that it would close its Kidd Creek copper and zinc smelter and refinery. The smelter is the most modern in Canada, but next month Xstrata is going to be moving production, and those good jobs, to Quebec. What does this say about the Premier’s plan to create jobs and prosperity in the north?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: This is a very unfortunate development for Timmins. I’ve had the opportunity, together with a representative of my honourable colleague’s caucus, to meet on two occasions on this particular issue, including one where we brought the two sides together to see if there might be any basis for a change of heart on the part of the investor here. There was not.

We are now working with the city of Timmins. I am pleased to report that just recently, we provided $225,000 to pay for a feasibility study of the smelter site located there, to explore ways to continue to support jobs and activity and see if there’s anything at all that is possible in terms of what we might use that particular facility for. So we will continue to find ways to work with the people of Timmins, notwithstanding this difficult circumstance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: We’re joined today by some of the workers affected by Xstrata’s closure. They’re part of a broad coalition that includes municipal leaders, small business owners and organized labour. The coalition wants the Premier to intervene and ensure that resources extracted from Ontario are used to create jobs and prosperity in Ontario. Will the Premier join the fight to save these good northern jobs, or will he shrug his shoulders and effectively say, “Too bad, so sad,” to the people of Timmins and the surrounding region?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to assure my honourable colleague and the folks from Timmins who are here today that we have, in fact, given this particular option serious consideration. I’ll tell you why we can’t do it. There is no province in Canada that has a law banning the export of raw ore, and I’ll give you an example of why. Three quarters of the iron ore used in Ontario steel mills comes from outside Ontario. It comes from Labrador, Quebec, Michigan and Minnesota. There are 6,400 Dofasco jobs in Hamilton and 3,500 Essar jobs in Sault Ste. Marie that rely on imported ore.

There’s a tremendous amount of trade going back and forth when it comes to ore, and we cannot afford simply to pass a law saying we are not going to accept it.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador certainly has some lessons that he could probably teach this Premier, because you know what? Alarm bells have been going off for years and years in Ontario. When trees are cut down, too many of the logs, and the value-added jobs, are shipped out of Ontario, and now Xstrata says it will gladly extract our resources while handing out pink slips to hundreds of our workers.

The Premier can sit idly by as Ontario’s natural resources are shipped elsewhere for processing or he can stand up and ensure that they are used here to create good, local jobs and long-term prosperity in northern Ontario. Which is it going to be?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: We currently process in Ontario minerals mined in Quebec, BC, Manitoba, Newfoundland, the US, Peru, Chile and Australia. I want to quote CAW Local 599 president Dennis Couvrette. He said, “Mining companies in Ontario have always exchanged mineral resources between neighbouring provinces, in fact we continue to import metal concentrates from around the globe and transform them into pure metal in our smelter and refinery in Timmins.”

We cannot cut ourselves off from the rest of the world. To do so would be to compromise our economic strength and to eliminate so many jobs—thousands of jobs—in other parts of the province. We cannot pursue the particular solution put forward by my honourable colleague.

CURRICULUM

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Premier. The McGuinty Liberals have had over a week to get their story straight on their plans for the sex education curriculum. First they said they consulted, then they said they did not. Next, they said there was one curriculum, then, in response to reporters, admitted there was a second one being drafted for the Catholic schools. Yesterday, the Premier said that he had not read the curriculum. Then, minutes later, he said that he had.

Instead of this confusion and guessing, why have the Premier and his education minister not arranged for a briefing from the bureaucrats or even talked to the former Minister of Education?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I’m happy to have the opportunity to address the question. I would offer to the former Minister of Education a briefing so that you would understand exactly how the one curriculum in Ontario is delivered in the four publicly funded systems.

Let me tell you about what is in our physical and health education curriculum. In grade 1, we teach our children why people need food. We also talk about the food groups and Canada’s Food Guide. In grade 2, we talk about the importance of physical education and how to improve their heart and lung capacity.

The honourable member has indicated that this is an issue of importance. It absolutely is. I think that we are doing some excellent work in the physical and health education programs in our school—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the Premier again: I’m not quite sure how the minister can answer for the Premier, because this is all about the confusion that has reigned in the province of Ontario now for over a week about what this government is planning to do with the changes that they are making to the sex education curriculum, and their lack of posting the information in order that all parents in the province would know what was going on. It has become very embarrassing recently. In fact, we’ve seen some of the ministers leaving scrums and not wanting to respond to the questions they’re being asked.

Why is the Premier of this province not aware of what is going on when it comes to this very sensitive issue, which has contributed—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This has been a very important issue. I would say to the people of Ontario, we certainly have heard from them that they very much appreciate that the Premier has listened to them. That is why we have committed—and information is in our schools—that we will look forward to implementing that part of the physical and health education curriculum.

The revised part that deals with physical and health education: That’s 90% of what has been developed. The 10% that deals with sex education: We look forward to putting in place a plan that will engage parents and families on this important issue. What the people of Ontario and parents do understand is that there has been one curriculum for physical and health education in the province of Ontario. That continues to be the case.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Premier. Premier, the coalition members who’ve met with you on two occasions now asked you to become their champion. We asked you to work with us and with Xstrata in order to determine what the cost factors are that are making their decision to leave Ontario. Our question to you is simply this: Why were you not prepared to intervene in the case of Xstrata, but you’re certainly prepared to intervene in the auto sector, which was able to save some jobs as a result?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: If only to reconfirm what the Premier said earlier, too, this is a devastating announcement that took place, in terms of the impact it will have on Timmins. I think it’s so important to point out the involvement of our government in trying to work with you, with the coalition. Certainly, the Premier had a number of meetings. He met with the global CEO of Xstrata, Mick Davis, and Ian Pearce, the Canadian president, as well.

Obviously, in the meeting with the coalition, I think the request was, “Can you help, Premier, to pull together a meeting between Xstrata and the coalition to at least look at the opportunities that are there?” The Premier, of course, was able to do that as well.

There is no question that, indeed, this continues to be a very, very difficult situation. I look forward, in the supplementary, to speaking about why, perhaps, your private member’s bill may be a problem for workers all across Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Gilles Bisson: I go back again to the same point. We were very clear in what we’ve asked the Premier and your government to do, and that is, if Xstrata has got cost issues, namely, electricity prices and meeting environmental regulation, then we ask them to put that on the table and for the Premier to do his job. And that is, to ensure that in the end we are able to deal with the issues that Xstrata see as problematic here in Ontario, and that we are able to save the thousands of jobs that will be lost as a result of this closure.

So I say to you again, there is still time. Is your government prepared to work with us and work with Xstrata in order to deal with those cost issues so that we’re able to save those jobs in Timmins for the people of Ontario?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I am certainly more than conscious, as is the Premier, as is our government, about how devastating this decision has been. We want to work with the community, and are continuing to do so. We did make an announcement related to funding for alternative uses of the site. There is absolutely no question that the meeting that took place was to take a new look, one more look, at whether or not Xstrata would change their position. Clearly, they were not in a position to do so.

I think it’s so important to point out that the fact is that to take measures such as supporting your private member’s bill would be a challenge in terms of imperilling thousands of jobs all across the province of Ontario. I think we would be opening up a situation where, indeed, there would be a trade war that could take place.

The long and the short of it is, we’ll continue to work with you—I will—and we appreciate your involvement. It’s been a positive experience in that sense. I welcome the coalition here to Queen’s Park, and we’ll look forward to continuing to work together to help make Timmins and the community surrounding Timmins prosperous.

COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRES

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. An important issue among my constituents is access to quality health care, and it continues to be an issue. They want good-quality care for their loved ones, they want it close to where they are and they want it when they need it. It’s crucial that we continue to strive to improve the ability of Ontarians to access quality care without always having to enter the local emergency room.

As the minister knows, community health centres across the province have been filling that gap by providing excellent care for families around the province. In my riding of Kitchener–Conestoga, the Woolwich Community Health Centre and its satellites, the Wellesley Township Community Health Centre and Linwood Nurse Practitioner Office continue to do great work under the direction of Denise Squire.

Could the minister update the House on the progress being made with community health centres across Ontario—

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

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member from Kitchener–Conestoga is absolutely right. Community health centres are an extremely important part of our health care system. They achieve high-quality patient care when the emergency room isn’t the best choice.

Today we’re celebrating the opening of the newest community health centre in Ontario, in Woodstock. This community health centre will provide the people of Woodstock a very high-quality, reliable source of health care that’s a real alternative to the local emergency room.

In coordination with the opening of this CHC, all CHCs throughout the province are proclaiming the last Friday of April to be Community Health Day. I want to wish all the community health centres the very best Community Health Day and I want them to know how much we appreciate the extraordinary work—

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

Ms. Leeanna Pendergast: I am pleased to hear that our government is focused on providing Ontarians with significant health resources within local communities. I know that my constituents of Kitchener–Conestoga will also be pleased to hear this.

Community health, as the minister pointed out, is an important aspect in providing quality care to all Ontarians. It’s an important aspect of local care and allows patients to avoid emergency rooms for minor conditions.

In light of Community Health Day, could the minister please describe what the government is doing to provide Ontarians with important community-based care?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I’m sure the people in this Legislature will be happy to know that our investments have supported the largest-ever expansion of community health centres. In fact, there are now 103 community health centres or satellites operating or under development across this province. As a result, CHCs are now serving 75,000 more Ontarians, bringing the total to approximately 330,000 Ontarians who are receiving their health care through community health centres. They are a vital piece of our plan to improve access to health care in this province.

We’ve also provided funding to community health centres to carry out other programs that enhance the capacity of people to stay independent as long as possible in their own homes—$507 million in community health services; funding for assistive—

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

CHILDREN’S SERVICES

Mr. Frank Klees: My question is for the Premier because I know that he’ll be very concerned about what’s happening with our schools.

I have a letter from the central CCAC confirming that 12 months ago there were 449 children on the wait-list for speech-language pathology in the York region public and Catholic schools alone, and that today there are more than 1,000 children on that wait-list. These are children who are struggling with speech-language disorders, which can have serious long-term consequences without timely intervention.

Can the Premier tell us why more than 1,000 children in York region are being denied essential speech-language therapy and why their parents are being told they have to pay for private therapy if they want timely treatment?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Children and Youth Services.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I’m pleased to talk about this important issue. Ensuring that children across the province have timely access to preschool speech and language is something that every community agency that my ministry funds—for example, the Ontario Early Years, the Toronto Preschool Speech and Language—it’s an important service delivery model. It helps those children in their earliest years, to ensure they get the help they need. I have seen first-hand the incredible work that’s done in community organizations.

At the same time, as we look to see that our kids will be in all-day junior kindergarten and senior kindergarten, we know that the education system will be called upon to take up the continued work for kids in the schools. I know that the Minister of Education, as our two ministries work very closely together to make sure there’s a continuum of services for kids zero to four and—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: This is absolutely bizarre. The Hansard record will show that the minister didn’t even hear the question.

I’m talking about children, more than 1,000 on a wait-list in York region alone, who are not getting speech-language therapy. Here is what a therapist says:

“I will have eight clients in my caseload this May, compared with 25 that I had at the same time last year. Many of my colleagues are in a similar predicament and are wondering why the referrals have suddenly stopped.”

We’re wondering that too. Therapists are not getting the referrals to treat children. Children—more than 1,000—are not getting speech-language therapy. I’d like to know from the minister: Why are these children being kept on a wait-list and what will she do about it?

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I guess the question is somewhat rich, coming from someone who was on the other side of government when those services truly did not receive additional support.

Since 2003, we have increased funding for preschool speech and language by up to 40%. With that funding, we have been able to expand the preschool speech and language program to serve an additional 7,000 children with complex special needs each year.

As you might have heard earlier this week, we announced that I’ll be working closely with Dr. Charles Pascal to look at all of the services that we provide children from zero to four, to find a way to ensure that those services are best delivered, get out to the front lines and respond to the issues of need in each community.

I look forward to speaking to the member to learn about the specific circumstances that exist in his community, but I can tell him that we are—

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

CURRICULUM

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Promotion de la santé. Can the Minister of Health Promotion tell us what age she thinks is appropriate to teach kids about body parts, including penis, testicles, vagina and vulva?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: To the Minister of Education.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: We have a physical and health education program in our schools. It was in our schools when the Conservatives were in government, when the NDP was in government. It’s a program on which we have worked co-operatively with educators and with families. Those terms, the correct names for body parts, are presented to children in the primary grades. The Fully Alive document that I have with me, one that has been in place since, I believe, 1990, perhaps when the honourable member’s party was in government, would use those terms in grade 1.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: I’d like to go back to the Minister of Health Promotion. This is a health promotion question. The minister’s mandate is to help Ontarians to lead healthy lives. New Democrats believe that comprehensive health education taught by professionals in the classroom is crucial to the health and well-being of children and youth. Education is our best tool in preventing sexual abuse and sexually transmitted diseases and delaying sexual activity.

Does the minister agree with the Premier’s decision to back off teaching kids about healthy relationships and the facts of life? How is this going to help them lead healthier lives?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: This is a very important issue, and that is why already in our curriculum we deal with those very important subjects: bullying and abuse, use of cigarettes, the effects of alcohol; also with respect to cyber-talking and online gambling, and about dating-based violence, as well as racially based violence and how to prevent it. So we have those topics in our schools right now.

We want to do more work with parents and with families. We want to improve on the material that is being provided to them right now in our schools. We’re going to take the time and we’re going to talk to more parents about this so that families will be confident that the information their children are getting in schools is age-appropriate and prepares them well for the world that they’re going into.

TAXATION

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. Farmers stand to benefit significantly with the implementation of the harmonized sales tax. The March edition of Ontario Grain Farmer ran an

article that talked about the benefits farmers will enjoy under the harmonized sales tax. The

article states that the corporate income tax rate for farm income will be cut from 12% to 10%, and it states that it is estimated that farmers will save 39 cents per acre per year under the HST.

The member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington won’t stand up for his constituents and ask this question on behalf of the landowners in the riding, so I will. Minister, what will the HST mean for farmers?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to thank my rural colleague from Northumberland. Under a single sales tax, farmers will be able to claim input tax credits on all of their business inputs—everything from tractors to hay balers to combines. This means farmers will be able to claim input credits for a number of important things they are currently paying provincial sales tax on, including trucks, office equipment, freezers and all-terrain vehicles. This will save them money. Importantly, this money is predictable and bankable.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has long said that Ontario farmers pay at least $25 million in provincial sales tax that would be fully recovered by farmers in Ontario if they were treated like farmers in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. On July 1, they will be. By moving to a single sales tax, we are saving farmers money and levelling the playing field with farmers elsewhere in Canada.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Thank you, Minister. During his bid to win the leadership of the Conservative Party, the member from Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington stated, “You know, we can all recognize that there ought to be some efficiencies and efficacy with a single bureaucratic administration of the retail consumption tax,” and others in the farming community agree with that member.

The Ontario Farmer reported that Henry Stevens, the president of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, stated, “Agriculture’s supposed to come out ahead,” to the tune of an estimated $30 million, based on 2007 numbers. That’s an average of $600 per farmer.

And Bette Jean Crews, a constituent of mine and president of the OFA, said their research shows—

Interjection.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Minister, farmers on the ground know that the HST is going to benefit the agricultural sector. Will the minister—

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

Hon. John Wilkinson: Farmers are going to save time and money through a far simpler, more streamlined sales tax system. They will deal with one set of rules instead of two, with one set of auditors rather than two, one set of paperwork rather than two, one government rather than two.

Farms, as businesses, would benefit from our significant cuts to business taxes for large and small enterprises. The HST is part of a comprehensive tax package that’s supposed to make sure that our tax system is competitive in the 21st century so that our farmers are creating 21st-century jobs. They are so very happy that we’re cutting not only large corporate tax but also small business tax, and for most of our farmers the key benefit is eliminating the small business surtax. We’ll be the only province in Canada to eliminate this tremendous drag on business. This will empower our farmers and give them something that is both predictable and bankable—

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

TOBACCO CONTROL

Mr. Toby Barrett: Ontario’s Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, which has been surveying the student use of addictive substances since 1968, reports that 60,000 students in Ontario now smoke contraband tobacco, as do half the smokers in the province. Those 60,000 young people are now part of a criminal network that supplies cigarettes at $15 a carton, tax free, as opposed to the regular $60 to $80 a carton. This is unprecedented. Nowhere else in the world does this occur.

Why on earth would the McGuinty government allow 60,000 students to get hooked on illegal tobacco?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Revenue.

Hon. John Wilkinson: Let us be very clear. Those people who produce, sell and purchase contraband tobacco are stealing from their neighbours. Those of us who pay our taxes end up subsidizing those who feel that they don’t have to pay the tax. We’re very clear about that.

I’d like to explain to the member exactly what we’re doing. There are a number of things that we’ve been doing, working in conjunction with other governments, First Nations, municipalities and police enforcement, to eradicate the scourge of contraband tobacco in this province.

It is important for us to first of all set that public expectation, which is so key. There are people trying to hook our children with cheap cigarettes and we will not accept that. That is why, just in the last few years, convictions have tripled, seizures are going up by more than 50% a year and our take on those—

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

Mr. Toby Barrett: I didn’t ask you the question.

Sixty-thousand students buy illicit tobacco from the trunk of a car, no tax, no ID requested; access to anything money can buy—drugs or guns. Nowhere else in the world has government lost control of half the tobacco market. Is this political correctness in the extreme? What are you people afraid of? Why—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’ve reminded him of that language before. Withdraw the comment, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Which one was that?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw the comment.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I just heard someone say it’s bigoted over there and that’s not withdrawn?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just withdraw the comment, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I will withdraw the comment. I hope others withdraw their comments.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Just the unequivocal withdrawal, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have given an unequivocal withdrawal.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind all members that, yes, there are times in the course of question period where things do get heated, but we do need to be conscious of language that is used. I direct that to all members.

Supplementary.

Mr. Toby Barrett: You have lost control of half the tobacco trade in Ontario. People do not understand why any government would allow this to occur. Why are you allowing 60,000 students to smoke illegal tobacco?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I’m quite surprised by the member who has asked me this question. I distinctly remember the following quote from the member: “In my view, the jury is out on second-hand smoke.... I have never seen a coroner’s report indicating it as a cause of death.”

I understand that this is an issue that is of importance. I understand that in his riding, the federal government has spent a lot of money to get rid of tobacco and that it has doubled, but this is what you need to know: We have redoubled our efforts, at our ministry, working in conjunction with the RCMP, the OPP, the federal government and the US government. We are redoubling our efforts to eradicate the scourge of contraband tobacco. It is not an easy job. There is much money to be made by those who will purvey cigarettes to our children, but we will not rest until we eliminate the scourge of contraband tobacco.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Light rapid transit in Hamilton would bring huge benefits to a struggling city: reducing commute times, cleaning the air, sparking economic activity and getting athletes and spectators to the Pan Am Games. The government has cut $4 billion from the $11.5 billion allocated to Metrolinx. My question is this: Is this going to stop Hamilton’s light rapid transit dream dead in its tracks?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I’m very happy to say to the member opposite—and I think she knows this—that on April 1, 2009, the Premier announced that Ontario is moving ahead with the rapid regional transit plan, and that $3 million is included in that plan to plan for Hamilton. The board of Metrolinx has approved the Hamilton BCA, and I want to thank the city of Hamilton and Metrolinx for working together.

The announcement that was made in the budget—I think the member opposite knows—was very specific about some projects that were being dealt with in Toronto, that those specific projects needed to be stretched over a longer period of time. The conversation with Hamilton is ongoing, and we look forward to a good transit plan for the city of Hamilton.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I fear that the Premier and this minister simply don’t get how transformational LRT can be for the city of Hamilton. We know that badly needed transit lines in Toronto are being mothballed. Hamiltonians are understandably worried that their city’s light rail plans are going to meet a similar fate. Hamilton can’t go ahead with light rapid transit without provincial approval and funding. If construction doesn’t start very, very soon, light rail lines won’t be ready for the Pan Am Games. So my question remains: Will the Premier guarantee that Hamilton’s LRT money will flow this year?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that the benefits case analysis that was done by Metrolinx looked at a number of options and, obviously, we have to look at what is most viable. The city of Hamilton is working with us on that. We have to look at all of those options. We’ve committed to moving ahead on a transit plan for Hamilton.

I think what the member opposite needs to do is not engage in scaremongering, because this government understands that transit is extremely important for the greater Toronto and Hamilton areas. That’s why we are moving ahead. That’s why the work continues to be done. That’s why Metrolinx is working with the city of Hamilton. We’re going to move ahead, and I think what the member opposite should be doing is working with us and working with her community to make sure that the right option is chosen.

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Minister, now that spring is here and the school year is almost finished, many young workers are beginning their search for summer jobs. In my riding of London–Fanshawe, young people are already out and about, seeking employment to help them pay for tuition fees and other expenses. But although a summer job is something that many young people look forward to, the flip side is that our young workers can face workplace hazards.

I know that your ministry is concerned about worker health and safety in general. Can you tell us what you’re doing in order to make sure all the new workers are in good shape and are not going to face those difficulties when they find their jobs?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I’m so pleased that the member has asked me this very important question about our young workers.

As I’ve said frequently in this House, safety is paramount to the Ministry of Labour and to our government. It may interest the member and his constituents to know that I recently announced the launch of our new and young worker health and safety blitz. For the third year in a row, my ministry will be conducting a blitz across Ontario that will focus on workplace safety of young and new workers.

I was honoured to announce this blitz at the sixth annual GTA simulcast event and luncheon at Victoria Park Collegiate Institute in Scarborough. The event was put on by a great group, the Our Youth at Work foundation. They’re doing an excellent job of helping to educate young people about workplace safety.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I know my constituents are glad to hear this minister speaking in order to protect them when they find a job at a workplace, and I know that the minister and his ministry are working very hard to create a mechanism to protect the young workers in the province of Ontario.

I know I heard that he launched a blitz to protect the workers, but is there any other mechanism in place in order to protect the workers? Also, is his ministry doing their best in order to find a way to make sure that all the students who get jobs in the summertime can protect themselves? Can you tell us, Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Again, I thank the member from London–Fanshawe for the question.

All of our health and safety blitzes consist of targeted, proactive enforcement campaigns where inspectors go into workplaces to focus on prevention or specific hazards. In this case, our inspectors will be checking to make sure that new and young workers are properly trained, oriented and supervised; that they meet the minimum age requirements that are in legislation; and that they are protected by safety measures to prevent injuries.

In addition to this blitz, we’re also teaching our young workers about workplace health and safety in school, before they get a job, and have made a health and safety curriculum mandatory in all our grades.

We also have a designated website called WorkSmartOntario, as well as a young worker portal on the ministry’s website, which makes occupational health and—

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

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Minister of Health. Being without a family doctor in rural Ontario, as you can imagine, is a very stressful situation experienced by far too many people. Your Health Care Connect program was supposed to help orphaned patients find a doctor. As it is, someone moving to my riding of Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke must orphan themselves from their current family physician just to get on the list with Health Care Connect. Surely, the intent of the program was not to create more orphaned patients.

Minister, this needs to be fixed. Will you commit to doing so?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member opposite for the question. It gives me a chance to talk about Health Care Connect, which is a very innovative and highly successful program.

Health Care Connect is a way that people who don’t have a family physician can get attached to a family physician who is taking new patients. It has been very, very frustrating for patients looking for a physician to phone and phone and phone. Now, there is one place they can go to, Health Care Connect, and get attached to a physician who is accepting new patients.

We’ve had tremendous success. In fact, at the Erie St. Clair LHIN, I attended an event where they wanted more awareness of the program because they knew they could do better. There were physicians prepared to take patients.

It’s a highly successful program, and I look forward to the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Well, she’s singing the praises, but there are obviously problems.

New constituents of mine, Richard Newcombe and his spouse, Linda, moved to Pembroke from Ottawa. They hoped to find a family doctor in Pembroke. They were shocked to find out that in order to even be on the Health Care Connect list, they had to give up the family doctor they had in Ottawa. In essence, they had to orphan themselves in order to be considered.

Minister, this is a glaring weakness in your Health Care Connect program. This amounts to forcing someone to abandon the lifeboat in hopes that the Queen Mary may come along. Wouldn’t it make more sense that the program require you to give up your family physician only after securing the services of another?

Minister, would you commit to correcting this oversight in your program?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Attaching people to primary health care has been a very, very important initiative of this government. I’m very happy to say that over 900,000 more Ontarians in fact have access to primary care now than when we took office. Health Care Connect has been part of the solution in connecting people to family doctors.

Because we have achieved such success attaching people—in fact, there are parts of this province where one of my colleagues told me that doctors had set up in a mall; they were trying to attract new physicians. This would have been unheard of in 2003.

As we continue to really build the foundation of health care in this province, I will take the member opposite’s recommendation under advisement: As we attach the unattached, then maybe it is time to turn our attention to those who are already attached.

LABOUR RELATIONS

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le premier ministre. I’d like to quote from Hansard: “The Premier has committed that the government will not hire replacement workers to perform the tasks of unionized employees involved in a work stoppage....” This is the right thing to do. This commitment from our Premier shows an understanding that the use of replacement workers is wrong and that no good comes out of scab labour.

Why, then, is the McGuinty government so sheepish about bringing in a law that would ban replacement workers in this province?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I want to thank the member for the question. On this side of the House, we understand how important the collective bargaining process is. We understand that collective agreements are the most productive agreements, the fairest agreements, the most stable agreements for everyone. At the Ministry of Labour, our focus is always to work with the parties to bring them together to get an agreement like that done.

We do that through our mediation and conciliation team, and we have a tremendous record. We have the best record we have seen in the province of Ontario in the last 30 years. Over 97% of our collective agreements get done without any work stoppage. They get done by having the parties work together, find that common ground and get an agreement done. That’s what we’ll continue to do—

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

M me France Gélinas: One doesn’t exclude the other. You can still have good bargaining, but for that 3% where it falls apart, you can have stronger laws.

On October 8 last year, the Liberal caucus voted down Bill 86, which would have banned replacement workers in this province during strikes and lockouts. Every Liberal member who spoke quoted statistics from the same single source that predicted doom and gloom if the bill was passed. I spent much time reading academic papers and articles on the subject, and the overwhelming evidence does not support that doom and gloom. It points to shorter and less violent strikes, decreased stress for all involved and improved relations between unions and employers, who can then focus on real bargaining issues, which is what the member was talking about.

It is the law in Quebec and British Columbia, and successive governments did not change the law after they came to power. Will the Premier or the minister take this issue seriously and—

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

Hon. Peter Fonseca: Our government has done much to restore balance to labour relations in the province of Ontario, and the record speaks for itself. As I mentioned, in the past few years, approximately 97% of all negotiations have resulted in settlements without any work stoppages. In 2009, for example, 1,981 settlements were achieved in Ontario without strike or lockout.

I have to say that I feel this is due in large part to our Ministry of Labour mediation team. This is a team of highly skilled and extremely professional individuals who go into the workplace to help the parties—to help labour, to help the employer—so that they can get these productive, stable, fair agreements done.

What those settlements translated into in 2009 was that almost 600,000 employees worked through negotiations without losing a single day of work due to a strike or lockout. This is an outstanding—

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

TOURISM

Mr. David Orazietti: My question is for the Minister of Tourism and Culture. For the past several weeks now, the Canadian dollar has been near parity with the American currency. This gives Canadians more purchasing power and greater incentive to travel abroad. However, communities across Ontario depend on tourism, especially those at or near border crossings such as my riding of Sault Ste. Marie. Whether you’re in a border community or not, Ontarians depend largely on tourism, which contributes immensely to Ontario’s economy.

As previously mentioned, our businesses are already concerned about the negative impacts of the proposed increase to American passport fees and the impact this may have on tourism in Ontario. This, coupled with the potential decrease in domestic visitors, is a constant challenge. Minister, what actions are you taking to ensure that our tourism economy remains strong and viable?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member from Sault Ste. Marie for the question. There’s no doubt tourism faces many challenges, including th