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

November 17, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Nov-17 (PDF)

L069 - Wed 17 Nov 2010 / Mer 17 nov 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 November 2010 Mercredi 17 novembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

HYDRO RATES

TAXATION

RETIREMENT HOMES

INTERNATIONAL

MEDICAL GRADUATES

HOSPITAL FUNDING

ASSISTIVE DEVICES

SCHOOL SAFETY

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

POLICE SERVICES

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

TAXATION

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

TIME ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

FOOD BANKS

VETERANS

WIND TURBINES

LOUIS RIEL DAY

WATER QUALITY

BULLYING AWARENESS

AND PREVENTION WEEK

NORTHERN HIGHWAYS

GO TRANSIT

ST. PETER’S SECONDARY SCHOOL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL SURGE

PROTECTOR ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS RÉSIDENTIELS

ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

SIGN-LANGUAGE

INTERPRETATION

LEO BERNIER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH /

MOIS DE LA SENSIBILISATION

À L’ADOPTION

BULLYING AWARENESS

AND PREVENTION WEEK /

SEMAINE DE LA SENSIBILISATION À L’INTIMIDATION ET DE LA PRÉVENTION

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

BULLYING AWARENESS

AND PREVENTION WEEK

BULLYING AWARENESS

AND PREVENTION WEEK

ADOPTION AWARENESS MONTH

PETITIONS

WIND TURBINES

HYDRO RATES

WEARING OF HELMETS

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

CHRONIC CEREBROSPINAL

VENOUS INSUFFICIENCY

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

HIGHWAY 15

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

WATER OPPORTUNITIES AND WATER

CONSERVATION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE DÉVELOPPEMENT

DES TECHNOLOGIES DE L’EAU

ET LA CONSERVATION DE L’EAU

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

STEEL INDUSTRY

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Resuming the debate adjourned on November 16, 2010, on the motion relating to time allocation on Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act / Projet de loi 172, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le trafic des billets de spectacle.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s a pleasure to continue the debate; I was looking forward to finishing my time.

I was saying yesterday that I am really a supporter not so much of the bill as of the debate on the bill, because I think it’s a good one. I was saying yesterday that “speculation,” part of the title given to it, is a big part of this problem. Whether the government addresses it or not is the question. That’s why my colleague from Welland said we need full debate in committee, and I’ll get to that in the latter part of my comments.

I want to talk about the problem. In my mind, there are two little problemos. One little problemo is the issue of affordability. People can barely afford the tickets now.

We’re just talking about above board ticket sales in terms of what people now have to pay to get in to see a Raptors game. It’s fascinating. I appreciate the fact that my colleague from Welland got these little sheets that show us the kinds of prices people pay. The top price to see a Toronto Raptors game is $1,120.

Mr. Peter Kormos: How many seats?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: How many seats? It’s courtside, row A—

Mr. Peter Kormos: One seat.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: One seat. How many seats—

Mr. Peter Kormos: It should buy 20 seats.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: The member from Welland is saying that for $1,120, presumably you’re going to get a whole row of tickets, right? It’s one ticket.

Who has that kind of money except the big shots? These people can afford it. They love to go to the game and just throw their money away. That’s part of it. I understand.

At the low end, there are a lot of rows here—Peter, did you see this? There’s courtside, row B, $585; courtside, row C, $510—affordable, isn’t it?—side prime, $240; side, $175; baseline prime, $145; baseline $110; dynamic side $80. You get the picture, right? These are very expensive tickets.

We’re talking about good working men and women with their children going to watch a game. They have to pay these extraordinarily unaffordable prices. This is on a good day, on a regular day, to go to a game.

Nobody talks about affordability. The government says this bill is about fairness. They didn’t talk about the fact that the prices people currently pay to go and see a game are just out of reach for the majority of people who would like to go. But men and women go because, first of all, they like basketball or hockey and, secondly, because their children drive them to the games.

Children are a powerful tool. That’s why marketers spend billions and billions of dollars in Canada, the US and Europe—all over the world—to entice young men and women to do things that, under ordinary circumstances, they might not want to do. When you persuade kids that they need to go and see a hockey game, their parents are but puppets to the child’s wishes—marketing and marketers are a powerful drive—and they’ll go no matter what the price is. But at the moment, prices are unaffordable.

To see Lady Gaga is $191. There are a lot of people who like Lady Gaga. You look at these people and say, “Good God! Why would you pay that kind of money?” But there are people who love to see these entertainers—God bless—191, 200 bucks a pop. Imagine the allure such people have that they would bring these young women—most of them are young; some are older, but most are young—to pay that kind of money. I’m aghast at this Gaga show. But that’s okay. It’s entertainment. Unaffordable—200 bucks. People will go because marketing is a powerful tool and they will get there.

I say that the way to get prices down is to boycott these entertainers and the entertainment industry. Boycott the heck out of them until prices go down. We should be picketing from one end of Ontario to the other. If we did that, prices would become affordable. Twenty bucks for Lady Gaga? Okay, 20 bucks is good for me; I might go. Twenty-five bucks? Okay, I might go.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Thirty?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Now we’re stretching it, right? But when you get to $200—people are nuts; people are crazy to be persuaded to go and see these entertainers for that kind of price. Who else do we have? Oh yes, Justin Bieber. He’s a bit cheaper: $61 Canadian. But he’s going to get there. Eventually he’s going to get there.

We’re talking about prices for concerts or sports being out of reach for the majority of men and women who might want to go and see these people or see these games. The government doesn’t deal with that. They will argue, “Well, that’s not part of what this bill is about.” Okay, what are they dealing with? By the way, the price of concert tickets in the US, as we know, has gone up 61% in the last five years; I just wanted to give that stat as a way of understanding how high prices are going.

The second part of it is that what the government is trying to do is deal with the resale market. Part of the problem was that people were complaining that Ticketmaster was diverting buyers to the TicketsNow site, the resale organization from which they got money. Now, there was a debate last week when we talked in this chamber about whether or not there is collusion, and people got really nervous with the word “collusion.” I said that I thought there is collusion. But even if there wasn’t collusion, is there a related connection of the two?

If you direct tickets to another organization that resells them and you get some money back, are they related? You bet your boots they are. Is it collusion? Let’s leave it for the lawyers to decide. These are terms that are complex and legal in nature. We’ll leave it to them to decide. But are the two of them related? Absolutely.

This bill attempts to deal with that. Okay. Does it solve it? The problem is, it doesn’t. Why? Because you’ve got brokers in Toronto and outside of Toronto who use the computer system to access as many tickets as they want, pick them up and resell them. Does the bill deal with that?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Yes.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Jeff from Peterborough, it doesn’t deal with that. That’s what my friend from Welland is saying. We need hearings and we need lots of them. We need to bring people to talk about how we can make this bill better. And what does the government do? It gives two little days, a couple of hours on each, to bring people to committee to discuss this, in my mind, very important bill.

I know that some of my Conservative friends—brothers and sisters—said, “This is a useless bill. Move on. There are more important things.” This is an important bill to debate. This is an issue of affordability. This is an issue of ordinary folks—men and women—who want to go to sports events, who want to go to concerts and can’t afford it, and then are subject to the resale market, the uncontrollable avarice of resale marketeers, brokers who fleece those who are willing to fork out the money.

Mr. John O’Toole: Rosario, you’re going over the top.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Member from Durham, no, no. We’re not. We’re talking about people from Oshawa—your people—who like to go to these concerts and sports activities, and you’re telling them that this bill is useless? No. This bill can be useful if we make it so.

That’s why we need to embarrass the government, not so much because they’re curtailing debate on this bill today but because they’re curtailing the number of days they’re giving so that people can come and speak to this bill. A couple of hours on two days is all you’re giving. That is the shameful nature of the debate today, not so much that your bill doesn’t do as much but what it could do if you allowed it to do the proper job. How could you shamefully accept your House leader or the Premier’s—

Hon. Monique M. Smith: Rosie, it hurts.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Well, that was introduced by you, mon amie—perhaps directed by a stronger hand; I’m not sure—to limit the number of days that we would be able to invite people and allow them the opportunity to speak to this bill and allow them the opportunity to recommend amendments that could make this bill a little better. How could you be so happy to do so little each and every time that you’re given this opportunity? How could you be so happy with so little? That’s the Liberal way. It’s amazing.

I think we’ve had enough on this bill for the day. I’m not sure we have been able to embarrass the government around the issue of curtailment of hearings, but we’ve done our best, those of us who have spoken to this bill, and I suppose it’s time to move on.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate? Does any other member wish to speak?

In that case, Ms. Smith has moved government notice of motion number 33. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say “aye.”

All those opposed, say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Pursuant to standing order 9(c), the vote will be deferred until after question period today.

Vote deferred.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 28, 2010, on the amendment to the motion relating to negotiations with the federal government on a comprehensive new agreement to provide funding, planning and governance for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: Nearly two months ago, I was standing here talking about this motion, put forward by the honourable minister, relating to immigration and immigration levels, seeking funds for the province of Ontario. The government has seen fit, after more than two months—and that was the first day of debate—to bring the matter back. I’m wondering why. I am absolutely flabbergasted, if it was so important two months ago that this motion be passed in terms of the ongoing dialogue with the federal government, that it’s taken two months to bring it back. Notwithstanding that, I still have 41 minutes left on my speech, and I intend to use them today.

On the last occasion, I had an opportunity to outline the abysmal failure of the Ontario government, this one for the past seven years, and governments before which have chosen to do absolutely nothing within their mandate around the issues of immigration.

In 1978, as I outlined on the last occasion, the government of Quebec sat down and negotiated

An Act respecting immigration to Quebec—as I outlined the last time, the British North America Act gives all provinces that right; in fact, every province has a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, just as the federal government has a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration—and it is one of only two joint jurisdictions, as set out in the British North America Act, 1867.

Quebec has seen fit to do the wise, just and honourable thing with their immigrants, and Ontario, which has taken the lion’s share of immigrants over all of those years, has chosen to do absolutely nothing except go, cap in hand, once in awhile, as this motion is saying, to say, “Please, sir, give us some money so we can deal with the flood of immigrants who come to Ontario every year. But, no, no, we don’t want to help choose them. We don’t want to help them integrate in any real, meaningful way like Quebec does. We don’t want to have our own grid system to choose the immigrants who are best for Ontario. We don’t want to do all the things that Quebec does and expects to do.”

That’s what I talked about the last time. I encourage anyone who wants to see that to go back and look at the transcript of September 28.

In reality, what this minister is asking for is not enough. Surely, in this time of economic turmoil, we have to do more with the skills and abilities we have.

In the interim, in those two months that I waited to finish this speech, the government, to no fanfare at all and in a foreign place, announced that they were going to give some $30 million to bring 75 foreign students, the best and the brightest, here to Ontario. I don’t really have too much umbrage with that. I know that there have been some tough questions in this House.

But you know, what about the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who have come to this province in the last number of years who already are the best and the brightest, who have already come with amazing credentials—doctors and lawyers and nuclear scientists and all those people who are out there driving cabs? What is this government doing about that? The best and the brightest we already have here, we’re not helping them nearly enough to get into the regulated professions.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: Oh, listen to this. I hear the catcalls coming from the other side already, pretending that they actually care and that they’ve actually done something in the last seven years.

Let’s just talk about immigration. Let’s talk about where immigrants come to in this country. Forty-four per cent of all the immigrants who come to this country come to the province of Ontario. Now, that is down. It used to be more than 50%; it used to be 55% only a decade ago. But they are finding that the opportunities that this government is offering are not contingent with their expectation, and they’re choosing to go elsewhere, where governments have been more successful in integrating them into the mainstream and where they have a better opportunity to use the skills and abilities that they have.

In fact, the number of immigrants who come to Ontario and to Canada—slightly more than 50% of all the immigrants who have been chosen in the last number of years have at least some university and/or a university degree. Are we maximizing the potential with them? I think not, because we have not helped them and we have not been there to assist them in making the application or in understanding how those skills and abilities might be used here in Ontario.

Some 79.2% of all the immigrants who come to Ontario come to the Toronto census management area. That’s the GTA, by and large, for most people’s understanding—79.2%. In fact, within the city of Toronto, the number of foreign-born people will exceed the number of Canadian-born people within the next census year. So more people live here today in the city of Toronto who were born elsewhere than who were actually born here in Canada. I think this has been a magnet, and those people have come with great expectations.

As I said on the last occasion, I worked for the immigration department for 21 years. I worked at places like Pearson International Airport, at border crossings, and I helped to process people when they mostly got off planes, sometimes out of cars or buses. When they came to this country with the piece of paper in their hand, a landing document to become a permanent resident, you could see in their eyes the expectation that they had for this wonderful land, the hope that they had, if not for themselves then at least for their children.

So many of them, when I go out to groups around Toronto today—and I had an opportunity to have dinner with the Ethiopian community last week, and with the Pakistani community, and I’m going out for some more this week, as I’m sure all members do in Ontario; we all do that. Look at the hope in their eyes and talk to them. I talk to Bangladeshis who have come here with incredibly good degrees as accountants and they are not recognized in their chosen field. Canada and Ontario have agreements to recognize the education from Pakistan.

Pakistan and Bangladesh used to be one country. I know that they were cut in half, or bifurcated, by India, but they used to be east Pakistan and west Pakistan. Then, when the Bangladeshis broke away over the mother languages issue and formed their own country—Canada and Ontario do not recognize the credentials of east Pakistan; they recognize the credentials of west Pakistan. So all those professional accountants and bookkeepers who have come here hoping to be able to use their credentials can’t use them here.

What has this government done in terms of negotiating or talking with them while they were making application to come to Canada? And we do need accountants, we do need actuaries, we do need people who are good with books and who are bookkeepers. What have they done to tell them when they come here that we won’t recognize their credentials?

I wonder, if we had done the right thing, as I explained that the province of Quebec has done, then we could have chosen them. We could have told them at the time of their application that they would either need to have upgrading or that they couldn’t use their skills, and those people could have made a wise and just decision for themselves and their families as to whether to come here in the first place. Because it is better, I would suggest, that new immigrants who have skills and abilities which are marketable at home—they may want to stay there.

It is probably doing their countries a far better duty and a far better humanitarian effort if they are a doctor in a place like, I don’t know—I’ll pick Burundi again because it’s far-flung and we don’t have many Burundian immigrants. It’s better to leave a doctor there who is a doctor and who can assist the people in that land than to bring them here where they can’t practise and do what they know how to do. It is only logical.

And if the province was there—if the province who holds all the keys to the regulatory nature, who holds all the keys to whether or not those skills are going to be recognized in any of the major professions tells them that this is not going to fly in Ontario, then I think people will make a very wise decision.

The federal government says, “You’re a doctor. We need doctors.” They can’t say where the person is going to go, where they’re going to come, what province they’re going to end up in, because there’s no law to that. But Quebec has solved that problem, and I think that we need to do something. We need to make sure that the 50% of all immigrants who come to this country with university training and/or skills are looked after.

Because you see, what’s happening in Ontario is that those very skilled immigrants in the regulated professions are starting to choose not to come to Ontario. They’re choosing not to come to this province. In 2004, regulated professionals made up 12.1% of all the immigrants who came to Ontario. By 2008, five years into this government’s first mandate, and into the second one, that number was down to 8.3%. I would suggest that when the next census figures come out, it’s going to be lower than that still, because what is happening is the word goes back: In Ontario, we don’t help. In Ontario, we don’t regulate.

In Ontario, we don’t inform in advance. It’s not going to work. They’re not going to want to come here and they’re not going to build Ontario.

As I said, the government chose to give $30 million for the best and brightest to go to school. Would that they would give $30 million for the best and brightest who are already here to be upgraded, to use those skills that they had at home and that they need to use here.

The government is also failing on another front. Again, I go back to if we had our own system like Quebec, we could act in a much more humane, much more balanced way.

In 2008, the number of temporary residents in Ontario was 240,264. That is 40.8% of all temporary residents in Canada. Temporary residents are people like students, foreign workers, humanitarian entrants and temporary residents who are here for some special purpose, sometimes for medical treatment or for many other things—religious purposes. There are 240,000 people.

Let’s put into perspective how much that is. A pretty large percentage of all of the people who are living in Ontario today have a defined status which does not permit them to participate in Canadian life. They all have a number 9 on their SIN card at the front which, in the majority of cases, will not allow them to work, or will allow them to work under very restricted conditions. They do not have the opportunity, unless they are students, to attend schools, although the children of temporary workers, I want to say, do, and I think that’s an enlightened aspect of most of the school boards here in Ontario.

If they are students, they cannot work except under prescribed circumstances. If they are here on humanitarian entrance, that’s difficult as well.

The figures for those are pretty revealing as well. In Ontario, 38% of those 240,000 people who are here with limited status are foreign workers. Many of them work on our farms. I know we have had many discussions in this House, certainly from the members who represent ridings that are more rural in nature than mine of Beaches–East York, about those temporary farm workers. They often work in horrendous conditions. They work without safety protocols that most of us would consider quite normal. There were a couple of deaths just a few months ago. Two farm workers were killed on the job.

It continues to be one of the most dangerous occupations in all of Canada, to work on farms, particularly for foreign farm workers, who are expected to do a lot of the grunt and heavy work. They are literally here without protection.

Here in Ontario, we don’t have any say in bringing them in; we let the federal government bring them in. At the end of the year, most fly home or go back to wherever and wait for the next growing season. Very few of them stay here for longer than six or eight months at a time. While they’re here, we do not provide them a whole lot of protection. Most of them make minimum wage for backbreaking, horrible work, and they’re not allowed to unionize. Oh, my goodness.

This government—horror of horrors—would never let those farm workers have any kind of union that could protect them, in terms of health and safety regulations or trying to get one cent more than the $10.25 minimum wage that’s out there. Horror of horrors, no. They can’t do that. That would be the death of the agri-farm.

We do nothing on that. We, in this Legislature—although there are some who advocate for it, like me and members of my party, this government does nothing on that. Because they did not help to choose to bring them in, they wash their hands; it’s a federal responsibility.

They do nothing on foreign students. They are out there marketing to foreign students so the foreign students can come and pay the full cost of university and college education in Ontario. This government does little to regulate all of it or to provide services to people, many of whom are here for a short period of time and are expected to return. That’s the reality here in Ontario.

We have no say whatsoever because we have no protocol. We have no law such as the province of Quebec has signed.

The minister, of course, has said that he wants “to spend the outstanding $207 million promised to Ontario’s newcomers and immediately commence negotiations on a comprehensive new agreement that provides the adequate funding, planning, and governance necessary for immigrants to succeed and for Ontario to prosper.” But he doesn’t want to follow the logical steps. He doesn’t want to take any responsibility. The amendment to this motion put forward by my colleagues in the official opposition demands some kind of protocol.

It’s no wonder that the federal government has been reluctant in the past to give money holus-bolus to the Ontario Legislature, and particularly to this government: because they have no plan. They want the $207 million, but they’re not willing to take any responsibility or outline how that money is going to be spent. I agree with the amendment. I think that has to be done.

The first way that has to be done is for the government to recognize that they have a responsibility, not only to the immigrants but also to those people who have temporary status in Ontario. The number of temporary workers arriving to Ontario in 2008 was 66,634, 3.5 times the number of skilled-worker, principal-applicant, permanent residents arriving that year, which was 18,757. The government in Ontario is making a calculated decision.

They talk about helping and needing immigrants and take 18,000 skilled immigrants, but on the q.t., they’re more than happy to let people in here with temporary status, who have no long-term stake in the community; who likely, at the end of each and every term of six or eight months, have to go back from whence they came. Then the government washes its hands, but they still want $207 million to do absolutely nothing. Ontario is actively increasing the number of foreign workers, but there are no protections, as I said, for these workers.

I want to talk about getting your professional licence in Ontario, the experience of international and Canadian applicants and the 2010 Fairness Commissioner’s report. Now, I have railed on for a few minutes here about people driving cabs or delivering pizza. The tales are anecdotal, but they’re legendary. If you live in the city of Toronto particularly, where the bulk of immigrants are, in the Toronto CMA, you will have all heard those. You will all have met people who do this. But the Fairness Commissioner drew the following conclusions.

First, generally, there appears to be adequate information about the licensing process available from multiple sources. However, it is not always clear to applicants how to access this information and whether it is reliable, and that is particularly the case at the visa office when they’re first arriving. That is particularly the case at the airport, if they were to fly into Toronto.

The Ontario government, years and years ago, when I first started with the immigration department at Pearson airport—it was then called Toronto International Airport—had a presence. There was an Ontario immigration welcome service that sat down and talked with every new immigrant who arrived at that airport after the federal immigration officers, of which I was one in the early 1970s, processed the person to landing, filled out the documents and had the forms signed so they could get social insurance numbers and the like. We sent them to Ontario Welcome House and the Ontario Welcome House reception people who worked at the airport.

They, in turn, were responsible for a great many things: making sure that the new immigrants had somewhere to go, a hotel or somewhere, if they were coming and family wasn’t waiting for them; making sure that they understood the laws of Ontario as they related to minimum wage and everything else, so they wouldn’t be subject to something bad happening to them in the immediate future; making sure that they had the address of Ontario Welcome House, which was on University Avenue in those days, in Toronto, so that if they required any additional information they could freely access it.

This was in the days before computers, so you had to come down and talk to an actual official—making sure that the social insurance number applications and other things were properly filled out; making sure that people knew where to take their credentials for translation; and everything else. In the austerity that happened in the years following that, that service was cut. Ontario walked away from its immigrants. Ontario walked away to save a few dollars and didn’t do what was necessary. When Quebec, in 1978, decided to get back into this game in a big way, it was one of the first things they restored.

So, there is information, but there’s no way people know how to access it or how reliable it is.

The second thing the Fairness Commissioner talked about is that internationally trained participants experience more difficulty finding information about licensing requirements than do the domestically trained. Now, this is not that difficult to believe. I mean, surely it’s true: If somebody has lived in a place for a long time, you generally know where to access things. Think about any of us moving to a new town. You move to a new town and you start to get lost on the streets. You don’t know where the supermarket is. You don’t have a doctor. Where’s the post office, where’s the community centre?

You don’t know that stuff. It takes a while, even for someone born here who is moving to a new town or city, to find that out. The same is true and is expanded many times for those who are coming from a new country, especially if they’re coming to a large place like Toronto, which is very difficult for people to fathom: how to get around on the subway, how to locate all the services, what services are available, what things to expect, what things not to.

That’s something that a place like Ontario Welcome House could have done, but this government chooses not to do that anymore. They choose to not be in the immigration game, other than to take the $207 million that the minister insists on getting.

The Fairness Commissioner said, “Internationally educated individuals get mixed messages from different levels of government. (An immigrant professional earns points for education and work experience when he or she applies to become a permanent resident of Canada, but faces licensing challenges once here.)” I’ve already talked about that but I just want to reiterate that it’s not just me saying this. The Fairness Commissioner, appointed by this Legislature, says exactly the same thing.

Here it is. Here’s our grid system: You need 65 points to make it to Canada. You’re an engineer with a university degree. Well, there’s 20 points right off the bat. They don’t tell you that the difficulty you’re going to face getting licensed is sometimes insurmountable.

I don’t want to pick on engineers, but I do have the opportunity, from time to time, to go down to the engineers when they are helping engineers from other countries become accredited here. There is a ceremony once a year, which I have now attended twice, which is a very moving ceremony. You see people from literally all over the world who are sitting there who have finally been recognized for their qualifications. The engineers, I think, are doing a pretty good job in terms of trying to get those people accredited. Would that all the other professions were doing the same good job.

But having said that, the Fairness Commissioner is right. When they apply to become a permanent resident they get a whole bunch of points, but they face licensing challenges once here.

If we had our own grid system, if we had our own visa officers like Quebec does, then we could explain to the majority of people who are coming to Canada and who are coming to Toronto or to Ontario what they could expect. Surely that’s the least we could do for prospective new citizens who we expect and know will contribute so much to this province.

She went on to state, “Internationally trained applicants need to be better informed, prior to arriving in Canada, about the importance of having all their required documents.”

Well, of course. The federal visa office doesn’t know where they’re going to go. They don’t know whether they’re going to go to Prince Edward Island or to Quebec—no, they know if they’re going to Quebec because the visa officer will tell them that right on the spot. They don’t know if they’re going to go to British Columbia or Alberta, so they can’t say what documents are important. But if we had somebody there, if we spent the money wisely, they would know, and they would come with it.

The Fairness Commissioner writes, “The length, complexity and cost of licensing processes are frustrating for both Canadian-trained and internationally trained individuals.” I think I need not comment. That’s true.

“Financial support in the form of government grants or loans to pay for education appears to be more accessible by domestically trained than by internationally trained candidates.” That’s absolutely true as well.

What is this government doing about that? I ask you, what is this government doing to close that gap? I’ve said that I have no umbrage against spending $30 million to bring the best and the brightest. But what about the ones who come with the qualifications already done? Why aren’t we spending money on them? They are the best and the brightest as well. That’s why we’re choosing them. That’s why Canada is choosing them. That’s why Ontario wants them here. What are we doing for them? Unfortunately, not near enough.

She goes on to write, “Internationally trained applicants appear to be less prepared for examinations than those educated in Canada.”

She writes, “The requirement of some regulatory bodies for Canadian work experience is perceived as a particularly difficult challenge by internationally trained applicants.” I think, too, the government has a responsibility, if not within the immigration system then at least by some order-in-council regulation that says that this is not a legal requirement, that firms ought not to be allowed to do this. “Do you have experience?” “Yes.” “Give me the names of places that you worked that gave you that experience,” and if you list Glasgow or if you list Paris or if you list Kuala Lumpur, then that’s what you list.

There ought not to be any requirement that that experience be gained in Canada, but simply that you have that experience. And she went on to write some other things.

That’s where I think this government is missing the boat. I have heard nothing discussed by the minister or the parliamentary assistant to date that would tell me that this government wants to move on anything except getting the $207 million. As I said the last time, the law in Canada,

section 8 of the Immigration Act of Canada, requires that there be ongoing consultation between the federal and provincial governments, because this is one of two joint jurisdictions. It happens each and every year between this province and the federal government: There is some level of negotiation or discussion about immigration levels, about who is coming, changes to the act. That needs to continue, that’s what the law is, but really, for Ontario to be in the game we’ve got to do more than we’ve done in the past.

I’d like to talk about immigration to Ontario in terms of the colour of poverty, because I think this is a very gnawing detail. For Hansard, that’s “gn,” gnawing. It’s a very gnawing detail.

Although I think we as Ontarians should be very proud of the integration of new people from many lands with many religions, with many dialects, with many languages, with many cultures, it is a reality in this province that if you are poor, chances are you are a woman; if you are poor, the chances are that you are a person of colour; if you are poor, the chances are that you are a person who is a new immigrant or a First Nations Canadian. The last one, a very important one, is that you have some kind of disability. Those are our poor. That is absolutely the truth.

Between 1981 and 2001, the number of immigrants who are poor in Toronto—largely people of colour—grew by 125%. We bring people to this country and to this province and the reality is that when they get here, they’re poor. We have seen the reality of that poverty in many places.

In Toronto, the city of Toronto, to its credit, and the United Way of Toronto, to its credit, came out with Poverty by Postal Code, and they highlighted 13 key communities where new immigrants, people of colour, were coming and where there was poverty, and it was endemic; it was there; it was in your face; it didn’t seem to go away, despite waves of immigrants coming from different places all the time. One of those places is in my riding; it’s called Crescent Town. It’s a wonderful high-rise community of about 15,000 people, almost all of whom come from somewhere in South Asia.

They come from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka; that’s where the majority of them are from. The poverty there is gut-wrenching. These are hard-working people. These are people who don’t ask for welfare. These are people who have minimum-wage jobs. These are people who care very much for their families. But they are poor. I think that we have failed them. We have failed them in the whole immigration experiment by not giving the necessary tools when they applied and by not giving the necessary tools when they arrived.

They had to learn—and learn the hard way—how to acculturate themselves, how to find out things.

Slowly but surely, as they become established, they’re getting better at it. Slowly but surely, you’re starting to see immigrant aid self-help groups being set up by these various communities where they speak the language and know the culture, but the funds flowing to them have been few and far between.

I would hope that if this government is successful in negotiating $207 million, they will look very carefully and clearly that this is one of the key places where that money should be spent. It is only through that education, through that interaction with immigrants who have been here before, that something can be done.

I’d also like to talk about licensing. This is a key aspect where this government has been missing in action throughout the entire time, and that is licensing not for new immigrants but for immigration consultants.

When I worked in the immigration department, we didn’t think there was any lower form of life than immigration consultants. These were people with absolutely no credentials or training—in those days; I’m going to get into the modern one—who would hang around taking advantage of people who came from their culture or from their country or who spoke their language.

You would have consultants who spoke many of the Indian languages, who would deal with the Indian community. You would have consultants who were from Jamaica or the Caribbean, who would deal with the Caribbean community. You would have consultants who spoke Portuguese, who would deal with the Portuguese and the Azorean communities. You would have those who spoke Spanish deal with Spanish-speaking communities.

The only key was that they were immigrants themselves a few years before, had figured out what was happening out there and would say, “I can help you to stay in Canada; I can help you with your immigration application; I can help you to bring your relatives,” and they would charge exorbitant amounts of money to do almost nothing. They would get them to make claims of refugee status that were spurious and bogus. I can’t tell you how many times I had to listen to Portuguese refugee claimants who claimed to be Jehovah’s Witnesses. We had more than 10,000 applications in Toronto alone.

The entire Jehovah’s Witness church in Portugal only had 183 adherents, all of whom were in Portugal and were not being persecuted.

This is the kind of stuff, and it was because of these bogus refugee self-help people, who were charging tens of thousands of dollars to assist people in making bogus claims and in doing things that were clearly contrary to the best interests of this country and of this province.

We have failed to license them properly in the past. We have moved down that road a little bit, because now there is a society of professional immigration consultants. These are people who have been trained, some of whom are former immigration staff or have met the minimum standards set up by that society.

I have to say that there is some aspect to this that is good. But I continue to read—and we all continue to read in the paper each and every day—about these consultants and how they’re ripping people off, how they’re making them say things and do things that aren’t legitimate or logical.

On the last occasion, I talked about a man who was in my office from India. He came here and was working very hard for a company and was being paid $100,000 a year. He was an excellent employee and the company desperately wanted to keep him here. He went to an immigration consultant, who told him to make a claim for refugee status from India.

That’s the kind of thing that we need to move on. That’s the kind of thing that this government needs to do in terms of licensing of immigration consultants. I bring up his story as only one of many thousands. I’m sure there are thousands of people like him, people who want to stay here and want to contribute and go out there who find these unscrupulous consultants who give them bogus and bad advice.

In the end, he found a legitimate lawyer who was trying to repair as much of the damage as he could. In fact, the man would have qualified to remain in Canada as a person who was going to bring economic benefit to this country. In fact, that’s who he was. Had he made that application through a legitimate lawyer or somebody who knew what they were doing instead of making a stupid allegation of torture in India, then I’m sure he would have had much more success.

I think this government needs to move on that front too, and I haven’t heard anything from the minister, in terms of his $207-million request, on whether he wants to do that. I think we all need to hear that. That’s why I’m looking forward to the ongoing nature of this debate: to see what other people opposite are going to say about immigration, because it is key to this province.

It is key to our survival, in terms of our manufacturing, industrial, commercial and intellectual base, that we get and keep the best and the brightest. If we are going to bring those people from around the world, then we have to treat them right. We can’t put them at the mercy of unscrupulous immigration consultants. We can’t put them at the mercy of a system to let them fend for themselves and try to determine what documents and education are necessary to get the kind of job that they are capable of and aspire to. We can’t put them at that mercy.

We can’t put them at the mercy of going into the visa office and being chosen randomly to go across Canada, and then they choose to come to Ontario where their skills may not be needed and where they may face unemployment. We can’t bring them to Canada and have them go into poverty, into all of those places where people of colour are increasingly living in poverty and where it’s going up by 125%.

I am going to vote for the amendment that is put forward by the opposition because I think it’s a good amendment. I think it strengthens what the minister is going to do. In spite of the criticism in what I’ve had to say, this causes no harm, and I’m likely to vote for the motion as well. But what I want the government to do is not to think in small terms like asking for $207 million but to actually seize in their hands the opportunity that is going to benefit this province and the people of this province for generations to come, and that is to do what Quebec has done: write our own act, enforce our own rules and choose our own immigrants, to the benefit of all.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Further debate?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I was delighted to listen to the member from Beaches–East York for almost 41 minutes speaking about immigration. There’s no doubt in my mind he has a lot of experience in this regard.

I want to say that the intent and the aim and the goal of the motion is to get support from both sides of the House, support from the Conservatives and the NDP and, of course, the government, to create a force to convince the federal government to live up to its obligations and duty.

I listened to the member from Beaches–East York talking about negotiations with the federal government, and there’s no agreement in place. The minister, the Honourable Dr. Hoskins, spoke about this in detail when he introduced the motion quite some time ago.

I want to remind everyone about the agreement between the province and the federal government. The Canada-Ontario immigration agreement was signed on November 21, 2005, and provided $920 million in new federal funding for settlement services over the five-year period, in addition to $540 million in base funding. A one-year extension to the agreement was announced on May 5, 2010, which commits an additional $428 million for 2010-11. So what happened? We received $713 million. If you make the calculations, we are short $207 million.

As the minister mentioned over and over, we are the home of immigrants in this nation. Almost 100,000 people come to this province on a yearly basis, and most of those people come to this province because they see hope and a future for themselves and their family to be prosperous, live in comfort, be able to accredit themselves, find a job in their professions and raise their family in the best way possible.

What we are doing in the province of Ontario is we’re trying to convince the federal government to work to be a true partner in order to give us the chance to support many immigrants who come to the province of Ontario. If you compare us to Manitoba, British Columbia or Quebec, for instance, they get almost 1.5 times more support than the province of Ontario gets from the federal government to support an immigrant.

Also, in terms of supporting immigrants, since we got elected, we created so many different initiatives to accommodate many immigrants who come to the province of Ontario. Lately, we launched a bridge program in almost 200 locations across the province of Ontario to allow many immigrants to fit in and integrate in the province of Ontario. From the 100,000 immigrants who come on a yearly basis, we’re able, through those bridge programs, to give a chance to 40,000 new immigrants to work in their professions and also help themselves and help their families.

Not a long time ago, I had the chance and the privilege to announce a program in conjunction with Fanshawe College in London to help nurses update their skills and their ability to be accredited in the province of Ontario.

Those initiatives are important for immigrants and important for all of us in the province of Ontario, because we believe strongly that our future depends on newcomers and depends on the brightest people who come from different parts of the globe. They come to the province of Ontario to share their wealth with us and to help us maintain our prosperity, and also to give us the ability to continue progress in the province of Ontario.

Therefore, we call on the federal government to give back to the province of Ontario $207 million. That $207 million, as the member from Beaches–East York outlined, is important to us to fund and support many different programs across the province of Ontario to help newcomers to come.

Another example: Two people want to come from Central America. Samuel and Ramona want to come to London, and they start navigating the system. As you know, we have a portal. In many different cities in the province of Ontario, you can go online and check what’s available for you when you come to the province of Ontario, when you come to Canada. They were confused because there are so many different programs. There’s lots of duplications of programs from the federal and the provincial government.

Also, another person who wants to come—her name is Sheri—came to London, too. She came from England. She was looking at how to find a job in the province of Ontario. She was navigating the system. She went to the employment centre to see how she could accredit herself to be able to find a job in Ontario, and she also went to the provincial side. She didn’t know what to do. She thought she was wasting her time because she went first to the federal government and was asked to go to the province.

So, this is what we’re asking; this is what our Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is asking the House in this place: asking the federal government to work on a partnership with the province of Ontario in order to create a special mechanism that can help people who want to come to Ontario and to Canada. That’s what we are asking for. We’re not just asking for the money; we’re asking about partnership. We’re asking the federal government to allow us to administer those programs in the province of Ontario and to have one program instead of two programs, one federal, one provincial, doing the same things.

It’s confusing for people who want to come from different parts of the globe. It’s confusing for us as a community. It’s a waste of time for us and for the immigrants who want to come, and also it’s a waste of resources.

As we talk about a strategy—and I listened to the member from Beaches–East York talking about many different elements. He mentioned immigration, consulting, many different things, and he knows—and he is the first one who should know—that those elements are controlled by the federal government, not by the province of Ontario. The licence for consultants is 100% run and controlled by the federal government. Do you know what? Sometimes people go to seek advice from a lawyer and the lawyer gives them bad advice, too. It’s a complex issue.

He is talking about there not being enough programs across Ontario to help newcomers. That’s not correct. I came from the city of London, and we have three wonderful organizations: the London Cross Cultural Learner Centre, the WIL employment centre and LUSO. They work on a regular basis with newcomers to help them navigate the system, help them go to school, get accreditations for their education; how to deal, on a daily basis, in the community; how they can navigate the system on some very important issues.

Also, in terms of foreign-trained international credentials, I know it’s a very complex issue. I have been in that ministry for almost seven years. We’ve done a lot, but we don’t say we’ve done everything or that we can celebrate success yet, because we have a lot of steps ahead of us to try to find the best way to accommodate, accredit and integrate people who come from different parts of the globe. I still remember when we passed Bill 124, access for foreign-trained international people who want to come to Ontario to be accredited.

We worked with all the regulatory bodies; for instance, the engineers, who have been referenced many times in the House. The engineers were the best group we worked with. They were accommodating for many people. They tried their best to have a system to help all newcomers, especially with engineering degrees, to fit and integrate into the province of Ontario.

But we have a problem. As the member mentioned, when you apply to Canada from different parts of the globe, you apply to come to Canada and say, “I want to come to Ontario.” Every year, we welcome almost 15,000 engineers to Ontario, and we graduate, from our schools in the province, 5,000. If you add them up, it will be 20,000 engineers that we have in Ontario. Are we able to accommodate all these people? Technically, for 13 million people, for the capacity we have, it would be impossible. But the engineering regulating body works with us very well. They do their best to give the education they need.

They give whatever possible things they have to allow all the engineers to fit in, integrate and accredit in Ontario; to give them an equal chance and footing to compete for jobs in Ontario.

And accountants: They’re also great organizations. We’ve worked with them very well in the past and will continue to work with them in the future to accommodate all the accountants from every different part of the globe. But, as you know and as has been mentioned, every nation has a different curriculum. Every nation has different programs, different strategies and different kinds of education. Therefore, we have to put in place a mechanism, which has been done by the accountants, to accredit the many different people who want to come and be accountants in the province of Ontario.

I say it’s a difficult issue, because we welcome people on a regular basis, on a yearly basis, from 170 nations; we welcome people from 170 nations. Almost 250,000 people come to Canada, and 100,000 come to Ontario. For those 100,000 people, those people have education from various different universities across the planet—many, many. Some of them are accredited by UNESCO, accredited by WES, the World Education Services body, and some of them are not. It’s very complex to navigate every university to see which one is okay and which one does not fit and is not being compatible with our system in the province of Ontario. So that’s why there’s complexity there.

It is very important for us, as the minister outlined over and over, to get the support from the federal government. The $207 million will give us a chance to help many thousands and thousands of people from different backgrounds to be able to study, to accredit themselves and to be able to work in the province of Ontario.

We’ve been working with accreditation departments. We’ve been working with many different regulatory bodies in the province of Ontario to find a way to help the newcomers to fit, to integrate and to be accredited. That’s why we established the Office of the Fairness Commissioner. The Fairness Commissioner is there to oversee the conduct of regulatory bodies in the province of Ontario, because, as you know, so many regulatory bodies—as I mentioned, so many people graduated from different colleges, from different universities, so it is difficult and complex.

But that regulatory body does its best, in conjunction with the Fairness Commissioner, in conjunction with our government, with various departments in our government, to see the best way that we can accommodate and integrate people who want to come to Ontario.

We pay a lot of attention to this area because the future is built on immigrants. It’s a nation and a province built by immigrants. Therefore, I think, for our own interests and for the sake of the prosperity of the province of Ontario, we want every immigrant to be successful. We want every person in this province to be successful, because the only way we can be prosperous in the future, the only way Canada can be prosperous—if Ontario is doing good, Canada will do good.

That’s why we continue working with all the agencies, groups and organizations across the province of Ontario, which are supported heavily by our ministry and also by our government: in order to create and facilitate the integration for many immigrants who want to come to the province of Ontario.

I know we take blame sometimes for a lot of things, and the member opposite mentioned a lot of things which are out of our jurisdiction; it’s a part of the federal government’s. That’s what we want to do: We want to convince the federal government to continue working with us as a partner to find a way to accommodate newcomers who want to come to the province of Ontario. I strongly hope that both sides of the House come to an agreement and support this motion in order to convince the federal government to live up to its agreement, which has been signed many different years, and also give us the financial support to be able to support those programs across the province of Ontario.

It’s difficult and important at the same time for all of us, especially the accreditations. We hear a lot about it. People who have certain credentials are driving taxis and delivering pizza—many different stories on the street.

As I’ve mentioned, over the years, from 100,000, due to our investments in many groups, organizations and settlement programs across the province of Ontario, we were able to help 40,000—that’s a huge number—through the bridge program, which we implemented across the province to help those people to upgrade their skills and their language to find a job they like or that suits their credentials.

The issue here, as the minister outlined, is not just about money. It’s about partnership. It’s about the ability for us to administrate the settlement and program in the province of Ontario. It’s about eliminating the duplications in the program in Ontario. It’s about newcomers finding their way and being able to settle in the province. It’s about our ability to allow and select some people to come to Ontario. We have been given almost 1,000 now from the provincial government under the PNP program to select some students and intellectuals and people with high skills to live in the province of Ontario.

But those programs are being well supported by the federal government. People apply and wait and wait, and still they lost work, and you know permission is in the hands of the federal government.

So we want to select people. We want to also have the ability to administrate the program in the province. We want to also work with the federal government in order to select the best of the best to come to Ontario. We want to also have the ability to help the newcomers to fit and integrate and be able to provide for themselves and their families, and also for the province of Ontario, for the great nation of Canada. That’s what we are working on, so that’s not about money only; it’s about administration, about ability to be a full partner with the federal government.

I wish I had more time to speak about this issue, because this issue is important to me and to many, many people who live in Ontario, and also those who want to come to the great province of Ontario.

Debate deemed adjourned.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Pursuant to standing order 8(a), this House will recess until 10:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1017 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. James J. Bradley: I take great pleasure in introducing Mr. Larry Molyneaux, president of the PAO, Ron Middel, CAO of the PAO, and Karl Walsh, president and CEO of the OPPA, who are with us in the gallery, and all members of the Police Association of Ontario.

Mr. Gerry Martiniuk: I would like to present my niece, Shauna Martiniuk Rajaratnam, who is in the gallery along with her children, Ethan, Sumner, Jared and Pyper.

Mr. Jeff Leal: I’m pleased to have some guests here in the members’ east gallery. Bill Thompson and John Kristensen won a lunch with the MPP at a silent auction recently, and they look forward to attending question period this morning.

I have two police officers from the Peterborough Lakefield police services who will be joining us shortly: Jeff Chartier and David McFadden.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce Carol Sweeney from the Toronto–Danforth riding, visiting us here today.

Hon. Monique M. Smith: It is a pleasure to welcome Mike Tarini and Ken Rice, who are both with the North Bay police service. We’re delighted to have them here today down from North Bay to visit with us.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: Please welcome Steve Boucher and Brenda Lawson from the Ottawa Police Association to Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I had a great meeting this morning with police association representatives from northern Ontario: Gerry Rooney from the Sault Ste. Marie police association, and Rob Steudle, Brian Crocker and Jim Glena from the Thunder Bay police association. Welcome.

Mr. Charles Sousa: I have the great pleasure of introducing, in the members’ gallery, the executive director of the Kidney Foundation of Canada, Mr. Jim O’Brien. Welcome.

I’d also like to introduce Mr. Jack Sloggett, general manager of HME Mobility Ltd., with the assistive devices program. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Hon. Laurel C. Broten: I believe we have unanimous consent today that all members be permitted to wear ribbons in recognition of Adoption Awareness Month.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I’d like to introduce some people from the Ottawa Police Association who are here today: Stu Feldman, Richard Marcil, Jim Oakes, Glenn Wasson, Dan Brennan and Brenda Lawson.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier, you’ve added some 75% to Ontario families’ hydro bills. You’ve boasted that rates need to go up even higher. Now, according to media reports, you seem to be on the verge of another major backtrack. But a 10% cut, after almost doubling hydro rates, is a lot like the backtrack you tried to do when you increased the HST by $1,000 per family and then handed out a small $50 tax credit.

Premier, why do you think Ontario families can be so easily confused by your back-and-forth, to-and-fro energy policies?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m pleased as usual to receive a question, but obviously I’m going to disagree with the math and the numbers put forward by my honourable colleague. I think there’s a lot of creativity there. Shortly, the long-term energy plan will be released and he’ll get a good sense of exactly what we’re talking about in terms of price increases.

We’ve always said to Ontarians that electricity prices are going to go up and we’re going to find a way through our fall economic statement to specifically address that in the way that we have with respect to so many other issues that concern our families, including, for example, our children’s activity tax credit—we’ll be voting on that on third reading very shortly. I’ll be very interested in learning whether or not the opposition parties support that important new benefit for Ontario families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Tim Hudak: Sadly, all that Ontario families are seeing is a McGuinty government scrambling, a government whose energy plans have gone off the rails. Ontario families won’t be so easily confused by this latest backtrack.

The finance minister also tried to confuse hydro issues yesterday. You know that Ontario families have paid $7.8 billion in debt retirement charges on their hydro bills. When asked about that, the finance minister tried to confuse the issue by talking about another hydro unfunded liability altogether that has nothing to do with debt retirement charges.

Premier, why are you trying to confuse Ontario families, or don’t you want them to know exactly where those debt retirement charge dollars have gone?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The Minister of Finance spoke to that issue yesterday and, I thought, very clearly and particularly demonstrated that each and every year we continue to pay down the debt retirement charge.

I think what families are concerned about is ensuring that we have a clean, modern, reliable supply of electricity. I had an opportunity to speak to some families again this morning. They’re telling me that they like clean energy. They like the fact that it means new jobs. They like the fact that it means better health for their children. They like the fact that it means we’re going to have reliable electricity because we’re building more, but they have a real concern about the cost.

That’s why, tomorrow, we’ll specifically find a way to help families with respect to electricity costs in the way that we have done in the past with respect to their property taxes, children’s activity tax credits and the like.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I think that Ontario families, after seven years, have caught on to you. They’re not going to be so easily confused by your scrambling when it comes to their hydro bills or the debt retirement charge.

Premier, as you probably know, the original plan was to have the debt retirement charge gone by 2012. With no explanation whatsoever, you pushed it back to 2015, and your finance minister used interest as an excuse. Interest rates are at historic lows. If anything, the hydro debt should have been repaid earlier than the target date of 2012. It’s very alarming that your finance minister doesn’t seem to understand that, or maybe clearly the plan is for your government to try to confuse families on the issue. Premier, if you didn’t put the money towards retiring the residual stranded debt, where exactly did the $7.8 billion go?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, my colleague the Minister of Finance spoke to this yesterday. We have steadily reduced the stranded debt by about $1 billion in each of the last six years. It’s now $5.7 billion lower than it was in 2003. On their watch, they added $1 billion to the stranded debt. They added a billion to the debt; we’ve taken $5.7 billion off the debt.

At the same time, we’re investing in a modern, clean, reliable electricity system. Families want clean electricity. They want us to shut down dirty, coal-fired generation. They want us to do more to protect the health of their children and our seniors. They want to make sure that we have more jobs. They want to make sure we have a reliable electricity system. That’s our plan. They also want us to help them out with costs, and that’s what we’ll be speaking about tomorrow.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: It’s very disappointing to see the Premier engaging in this effort to try to confuse Ontario families when it comes to the debt retirement charge and the residual stranded debt. The Premier is talking about another unfunded liability altogether. Premier, you know that it’s paid for through Hydro One, through OPG, through the LDCs. Premier, I believe that you actually do know this: that the debt retirement charge payments go towards the residual stranded debt, that $7.8 billion. Families have already paid $7.8 billion, and for some reason, you’ve postponed how much longer that’s going to be on their bills from 2012 to 2015.

Ontario families want to know: What did you do with the money? Premier will you do the right thing? Will you post publicly the value of the residual stranded debt and will you put it on people’s hydro bills each and every year so they know exactly where their money is really going?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Let’s start with some facts. The unfunded liability, his last day in office, the day the people of Ontario threw him and his party out of office, was $20.5 billion. That has been reported in every audited financial statement of the province of Ontario year in and year out. What was reported from 1999 through 2003—in spite of the fact that they put a debt retirement charge on people’s bills, not one penny of that money from 1999 to 2003 was applied to the debt. Why? Because they wanted to try and pretend they were keeping the price—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the finance minister knows the—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. The member from Peterborough.

Please continue.

Mr. Tim Hudak: I know the finance minister actually knows the facts on this file. You know that the debt retirement charge is to go to the residual stranded debt of $7.8 billion. You have postponed the date that was supposed to be paid down from 2012 to 2015. You’ve given no explanation, and families rightly want to know where the money that they have paid—for some families, over $100 a year—where did it all go?

We understand your game plan. We’ve had some insight into Liberal plans. You want to confuse voters, you want to confuse the media when it comes to hydro prices in our province, and now you won’t even answer a very simple question. What did you do with the $7.8 billion? Why don’t you come clean, publish it and then put the actual amount on hydro bills so Ontario families have transparency?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: A few more facts: The Leader of the Opposition and his party, when they were in power, set up something called an unfunded liability through the Ontario Electricity Financial Corp.

The leader knows that he’s not telling the full story. Every penny of every debt retirement charge since 2004 has gone against that debt.

Interjection: Every cent.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Every cent. We have not changed the mechanism that he and his party set up. So if he’s saying that people are confused, it’s because of the system they set up, which is still in place. The only thing people are confused about is what he will do to ensure safe, clean, reliable electricity in the future for all Ontarians. That’s what they’re confused about. No plan, no idea, more of the same—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: This is coming from a finance minister in a party that said they wouldn’t raise taxes on Ontario families and then jammed them with tax increase after tax increase after tax increase. This is a party that said that hydro bills would go up 1% and now they’re going through the roof for Ontario families and businesses.

The reason why: They brought forward a hidden tax on hydro. They want to do it on natural gas. They have exorbitant subsidies for expensive energy experiments like the sweetheart Samsung deal. Your smart meters have turned into nothing more than tax machines on seniors and Ontario families, and then the debt retirement charge, on top of it all, is not going to its stated purpose of reducing the residual stranded debt.

Now, just a year out from an election campaign, you’re suddenly backtracking from your hydro policy. Ontario families won’t be fooled. Why are you trying to confuse the families who—

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

Hon. Dwight Duncan: We’re trying to un-confuse the Leader of the Opposition. Let me use his numbers. He is absolutely right: $7.8 billion has been collected on the debt retirement charge. Some $5.7 billion of that decreased the principal and $1.5 billion of that went to pay the hidden cost of their price freeze, which he has refused to acknowledge in this House. The other thing is it has gone to pay interest.

Later today, we’re going to vote for a children’s tax credit. We’re going to do the right thing in terms of people having clean, green energy. I invite the Leader of the Opposition to review what you yourself did some 10 years ago. Get with the game. We’re going to create a cleaner, safer, more reliable and affordable energy system for our children and grandchildren. That’s what’s important, not you confusing reality with your stubborn refusal to accept the facts—

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

Interjections.

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

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I remind the Minister of Economic Development and the Minister of Health that the debate is to take place in here, not with staff in the chamber behind the Speaker.

New question.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: My question is to the Premier. On at least 55 separate occasions in this Legislature, New Democrats have called on the McGuinty government to take the HST off hydro. On 55 different occasions, the McGuinty Liberals have insisted, to quote the Premier, that “electricity bills are going up” and that providing families with relief would bankrupt the province and shut off the lights. What’s the government’s position today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. We look forward to presenting the fall economic statement in the House tomorrow and I can tell you that it will pursue a direction that we’ve been following for some time now. While we continue to invest in a modern, clean, reliable electricity system, we also want to be mindful of the impact this is having on household expenses.

Just as we’ve put forward a children’s activity tax credit, an energy and property tax credit that will benefit seniors, a sales tax credit that will benefit families to the tune of $260 per member—that’s $1,040 for a family of four—we’re also mindful of the pressures that our electricity plan is putting on families. Families are saying, “We like clean electricity; we like the fact that it’s good for our health; we’re concerned about the price”; and we intend to help them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: When the Premier slapped the HST on families, he claimed it would be revenue-neutral; it wouldn’t cost them. When he turned to the private sector for our electricity needs, he claimed it would save money. Now he wants families to believe he will save them from the high electricity costs that he in fact created—high energy costs that until, let’s say, yesterday he didn’t care about. Why would families believe him today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I took the opportunity just a moment ago to list the many and various ways in which we are supporting families through tax credits and personal income tax cuts and the like. But I must say that I am disappointed with the party—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Tick-tock, the clock will run.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I remember a time when the NDP stood for the environment. I remember a time when they stood for shutting down dirty coal. I remember a time when they stood for investing in renewable energy. I remember a time when they stood for new clean and green jobs. I remember a time when they wanted to invest in a reliable electricity system. But, sadly, those times are gone by. I want to reassure Ontario families that those times are here for us. They always will be. We will invest in the system, we will make it cleaner, we will make it more reliable and we will help families with their costs.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: I have to say that the Premier gets more and more inventive as time goes by. He should recognize that families and seniors have been crying out for help for some time. Now that the government needs help, they suddenly hear them. The same government that slapped the HST on hydro bills and drove up rates with private sector deals now says they’ll offer solutions. Premier Gordon Campbell in BC resorted to desperate measures to save himself. Does the Premier think that this measure will save him?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the focus on the issues that my honourable colleague brings, but let’s talk about some of the important things that I think are concerns for families.

We have in fact for some time now been putting forward a number of measures to better help families when it comes to their household expenses. I think one of the discouraging things in all this is that the opposition parties fail to support us in this. They say we need to do more to help families, but when it comes to each and every measure that we’ve put forward, they fail to stand up.

Shortly—later today, in fact—we’re going to be voting for third reading on the Children’s Activity Tax Credit Act. It’s $50 per child; it’s $100 if you have a couple of kids; it’s $200 when you add it on top of the federal program. We think that’s real and meaningful to our families. It’s all about ensuring that kids have the opportunity to participate in sports and arts activities and the like. It’s a specific example which we’re going to give to our parties opposite today to see whether or not they support helping families, and we look forward to seeing their actions.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Peter Tabuns: For the last two months, New Democrats have been telling the stories of people who are struggling to pay their bills and putting their concerns on the agenda, stories of families like Dick and Francie Wilhelm from Windsor, who write: “Please help two retired seniors on their hydro bills.” To those real concerns, the Premier said that hydro bills simply have to go up. Now he has apparently changed his mind. If the Premier was wrong about that, what else was he wrong about?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think we’ve been very open and honest with Ontarians from the outset. We said that we inherited a system that was in a terrible state of disrepair. We thought that it was important that we bring a responsible approach to ensuring that we had in place reliable electricity, so we invested heavily in new generation and in new transmission, and we’re particularly proud of the focus we put on clean electricity, clean energy, because it means jobs, it means better health for our children and our seniors in particular.

You know, there was a study done back in 2005, I believe, which said that dirty electricity, coal-fired electricity, which my friend opposite used to stand against, was costing us $3 billion in health costs. It meant premature death; it meant a higher rate of hospitalization and breathing problems, especially for children. We are investing in a new system. It’s a cleaner system. There are costs associated with that, and we’re going to be doing more to help families meet those costs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The measures that have been reported in the press indicate very clearly that the Premier knows he was wrong, and that suddenly he has to promise action on hydro bills. He has insisted that the HST and his corporate tax giveaways will create jobs. They haven’t. Since the Premier is now re-evaluating his deeply held beliefs, can we expect him to change his mind on this as well?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague will know that, as we do some heavy lifting—I think, frankly, our generation has taken this on, and I speak on behalf of all Ontarians here—and as we work to lay a foundation for new economic growth in this post-recession world, we knew it was important that we modernize our tax system. As we did that, we put in place supports for our families, like the personal income tax cut, like the sales tax credit, like our transition benefit—the second instalment will be coming to families in the month of December.

Just as we’ve helped them as we’ve moved forward on the HST, we are also determined to help families when it comes to building a modern electricity system. That’s what our fall economic statement is all about. It’s about acknowledging that, as we do this heavy work, our generation of Ontarians, to invest in a modern, reliable, clean electricity system, there are costs that have to be borne by all of us, but we want to make sure that we’re helping families bear those costs.

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

Mr. Peter Tabuns: The Premier has made it clear that his principles can change at any time, whether it’s online gambling or helping families with the high cost of electricity. This government has made a number of risky commitments to expensive nuclear power, to reckless corporate tax cuts and to an unfair sales tax. Can the Premier tell us which of his deeply held beliefs he’ll change today?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to say that we’re never going to stop doing what we think is right for Ontario families. We know that they want us to build a stronger foundation for economic growth. We know that they want us to invest in a clean, modern, reliable electricity system.

But I think where they are concerned is that we’ve got a new NDP here today. There was a time when they stood against dirty coal; there was a time they’d go to the wall for renewable electricity; there was a time they’d go to the wall for new clean and green jobs. There was a time when they stood for all of those things, but now they’ve given that up, and we’re going to see just how determined they are to support families, because we bring forward our measure tomorrow in the fall economic statement. It will be interesting to see whether or not the NDP stand up in support of more support for Ontario families.

TAXATION

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. Hydro and natural gas stakeholders launched a constitutional challenge of Premier McGuinty’s special purposes charge. This charge has been called a hidden tax on hydro and natural gas. At first, the Minister of Energy’s plan was to deny the hidden taxes on hydro and natural gas. Then, on November 1 and 2, the minister changed his tune and repeatedly said in this House that the hidden taxes on hydro and natural gas had been scrapped.

If the hidden taxes on hydro and natural gas have been scrapped, why was the Attorney General attending the Ontario Energy Board hearings defending them on November 5? Why was he defending them if they’ve been scrapped?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I’m pleased to speak to the issue because it gives me an opportunity to talk about all of the incredible initiatives that this government has taken over the last seven years when it comes to conservation.

We have invested in conservation, and the result is 1,700 megawatts of energy saved across this province. That’s billions of dollars of costs that we would have had to accrue in building more energy as we tried to make up for the lack of investment from the party opposite that we inherited seven years ago.

I look forward to bringing forward our long-term energy plan. In our long-term energy plan, I’m quite confident you will see that Ontario will continue to be a North American leader in conservation. Conservation will continue to be a part of our long-term energy future here in the province of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: They just continually try to confuse the Ontario public, but they will not be fooled. A pattern has developed where Premier McGuinty is trying to confuse Ontario families about what they’re going to pay for his expensive energy experiments.

He told Ontario families that his smart meter tax machines would save them money. We know they don’t. He confuses the $7.8-billion debt Ontario families are paying with a larger unfunded liability so he can keep collecting debt retirement charges.

Even the Attorney General is confused. He is still pursuing a hidden tax grab on hydro and natural gas that the Minister of Energy has repeated time and time again was scrapped. Is the Attorney General defending the hidden hydro and natural gas taxes because you’re planning to bring them back later?

Hon. Brad Duguid: This is the government—one of the first governments; maybe the only government in a long, long time in this province—that has been very honest with Ontarians when it comes to the need to invest in our energy system. We know that those investments come at a cost. I think what Ontarians need to know is, where do the Tories stand on this? Do they support our investments in building a stronger energy system, investing in new generation? Apparently not: They certainly do not support those investments.

Do they support our investments in building a cleaner energy system, cleaning our air and improving our health? There are important investments if we want to build a stronger, cleaner energy system. We stand squarely behind those investments. Do they support the investments we’ve made to build a more reliable system of energy? Clearly, they do not. I look forward to contrasting our energy plan with their lack of a plan over the course of the next number of—

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

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. We read with complete horror the gross financial and personal mistreatment of vulnerable seniors at a Toronto retirement home. These frightened, hungry, and nearly destitute seniors cried out for help and nobody heard them. The safeguards that were supposed to be protecting their health and financial security are too little, too late. Now, some are dead; many of them are left with nothing. Will the Premier commit to establishing, right now, an arm’s-length system which these vulnerable seniors can turn to for help?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The minister responsible for seniors.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Thank you for the question. This is absolutely a very important question because, on this side of the House, the government is committed to protecting our seniors. This situation is another reason why it is so important that our registry system that we are creating is important to move forward. We are on track and we are going to continue moving forward. For the first time in 20 years, we’re creating the Retirement Homes Act.

That, specifically, will help seniors who are living in retirement homes, especially when it comes to the care that they receive or to strengthening the protections that they’ll be receiving, including if there is any kind of abuse, whether it is financial—we’re going to make sure that we protect them.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I would like to go back to the Premier. The Toronto Star investigation shed light on seniors who were neglected, malnourished and robbed in a retirement home, and no one would investigate their complaints. They had nowhere to turn to until the Toronto Star started doing the investigation and exposed an industry that has regularly defied the existing laws and violated the trust of those people. Bill 21, the Retirement Homes Act, will do nothing to change this. It will leave it up to the industry to police itself.

There are more and more vulnerable and high-need residents ending up in retirement homes because Bill 21 does not put a limit on the level of care that can be provided in the retirement home.

My question: How is this possible in 2010? How is it possible that seniors are abused, starved and robbed and have nowhere to appeal their treatment, with or without Bill 21?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: Again, the seriousness of that Toronto Star investigation was extremely important, but it also was very disturbing. That is why we are committed to continue moving forward on the Retirement Homes Act. It is extremely important that we do not stop and start with new legislation. We have a Retirement Homes Act that is going to protect our seniors. We are doing everything we possibly can right now.

Some of the things that we are doing: The new Retirement Homes Act, which is going to be moving forward, is going to protect seniors by compliance with safety and care standards in all retirement homes. We’re going to register all retirement homes. We will go in and inspect retirement homes. The establishment of a regulatory authority to license and inspect homes is also going to create a bill of rights to protect residents’ rights. At the end of the day, protecting our seniors is our number one priority, and we’re going to continue with our Retirement Homes Act.

INTERNATIONAL

MEDICAL GRADUATES

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. My constituents in Mississauga–Brampton South are comprised greatly of recent immigrants. Some of them have received their medical training abroad. These international medical graduates come to Canada with the hopes of applying their training to practice, but too often those skills are not recognized in Ontario. Minister, can you tell this House what our government is doing to help these international medical graduates in my riding and across the province?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member from Mississauga–Brampton South for the question. She is absolutely correct: For far too long, too many internationally trained doctors have not had their credentials recognized here in Ontario. It’s an issue we’ve taken very seriously, and we’ve taken important steps to correct the problem.

According to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the total number of certificates issued to IMGs in the past decade has increased by an unprecedented 119%. In 2004-05, we more than doubled the number of residency spaces for IMGs, from 90 to 200 a year, but in 2008-09, we surpassed our own target and offered 224 residency spots. In 2009-10, a total of 221 positions were offered.

We’re currently supporting over 700 international medical—

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

Mrs. Amrit Mangat: Minister, I believe that when newcomers succeed, Ontario succeeds. I know some communities in Ontario have had difficulties recruiting and retaining doctors. At the same time, there are international medical graduates seeking to practise. Are any innovative solutions being proposed or implemented that address both these concerns simultaneously?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: We have more than 5,800 international medical graduates practising in Ontario. That’s almost a quarter of the physician workforce. These physicians are a big part of the reason we’ve been able to attach more than one million Ontarians to primary health care.

But nowhere in the province is the challenge of access to care greater than in northern Ontario. That’s why we introduced the northern and rural recruitment and retention initiative, the NRRR program. It provides direct financial incentives to physicians who practise in the north and in our most rural communities. These are the communities that have faced the biggest challenges in recruiting physicians.

In addition, the postgraduate return of service program opens the door to international medical graduates who agree to practise for five years, anywhere in Ontario outside of Toronto and Ottawa, in exchange for postgraduate—

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

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is for the Minister of Health. In recent media reports, Dr. Robert Cushman, CEO of the Champlain LHIN, indicated he is looking to Mississauga hospitals for best practices on how to slash emergency room wait times. My question is: How soon before Ottawa patients will be seeing garages used as emergency rooms, just like Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Speaker—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Stop the clock. Ministers, order.

Minister?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am appalled that the opposition would employ the tactic that they are employing.

Interjection: They continue to do it.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: They continue with their drive-by smear campaign of the professionals who work in our health care system.

I visited Credit Valley Hospital in Mississauga. I’m not sure anyone from that caucus has visited the hospital. I spoke to front-line health care providers. I spoke to the emergency department nurses and doctors who showed me exactly what happened in Credit Valley Hospital. To suggest for one moment that patient safety was compromised is a complete fabrication. They are making it up. It is—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. I don’t need your help.

The member will withdraw the comment that she made, please.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: This is in no way a smear with respect to Credit Valley Hospital. What it is is an indictment of the complete failure of the McGuinty health care policies, which have resulted in 190 nurses being cut at the Ottawa Hospital. And now emergency room wait times are up, despite the best efforts of what’s being done at the hospitals.

What I would like to know from the minister is what you are planning to do when hospitals are being forced to use substandard facilities for emergency rooms because of your lack of policy.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: For the party opposite to be arguing that infrastructure investments haven’t been made, haven’t been adequate, is completely laughable. I would compare our infrastructure investments against the ones you made when you were in office. You closed hospitals; we’re opening hospitals. Let me tell you, Speaker, if they have their way, they’re going to cut $3 billion out of health care, and trust me, infrastructure expenditures will come to a screeching halt.

It’s no coincidence that their members are advocating for hospitals to be included in infrastructure capital plans, because if they get their plan, there will be no more construction in this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question? The member from Nickel Belt.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. I don’t like it because I can’t hear, and neither can our guests who are watching today.

New question.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour la ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée.

In the Legislature this morning, we are joined by many small business owners who supply Ontarians with medically necessary assistive devices such as wheelchairs or oxygen. Those business owners are frustrated with the extraordinary delays at the ministry’s assistive devices program. The ministry is forcing small business owners to wait up to six months for payment. They have to supply the device, and then they wait and wait and wait and wait for payment to come. This is causing financial ruin for operators and placing Ontarians’ access to those devices in jeopardy.

How has the minister allowed the ADP to become such the crisis it is today?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: In the supplementary, I’ll address the issue of what we are doing to clean up the backlog, and I do acknowledge that there has been a delay in payment for some of the vendors in this program. But let’s just pause for a minute and think about what we’ve done in the assistive devices program. We’re serving almost 70,000 more Ontarians than when we took office in 2003. We’ve added insulin pumps, we’ve added related supplies and oxygen saturation monitors to the list of funded supplies. We’ve nearly doubled funding on the assistive devices program to almost $400 million.

We are there for people who need the equipment. This significant expansion has created some backlogs, and I’m more than happy to discuss that in the supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

M me France Gélinas: It looks to me like the government is quite happy to have their new program funded on the backs of small business owners who have to put the services and the devices forward but don’t get paid.

The member from Welland was the first one who brought this issue to the attention of the minister and told her that a crisis was growing. Just this week, a business with locations in Hamilton, Mississauga and Toronto went into receivership, and there are many more that are barely surviving—they’re right here if you’d like to talk to them. It is unconscionable that small businesses are facing bankruptcy because the ministry is so slow at paying them.

What is the minister’s plan for getting the program up and running, so that those people here and the many more in Ontario get the payment that is due to them in a timely manner?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is an issue that we are aware of, and we are taking that action. In fact, we have now doubled the number of people working in the claims review department. We are actually getting that backlog reduced, and we are on our way to where we want to be in getting speedy payment to the vendors. We’re introducing an automatic approval of invoices, and we’re combining applications to further streamline the process. We’re also working on a new IT system.

We acknowledge that our partners in the assistive devices program deserve to be treated in a responsible way and we’re working to rectify that situation.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Ms. Helena Jaczek: My question is for the Minister of Education. In my riding of Oak Ridges–Markham, there are 48 elementary schools and nine high schools. With this many students, it’s hardly surprising that my constituents are concerned about keeping our students safe, and they ask what role they can play to help.

I know there a number of initiatives that have been put forward by this government to make schools safer. Bullying is a serious issue that can impact all students. Parents in my riding feel that schools should be places where positive examples of how people should behave toward one another are reinforced.

Minister, with schools having such a key role to play in the development of students’ attitudes towards one another, what is this government doing to recognize the work of schools that are making a real effort in this regard?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I very much appreciate the question, especially since this is bullying awareness and prevention week. We have students in our gallery, so I think it’s important that they know we do talk about the issue of bullying. It is a very serious one.

I’ve had the opportunity to be in schools over these weeks. I certainly understand first-hand that staff, students and their families are working very hard to deal with this issue in a substantive way. That is why today, we will be announcing that there will be a new award to recognize the exceptional and innovative work that’s being done throughout Ontario to foster safe and inclusive schools.

Now, the Premier’s Safe Schools Awards will recognize up to 10 safe school teams who have achieved outstanding results with their programs and initiatives. I think this is a very positive thing that we are doing to reinforce our message again—

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

Ms. Helena Jaczek: Constituents in my riding have contacted my office regarding the announcement that was made yesterday at a high school where programs were announced regarding new safety-at-school initiatives. With the recent scare because of a number of home invasions that have happened in Markham, my constituents want to make sure that their children are safe while they’re at school, as well as in their homes. Will the minister tell the House how the partnership with the broader community helps keep students safe at school?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: Keeping students safe at school is an important issue for everyone within the school and within our community. That is why yesterday, I was very happy to have been joined by the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. We were in a school and we talked about new funding for safe school grants. These will help strengthen partnerships with police services in our communities to again focus on student safety and appropriate student activity.

Schools will have the opportunity to work, in this case, with police services in their area, to make those connections, to implement and employ strategies that will keep students informed about what bullying is, why it’s inappropriate and, when they encounter it, what they should do, where they should go and how we can continue to make our schools safer places for everyone to be.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: My question today is for the Attorney General and is similar to a question I asked a year ago to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Today, we welcome the Police Association of Ontario. Welcome to you guys. They are here for their annual lobby day. Your SIU director, Ian Scott, has made public comments that clearly show a lack of respect and bias toward our outstanding and committed police officers, the very men and women he is to oversee and investigate. In a Toronto Star

article from October 28, 2010, he says, “‘Police officers get all kinds of breaks in the (criminal justice) system.’”

Minister, do you agree that comments made by the SIU director can be taken as direct criticism of the Attorney General, crown counsels, prosecutors and judges?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Everyone who comes before our system of justice, whether it’s the investigative stage or the court stage, has the right, whether they are the complainant or the subject of an investigation, to be treated impartially, fairly, and reasonably.

The SIU was set up decades ago to help achieve those principles when the police were the subject, or potentially the subject, of an investigation. Now, for decades there have been issues, there have been reports and there have been suggestions through all governments, and sometimes these bubble over.

Several months ago, we asked Chief Justice LeSage to work with all of the parties to see if we could advance a resolution to some of these long-standing issues. I’ve asked him to undertake the second stage of that review, to get a fair, long-standing resolution to these very important—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Minister, given the SIU director’s comments in the Toronto Star

article of October 28, how can a police officer being investigated by the SIU expect to be investigated in a fair and impartial manner?

The PAO believes, and this PC caucus believes, that the government needs to restore confidence in the SIU. Will you take immediate action, intervene, and hold the SIU director, Ian Scott, accountable to this province?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I and all members of the Legislature welcome the Police Association representatives to the Legislature. We thank them for what they do. We thank them for the risks they take every single day in defending us and our communities and the people of our communities.

These issues have been around for decades. The SIU director is independent. And sometimes, we will all recognize, the challenge in making public comments is that they can be interpreted many different ways by many different people.

We have asked former Chief Justice LeSage to work with all the parties to come forward with a resolution to issues that have been around for decades, very strongly held issues. I thank him for the work that he is doing and I look forward to the hope for a resolution.

EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Labour. Every day, more and more service employees, from bartenders to servers to valets, have contacted me and my office pleading for the egregious tip-out practice to end. If I’m getting those calls, so is the minister. A valet who works at a high-end Niagara Falls hotel and casino to support himself through university stated the following: “In my hotel, valets’ tips are collected and distributed among the management. They are not documented or reported.”

When will this minister begin to understand that tips are in fact wages, and do something, anything, other than mouth platitudes on how hard these people work?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: First I want to thank the member for having brought forward his private member’s bill. I want to commend him on that and allowing for this matter to be debated in the House. It is being debated, and we are hearing from many different stakeholders. We continue to consult and engage with stakeholders.

As the member said, we understand how hard those hospitality workers work and the service that they provide and the value to this province of Ontario, where we know that tourism is a great economic driver here for our province.

I will continue to meet with those workers, to consult with those workers. We’ve brought forward many, many protections since coming to government in 2003 to better protect all of our workers, especially our most vulnerable workers, and we will continue to do so.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: Every time I ask this question or a question like this, I hear no answer at all, no real commitment to fix this massive problem. Tens of thousands of workers have their money stolen from them every day. Owners and managers don’t declare this income and pay no taxes on it. If they are challenged, they threaten the staff with firing or loss of hours. It happens every day.

The valet who wrote to me said this: “I have calculated a personal loss of thousands of dollars that could have been used towards my education.” Why won’t this minister agree it’s time to take action, pass Bill 114 or at least put in your own bill that will deal with it?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I think the member should stop and refrain from smearing thousands of business owners across the province.

When it comes to employment standards, let’s look at our record on protecting workers, especially our most vulnerable workers. Between 1989 and 2003, there were only 97 prosecutions initiated under the Employment Standards Act. Since then, 2004 forward, we have had over 1,800 prosecutions initiated. That shows where we stand when it comes to protecting our most vulnerable workers.

I look forward to the continued debate on this matter through the private member’s bill. Also, I have looked into another matter; the private member asked about a letter that had been written to the ministry. We have gotten that information. There was a letter sent to that constituent. I can say that to the member at this time.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question today is for the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. The province of Ontario is home to some of the world’s top police services. Across our province, we have thousands of dedicated, well-trained police officers who put their personal safety on the line each and every day in order to keep Ontario families safe. On behalf of the members of this House, I would like to personally extend a warm welcome to the Police Association of Ontario, an organization that represents over 33,000 police and civilian members from every Ontario municipal police association, and the Ontario Provincial Police Association.

I recall a time when budgets were being slashed across Ontario’s justice system, but across-the-board government cutbacks meant fewer police officers patrolling Ontario streets. Ontarians are concerned about public safety. Could the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services explain what the government is doing to support Ontario’s police officers?

Hon. James J. Bradley: That’s a very good question. This government has been working tirelessly with our partners in the law enforcement community to make Ontario an even safer place in which to live. Today in Ontario, there are more than 2,000 more police officers working to keep our communities safe. Many of these new officers have been placed on the front lines, patrolling communities across the province day and night.

Additional officers have been placed in dedicated units to address key priority areas such as youth crime, organized crime, dangerous offenders and domestic violence. Dozens more have been placed with the provincial guns and gangs task force, a highly successful $51-million strategy that is working to tackle gun violence and other gang-related crime in the GTA. We’ve also increased the number of police officers in our remote First Nations communities. We are moving forward—

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

Mr. Phil McNeely: In their 2006 election platform, the federal Conservative government promised to put an additional 2,500 police officers on Canadian streets. At the time this was a welcome commitment, not only in my riding of Ottawa–Orléans, but across the province of Ontario.

It has been brought to my attention that the federal government has fallen short on its promise by providing Ontario with only a fraction of the funding that was promised in the federal Conservative 2006 platform.

To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services: Can you explain what Ontario is doing with its share of the federal funds, and further, what steps Ontario is taking to hold the federal Conservatives to their election promise?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The member is correct. The police officers recruitment fund program—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Please continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The police officers recruitment fund program that was established in the 2008 federal budget has fallen far short of the federal Conservatives’ election promise. The program we have today provides only a fraction of the funding that is required to put 2,500 police officers on the streets. Further, the program is time-limited; it will end in just two years’ time.

That said, the House will be pleased to know that Ontario is the only province that has dedicated every last dime of its portion of the program to front-line police officers. There are 125 new OPP officers, 164 municipal police officers and 40 new officers for First Nations communities.

Last month, Ontario stood, along with our PAO, and led the charge at the annual meeting of the—

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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Minister, why are you pursuing closer relations and increased trade with Syria while its authoritarian government provides refuge for terrorists?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I thank the member opposite for the question. I certainly understand that, as is the role of this government, we pursue trade negotiations and improved trade with a number of countries around the world.

I’m not specifically aware of the specific aspects of your question with regard to that country in question, but I will say that, as Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, we welcome individuals from all across the world, including many individuals who have their country of origin as Syria.

We have a strong and vibrant Syrian-Canadian population residing here in Ontario. I certainly am, and I know that this government is as well, very proud of the contributions that that community has made, both to businesses that are thriving in this province as well as to increasing trade and bringing future growth and prosperity to this province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: According to media reports, the minister was a guest of a Syrian government official at a luncheon to promote trade with Syria. Syria is an authoritarian—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We’re perhaps 40 days from Christmas. Maybe the Speaker needs to start the list of who has been naughty or nice and give some people some early Christmas vacations.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Please continue.

Mr. Steve Clark: Syria is an authoritarian state that sponsors terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. Hamas leader Khaled Mashal operates out of a well-protected Syrian compound, and Syria has been referred to in the media by some as an errand boy for Iran and Hezbollah.

The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has shown remarkably bad judgment. Does the minister regret his show of support for a nation that considers itself at war with Israel, one of Canada’s strongest allies and the only mature democracy in the Middle East?

Hon. Eric Hoskins: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think this is a very important piece of information that we need to make sure that Ontario residents understand.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I think it’s important that Ontario residents understand that our government, our ministry, is prepared to go around the world to bring jobs back to Ontario and to encourage our Ontario companies to do business with the world.

The member opposite will know full well that we spent, just a couple of months ago, time discovering opportunities in Israel, in the West Bank and in Lebanon. Following, four weeks later, was a visit from the industry minister for Lebanon. We have active groups who are searching the world for infrastructure projects, in particular across the Middle East, where we are increasing our level of activity.

We understand that these governments are looking for opportunities to work with very good Ontario companies to increase infrastructure in their own country so they can see the kinds of opportunities that we’ve enjoyed in Ontario for many decades already.

So if this opposite member—

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

TAXATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Revenue. There are literally thousands of cabins, cottages and homes, and many tourist resorts, on Lake of the Woods and Rainy Lake. Most of them use propane to meet their energy needs. Sometimes the propane is delivered by truck, where there is road access; sometimes it is delivered by barge over the water, where there is no road access. It has come to the attention of people that American companies are saying to people who live on the lake, “Use us as your supplier of propane, and you will not have to pay the HST.”

Can the minister explain why companies that operate out of Kenora or Fort Frances have to charge the HST, but companies based in Minnesota are providing this service in Canada without charging the HST?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: I thank the member for that question, and he’s right: We all use propane in some form, and a lot of people who live up north do use propane; it’s an important thing for all of us. But what the member should know is that any company that is selling goods or services in the province must collect all the federal and provincial taxes, including the HST. So I am unaware of that specific situation, but I will definitely follow up with the CRA and see exactly what is going on, and we will investigate.

But the fact is, what we are doing for businesses when it comes to our tax reform package is that we have created a business-friendly environment. We’re helping businesses, building stronger businesses for our communities, and when businesses succeed, people succeed: They get jobs, and we invest in businesses—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Well, I would say this: The McGuinty government has certainly made it business-friendly for the propane operators operating out of Baudette, Minnesota, and International Falls, Minnesota, but you’re putting the operators based in Kenora and Fort Frances out of business. That’s what is happening.

But it is more serious than that, because people are now asking, “Do these companies meet the technical and safety standards of the TSSA?” They’ve raised that issue, and they have not received a very good response from your government on that issue either.

Companies operating out of Fort Frances and Kenora have to meet the TSSA standards and they have to charge the HST, but it seems that for American companies doing business in Ontario, that’s not a requirement. What is your government going to do about it?

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: The member brings up a very important question. I did say that I will follow up with the CRA regarding an investigation. We know that all companies that are selling any goods or services in our province have to collect all federal and provincial taxes, including the HST.

We have a tax plan, and the tax plan is a great tax plan. I just wish the opposition would see that.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to standing order 38(a), the member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Energy concerning hidden taxes. This matter will be debated today at 6 p.m.

DEFERRED VOTES

CHILDREN’S ACTIVITY

TAX CREDIT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE CRÉDIT D’IMPÔT

POUR LES ACTIVITÉS DES ENFANTS

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 99,

An Act to amend the Taxation Act, 2007 to implement the children’s activity tax credit / Projet de loi 99, Loi modifiant la Loi de 2007 sur les impôts pour mettre en oeuvre le crédit d’impôt pour les activités des enfants.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1139 to 1144.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): All those in favour will rise one at a time and be recorded by the Clerk.

Ayes

Aggelonitis, Sophia

Albanese, Laura

Arnott, Ted

Arthurs, Wayne

Bailey, Robert

Balkissoon, Bas

Barrett, Toby

Bartolucci, Rick

Bentley, Christopher

Best, Margarett

Bradley, James J.

Broten, Laurel C.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Carroll, Aileen

Chan, Michael

Chiarelli, Bob

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Steve

Colle, Mike

Crozier, Bruce

Delaney, Bob

Dickson, Joe

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duguid, Brad

Duncan, Dwight

Dunlop, Garfield

Elliott, Christine

Flynn, Kevin Daniel

Fonseca, Peter

Gerretsen, John

Gélinas, France

Gravelle, Michael

Hampton, Howard

Hardeman, Ernie

Hoskins, Eric

Hoy, Pat

Hudak, Tim

Jaczek, Helena

Johnson, Rick

Jones, Sylvia

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leal, Jeff

MacLeod, Lisa

Mangat, Amrit

Marchese, Rosario

Martiniuk, Gerry

Matthews, Deborah

McGuinty, Dalton

McNeely, Phil

Meilleur, Madeleine

Miller, Norm

Milloy, John

Mitchell, Carol

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Murray, Glen R.

Naqvi, Yasir

O’Toole, John

Orazietti, David

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Pendergast, Leeanna

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramal, Khalil

Ramsay, David

Rinaldi, Lou

Ruprecht, Tony

Sandals, Liz

Sergio, Mario

Shurman, Peter

Smith, Monique

Sousa, Charles

Takhar, Harinder S.

Van Bommel, Maria

Wilkinson, John

Wynne, Kathleen O.

Yakabuski, John

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

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 80; the nays are 0.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Third reading agreed to.

TIME ALLOCATION

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have a deferred vote on the motion by Ms. Smith for allocation of time on Bill 172,

An Act to amend the Ticket Speculation Act.

Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang f