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

October 29, 2009

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2009-Oct-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 29 October 2009 Jeudi 29 octobre 2009

ORDERS OF THE DAY

VISITOR

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

FLU IMMUNIZATION

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

LAW ENFORCEMENT

FLU IMMUNIZATION

FLU IMMUNIZATION

PENSION PLANS

TAXATION

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

FINANCEMENT MUNICIPAL /

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

BUS TRANSPORTATION

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

VISITOR

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

WIND TURBINES

TAXATION

MARK DEMONTIS

TUITION

SECOND BASE YOUTH SHELTER

CASINO RAMA

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

GREEK COMMUNITY

REPUBLIC OF TURKEY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

BOTTLED WATER

SPENDING ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LES DÉPENSES

LIÉES À L'EAU POTABLE

EN BOUTEILLE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

FULL-DAY KINDERGARTEN /

JARDIN D'ENFANTS À TEMPS PLEIN

PETITIONS

TAXATION

FIREARMS CONTROL

GREEN POWER GENERATION

TAXATION

TAXATION

SHARK FISHERY

CEMETERIES

TAXATION

PROTECTION FOR WORKERS

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

TAXATION

HIGHWAY INTERCHANGE

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL INSURANCE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION À USAGE D'HABITATION (ASSURANCE DES LOYERS)

CLIMATE CHANGE

AWARENESS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION AUX CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

WIND TURBINES

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL INSURANCE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION À USAGE D'HABITATION (ASSURANCE DES LOYERS)

CLIMATE CHANGE

AWARENESS ACT, 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 SUR LA SENSIBILISATION AUX CHANGEMENTS CLIMATIQUES

WIND TURBINES

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES AMENDMENT ACT (RENTAL INSURANCE), 2009 /

LOI DE 2009 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA LOCATION À USAGE D'HABITATION (ASSURANCE DES LOYERS)

WIND TURBINES

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

VISITOR

Hon. Monique M. Smith: I'd like to welcome the member for Huron–Bruce's daughter, who is here today.

ONTARIO LABOUR

MOBILITY ACT, 2009 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2009

SUR LA MOBILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D'OEUVRE

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 28, 2009, on the motion for second reading of Bill 175,

An Act to enhance labour mobility between Ontario and other Canadian provinces and territories / Projet de loi 175, Loi visant à accroître la mobilité de la main-d'oeuvre entre l'Ontario et les autres provinces et les territoires du Canada.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act, at one level, is intended to implement Ontario's obligations under the Agreement on Internal Trade, which is an agreement among the provinces and territories to remove labour mobility barriers within Canada. At its most basic, the bill would permit certified workers in professions and skilled trades to move among jurisdictions or choose to live in one of the provinces or territories yet practise their occupation or trade in another. This includes certain residency restrictions imposed at the municipal level.

The bill would apply to a vast range of occupations, from lawyers and accountants to motor vehicle dealers to tradespersons under the Apprenticeship and Certification Act.

However, there are reasonably good grounds to question that motive and see this legislation as yet another step to deregulate the labour market and to lower skills standards in the long term.

Section 8 prohibits Ontario regulatory authorities—trade and occupational colleges etc.—from requiring an individual to be a resident in the province as a condition of being certified in a regulated trade or occupation and being able to work in Ontario. Municipalities are also under restrictions when it comes to hiring individuals in their catchment area.

Section 9 of the act obliges the regulatory authorities to recognize skills and occupational certificates when it comes to licensing out-of-province workers to work in Ontario, even if the standards of out-of-province workers are lower.

I have been saying for a long time that the regulations and certificates should be country-wide, not different in different jurisdictions, because it definitely has a negative impact on the quality of workmanship. Over the years, I've seen many projects in my city that non-union, non-certified labour has put together, and within 10 or 15 years there are problems with marble installation, problems with plumbing, problems with electrical on these types of buildings on which they've used cheap labour, non-certified labour and the quality of workmanship is terrible.

At one point we even had to repair city hall because the marble was falling off; it wasn't installed properly. Century 21 in Hamilton: another construction nightmare.

Whether they're unionized or non-unionized, these workers should all have the same qualifications and be certified. I feel that the union situation has always turned out quality craftsmen, because they go through strict regulation and strict training. It's similar for everyone, and makes it a lot more coordinated and makes for a lot more quality of workmanship in the end.

Section 8 prohibits that from happening. First, it's not clear that there are sufficient interprovincial labour mobility barriers to justify the legislation requiring regulators to recognize occupational certifications given in other provinces with more modest standards, and will likely create pressure to lower the standards in our province over the long run.

By prohibiting residency requirements as a condition for certification to work in Ontario, Bill 175 will likely increase competition for skilled jobs in Ontario at a time of high unemployment and create downward pressure on wages and benefits in our province. While certain exceptions to 175 are detailed, these exceptions may be challenged before private tribunals that are neither transparent nor accountable.

There is no demonstrable rationale or need for Bill 175, as virtually all significant labour mobility issues have been successfully addressed over recent years through interprovincial co-operation and other voluntary initiatives such as the red seal program for skilled trades. Requiring Ontario regulators to recognize occupational certifications given in other provinces with more modest standards will create pressure for them to reduce their own standards to a lower denominator. The requirement for regulatory authorities to harmonize their standards with those of other jurisdictions will add to this already large pressure.

Bill 175 has imposed and will continue to impose significant resource demands on Ontario ministries and regulatory authorities that must now take informed judgments about the efficacy of occupational certification standards and practices in other provinces, and justify any higher standard requirements they wish to maintain and apply to those seeking occupational certifications in our province. However, neither the provincial government nor non-governmental regulatory authorities have the capacity to monitor the licensing and certification practices of other jurisdictions.

This is also problematic in light of the increasing role being played by private training and certification companies that may provide poor training or even fraudulent certifications. We've already seen this happening in the province, where people find that their certifications from some of these private colleges don't quite cut it, and people won't hire them because they don't feel they are qualified, and they're following the rules, as they should.

Under Bill 175, municipalities and regulatory authorities, such as the college of nurses and the association of early childhood educators, are exposed to monetary sanctions as high as $5 million for each instance of non-compliance with either Bill 175 or the AIT labour mobility agreement, or both. Moreover, the nature and extent of this liability may be extended by the Premier or his minister if they choose to enter into new or amended agreements under the AIT.

By prohibiting residency requirements as a condition for certification in Ontario while lowering the bar for certain certifications, Bill 175 will likely increase competition for jobs and employment in Ontario, which, in the context of relatively high employment, would create pressure on wages and benefits. I have to reiterate that because, speaking from a trades perspective, I know that when you go to other provinces, the local tradespeople are what they call "booked out" first before any people from out of the province can get a job, and they have to work under what's called a permit, to work in that local in a unionized situation.

This is going to create some problems locally, as was witnessed in Cornwall, Ontario, when they contracted out for the local hospital. The lowest bidder took it, but the lowest bidder happened to be from Quebec, and the Quebec contractor decided to hire Quebec tradespeople to work in Cornwall. The local trades were very upset and actually went around with a petition through town. Most of the people in town were upset too, because their brothers and fathers and sisters were unemployed while people in Quebec were taking their jobs and spending their money back in Quebec. The local economy took a hit because the people in the area weren't working. Not a good suggestion.

Bill 175 will do nothing to enhance the competence, skill or integrity of Ontario tradespersons and professionals. It is, in fact, likely to have an opposite effect: By ensuring certification to those trained in a lower standard, Bill 175 will unnecessarily put at risk public safety and the health and well-being of Ontarians. The mobility scheme that would be established by this is also likely to undermine the quality of a myriad of services offered by teachers, health care professionals, accountants—even taxi drivers—and other skilled workers and professionals.

The fact that people come from other jurisdictions and other countries doesn't mean that we should lower the level of qualification. It doesn't mean that we should lower our standards. If they're the highest in Canada, so be it; the higher the better. If those people can meet those requirements and pass those tests, they're more than welcome to have those skills used in our province, but I am not going to stand here and listen to people say we should lower the standards or accept lower standards from other provinces or people coming into Ontario just because they're from another country or province.

That's nonsense. If you're qualified as an ironworker or welder or electrician, then you should be qualified and recognized throughout our country and North America—anywhere else in the world, for that matter. High training and high qualifications are what's best for Ontario and best for our safety.

It's important to note that only 20% of Canadian workers are employed in regulated occupations or trades, most as professionals, skilled technicians or people who work in compulsory trades. Under our federal system, provinces decide what occupational standards are needed to ensure workers are properly qualified and will not put—I'll reiterate—will not put their clients in a position of possibly being sued for liability for lack of workmanship or lack of quality in their buildings.

It also puts pressure on heavy equipment operators, paramedics, accountants and other skilled workers who deal with the public on a regular basis and work in those situations where safety is of the utmost importance.

To ensure that provincial standards do not unduly impede labour mobility, the provinces have established various programs to reconcile competing standards where they're appropriate. In fact, several federal-provincial bodies have mandates to address labour mobility issues, including the forum of labour market ministers, which was established in 1983 to facilitate interjurisdictional discussion and co-operation on labour market issues. The FLMM has responsibility for implementing the labour mobility

chapter of AIT and has developed detailed—I repeat—detailed guidelines for complying with these AIT rules.

In addition, the labour mobility coordinating group of the FLMM monitors and reports on progress with implementation of the AIT rules concerning labour mobility. The primary focus of the LMCG reports has been on 50 regulated occupations, many of which are the subject of mutual recognition agreements that are already in place among provincial regulatory bodies, under which the qualifications of workers from other provinces are recognized. So we do recognize other qualifications if it falls within our mandate in Ontario. It's already there.

Mobility in the trades is primarily addressed through a parallel process, the red seal program, which allows qualified tradespersons to practise their trades in any province or territory without having to write additional examinations. One of the problems in the past was that if I had my welding qualifications—which I did—in Ontario under the Canadian Welding Bureau, CWB, and I went to Alberta or Saskatchewan, I'd have to rewrite my test, which is absolute nonsense.

If I'm qualified in Ontario, which has high standards, I should be able to practise my trades—plural—in other provinces without having to rewrite an interprovincial test. That was the big stumbling block for people moving out of province. That has been removed. You do not have to do that now.

It is apparent that labour mobility issues have been given considerable attention by Canadian governments and that significant progress has been made to address whatever mobility problems may have—may have—existed. Support for the notion that few real impediments exist to labour mobility can be found in the record of disputes that have been filed under the AIT labour mobility agreement since its inception 15 years ago.

The AIT website documents only 23 such complaints from 1996 to 2009—under the act are not subject to the administrative penalties that may be imposed on other regulatory authorities, as in sections 18 to 20 of Bill 175, they may be compelled to pay penalties assessed against the province arising from mobility disputes proceeded with under AIT mobility and dispute rules.

Consequential amendments are also proposed to the Trades Qualification and Apprenticeship Act, the Social Work and Social Service Work Act and several other statutes in our province. These amendments warrant scrutiny and analysis, particularly by those who will be directly affected by them. To underscore the importance of this analysis, it is worth noting in regard to the application of the mobility rules to social workers that in response to a number of cases of the deaths of children, Ontario created the Social Work and Social Service Work Act, which required all registered social workers to hold a university degree—another high standard set by this province in the past.

We do not want to play around with the high standards. We want to continue them, and whoever comes here from whatever country or province will fall under those guidelines. Also, it will protect them from any liability situations. It also protects them and makes them as qualified as anyone else in this province to practise their trade with no questions asked—best way to go.

In conclusion, the foregoing provides an overview of the key elements of Bill 175, which demands more thorough assessment than is permitted here. As the bill is now in second reading, it is important that those who will be directly affected by its sweeping provisions quickly take up the challenge of assessing its prospective impact on the regulated occupations and employment in our province. Beyond these impacts, there are also potentially highly problematic impacts on public safety, consumer protection and the quality of a broad diversity of services provided by the skilled trades, professionals and other workers in these regulated occupations.

The notion of increased labour mobility may be expected to have a general appeal and may not provoke much interest or reaction. However, as the analysis reveals, Bill 175 has much less to do with resolving largely nonexistent labour mobility problems than it does a program of labour market deregulation largely driven by federal policies that favour reducing the role and capacity of government and public bodies to regulate in the economic sphere.

Unfortunately, and for reasons that remain largely obscure, the Ontario government is seeking to implement these policies of deregulation by applying them to standards governing the training and qualifications of a diversity of workers and professionals that provide important and often vital services to our society. In our view, there is a pressing need for the province to step back from it's commitment to such an agenda until there can be a full and public consideration of its true purposes and effects.

If I was drafting a bill like this, I'd be having tradespeople—union, non-union, construction companies, people who do this every day—the people in the trenches would be coming to committee, which I hope will be more than one or two days, like the present government always does; it should be at least a week to discuss a major bill like this that's going to affect hundreds of thousands of professionals and tradespeople in our country. They should take the time, and also take the time to listen to people who know the trade.

Some of us have been in it for over 30 years and might have some good suggestions for the government in committee. But unfortunately, when I go to committee, half of them from the government side don't read the bill, they don't look at it and they vote whatever they're told to vote, which is terrible, because there are a lot of good suggestions that come from the official opposition and the third party that could make this bill stronger and a lot better.

I know that my Bill 6, which was good for the people of Ontario—not only did they not read it, they just went through the motions and voted against it and didn't even take the time—absolutely terrible. I think that if people really knew how much involvement their representatives have in these committees when there's a majority government, they'd be disgusted.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: To the member from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek: I listened to you very carefully when you spoke on this bill and I think you agree with the majority of the concept of the bill. I know you talk about the criteria and the standards. Of course this bill is not asking to lower the standards for the people who come to the province of Ontario. We're talking about eliminating all unnecessary barriers facing many skilled workers who come from different provinces. This is what we're talking about.

Also, yesterday I had the chance to speak on this bill, and when I talk about people who come from different nations with different skills and professions, I never said, and I will never say in the future, that we should lower the standards, because it's very important for us as the province of Ontario, as the people of this province, to make sure that all the standards stay in place in this province.

The most important thing is that when people move from Alberta or British Columbia, in terms of immigration levels, they have no issue. They can move any time; they can go and come back and live in Ontario. If somebody graduated from British Columbia with a certain degree, it's shameful to have them in the province of Ontario—even though they have the same standards and the same qualifications—and not be able to use his or her qualifications in this province because they have graduated from a different province.

I think this bill talks about creating some kind of mobility and flexibility in the system, not by lowering the standards, but by eliminating all unnecessary barriers facing the people of this great nation.

Everyone around this province is talking about the shortage of skilled workers in Ontario. Why not? Since we have a lot in this nation, we can share the wealth, we can share the knowledge and we can share the experience, on one condition: if they have the same qualifications and they have the same criteria which are required in the province of Ontario in order to work in this province. That's what we are talking about, and hopefully when this bill goes to the committee, we'll see a lot of recommendations from the opposition and hopefully we'll listen to them too.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I had the opportunity to listen intently to my colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, and I think he raises a number of points which people across Ontario should be considering very carefully. There are at least a few legal opinions that have been written which analyze not only this bill but analyze some of the rhetoric which lies beneath this bill. My colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has correctly referred to those legal opinions.

What this bill intends to do is to begin the rush to the lowest common denominator; to, in effect, lower the standards for apprenticeships, lower the standards for training of tradespeople and lower the health and safety standards. In effect, we don't think this is good for Ontario workers. We don't believe this will be good for the public of Ontario and we don't believe it will be good for the economy of Ontario.

I think the member was quite correct to point out the fiasco that happened in Cornwall. The McGuinty Liberals boast about a new hospital, but the workers who work in Cornwall and who pay taxes in Cornwall ostensibly had to watch while that structure was built by someone who really had no stake in the community. That's an example of where this is taking us. People who live and work in Ontario, people who contribute to the community and who pay taxes in Ontario ought to be able to count on something—not a race to the bottom, a race to the lowest common denominator.

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

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I'm very pleased to comment on this bill. It's interesting to note that the provincial and federal governments have been working on this whole issue of labour mobility in Canada since 1994. I really take exception to calling this simply rhetoric. I remember when I was going door-to-door in 2003 and knocked on a door and ran into a mother who was very distraught. Her son had gone to McGill—not an unusual thing to do in Ontario, to go to McGill. He had applied not just on his undergrad but he had applied to go to medical school.

He was going to medical school and was about to graduate and realized where this was all leading: He would be licensed to practise medicine in Quebec, and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario wasn't going to accept that he could practise medicine in Ontario. I can't imagine anything sillier than a doctor who has been educated at McGill being rejected for practice in Ontario.

This bill will fix this. It will say that if you have a legitimate qualification in another province—it could be anything from a doctor to a carpenter; whatever it is that requires regulation or some sort of certification—you can transfer your skills from province to province. There is an exception clause, which we don't expect will be used a lot, but where there are clearly very wide gaps in qualifications, a province can register those gaps. What this does is give Ontario workers the ability to work elsewhere and workers from other places to work in Ontario, and that's a very good thing.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Hamilton East—Stoney Creek has up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Paul Miller: All I can say is that I've listened to my colleagues and I'm sure they're trying their best to understand the bill and to make sense of it. But if you spend most of your life in the trades and crafts, as I have with two trades, I think maybe walking in someone else's shoes applies here. Maybe we have some good suggestions.

With all due respect, people who have never used a hammer or saw can try to dissect this and try to understand it, but to live it, to work it for many years, to deal with the people in the trades and the construction groups gives you an insight and understanding of how they feel and what they'd like to see.

These people have come forward to us to tell us what they'd like to see. I'm not sure that the government took the time to talk to some of these people who have such good insight into these types of bills. In the future, when they draft bills, they might want to take under consideration talking to the people who really know what's going on.

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

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Ça me fait un grand plaisir de pouvoir participer au débat ce matin.

Il faut se rappeler que les premiers ministres se sont rencontrés pour discuter de la main-d'œuvre canadienne. Je dis bien « canadienne » parce que je suis, en premier lieu, Canadien, je suis Ontarien et je suis un Franco-Ontarien. Laissez-moi vous dire que c'est un projet de loi qui touche très bien toutes les provinces de ce grand pays, mais surtout les communautés qui longent la frontière des provinces du Québec et du Manitoba.

Je me rappelle qu'en 1996, j'ai déposé un projet de loi concernant la main-d'œuvre de la construction, la mobilité des travailleurs de la construction. Ça nous a pris 10 ans. Le 2 juin 2006, nous sommes finalement venus à une entente avec la province du Québec afin de pouvoir faciliter l'accès aux chantiers de la construction au Québec. Nous nous rappelons que les résidents du Québec avaient accès à l'Ontario, mais nous avions des restrictions pour se joindre au marché de la construction du Québec. Il faut se rappeler qu'au-delà de 10 000 travailleurs de la province du Québec venaient travailler en Ontario, mais nous avions environ 400 Ontariens au Québec.

Nous sommes venus à une entente le 2 juin 2006 lors d'une présentation avec le premier ministre Jean Charest et notre premier ministre, qui a travaillé très fort afin de résoudre ce problème. Du temps, nous avions comme ministre du Travail de l'Ontario l'honorable Steve Peters, qui est aujourd'hui le Président de la Chambre. Nous avons conclu des ententes qui ont pu vraiment satisfaire aux gens de la construction.

Mais aujourd'hui, nous voyons que nous devrions maintenant regarder à la grandeur du pays. Après tout, comme j'ai dit, nous sommes tous Canadiens. Pourquoi aurions-nous des restrictions pour aller d'une province à l'autre pour travailler?

La fin de semaine dernière, avec mon collègue Dave Levac—nous avions aussi Peter Shurman, Bob Bailey, France Gélinas et Steve Peters—nous avons discuté, à la réunion de l'APOQ, l'Assemblée parlementaire Ontario-Québec, des points frontaliers. Laissez-moi vous dire que les discussions étaient très, très bonnes et je suis convaincu que nous allons avoir des suivis.

Mais laissez-moi vous dire que pour nous, les communautés longeant la frontière du Québec et aussi celle du Manitoba, nous avons plusieurs domaines. Ce document ici nous réfère à 60 métiers et professions dont nous aurons maintenant la mobilité d'une province à l'autre à travers le pays. Je sais qu'à date, seulement deux autres provinces ont déposé des projets de loi afin de venir à une entente avec toutes les autres provinces pour que nous puissions travailler n'importe où au Canada. Aujourd'hui nous avons la Colombie-Britannique qui a déposé un projet de loi le 12 mars 2009 et ensuite le Manitoba, qui a déposé un projet de loi le 21 avril.

Les choses vont très bien, mais nous, étant la première province du Canada—je suis fier de dire que je suis Ontarien—devons démontrer du vouloir. Et c'est pour ça qu'aujourd'hui on arrive avec ce projet de loi qui va bénéficier à tous les Ontariens aussi bien qu'aux Canadiens d'autres provinces. C'est très, très important.

Oui, le 2 juin nous avons signé cette entente. Nous rappelons aussi que le 10 septembre dernier, nous avons eu une rencontre ici dans l'édifice de l'Assemblée législative avec une

partie du cabinet du Québec et avec les membres du cabinet de l'Ontario pour discuter de la main-d'œuvre et aussi de l'échange de services.

Lorsqu'on est porté à blâmer les dépenses qui sont survenus pour le projet « eHealth », dont le vrai nom est les dossiers santé électroniques, laissez-moi vous dire que je suis un qui en a bénéficié à date, parce que mon dossier médical est déjà informatisé. Je l'ai appris lorsque je me suis rendu chez mon médecin. L'avantage de ça est, lorsque je veux demander à mon médecin de faciliter une chirurgie plus rapide—parfois nous avons des listes d'attente—il va communiquer avec un médecin du Québec sans difficulté. Nous venons à une entente.

Cela survient très, très souvent avec les gens de ce que j'appelle souvent le « Far East », les régions de Hawkesbury, Sainte-Anne-de-Prescott. Je leur dis : « Pourquoi ne pas communiquer avec votre médecin afin d'avoir accès à un hôpital à Montréal, qui est à la porte de notre frontière? » Le tout fonctionne à merveille. Très souvent, mes commettants vont au Québec.

Maintenant, la construction, comme j'ai dit, se déroule très bien, mais nous avons d'autres difficultés qui longent vraiment les frontières lorsqu'arrive le temps de signaler 911. J'ai ici une lettre du ministre Rick Bartolucci qui est parvenue à l'honorable Jacques Dupuis, ministre de la Sécurité publique du Québec, concernant un problème qui survient très souvent aux frontières des autres provinces. Je vais vous donner un cas très simple. Le 4 août 2008, un accident entre une motocyclette et une auto est survenu dans ma région à Wendover au pont de Jessups Falls.

Le passant a pris son téléphone cellulaire et a signalé 911; on a répondu à Montebello. Lorsque l'appel est entré à Montebello, ils ont dit : « La route régionale 17 n'est pas dans notre région. Voulez-vous appeler 677? » Ça ne fonctionne pas avec un téléphone cellulaire.

La jeune dame est décédée. Je ne dois pas dire que c'est dû au fait qu'on a eu de la difficulté à rejoindre quelqu'un, mais c'est quelque chose qu'on doit vraiment regarder afin de faciliter les discussions avec les autres provinces. La même chose survient le long des frontières du Manitoba.

Mais une autre chose aussi, c'est que lorsque nous utilisons le 911 ou notre téléphone cellulaire dans la région de Cornwall pour appeler à Toronto, l'appel passe par les États-Unis. C'est donc quelque chose qu'il faut regarder à l'intérieur de notre pays en premier lieu.

En fin de semaine, nous avons discuté de points très, très importants qui affectent la province. Nous perdons au-delà d'un milliard de dollars de revenue de taxe sur le tabac par année. Je regarde les statistiques qui nous ont été fournies à Québec, et puis je dois dire qu'en 1991, d'après la GRC, les pertes ontariennes étaient de l'ordre de 419 $ millions. Mais laissez-moi vous dire qu'aujourd'hui, avec cette entente, nous pouvons continuer à poursuivre des démarches pour des arrestations en travaillant aussi bien avec la Sûreté provinciale du Québec et la Police provinciale de l'Ontario et la Gendarmerie royale du Canada.

Actuellement, comme j'ai déjà expliqué—je disais à Point-au-Chêne; c'est plutôt Pointe Fortune. Dans ma région, le long des frontières, lorsque la police veut poursuivre une enquête, elle doit arrêter aux lignes. Comme les policiers me disaient, « Lorsque je traverse le pont du Long-Sault à Hawkesbury, je devrais jeter mon arme à la rivière. » Puis j'ai des maisons, vraiment, qui sont sur les frontières, telles que celles du Pointe Fortune et Chute-à-Blondeau; la personne couche au Québec et prend son repas en Ontario. J'ai été visité après en avoir discuté quelques semaines passées, et il y avait un autre endroit qui était dans le bout de Saint-Eugène qui est semblable.

On parle de sécurité, mais aujourd'hui lorsqu'on regarde tous les métiers ou les professions qui vont pouvoir bénéficier, j'ai trouvé cela très, très intéressant. Tout d'abord, la

partie 1, l'interprétation, qui est très important—je pourrais appeler cela un projet de loi omnibus—couvre 60 différents métiers et professions. Je ne vais en nommer que quelques-uns : je regarde la loi intitulée « Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario Act »; nous avons the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering—that is a very important trade—and the Ontario Building Officials Association Act, just to name a few. There are 60 of them in there, and I believe it's a good start.

As I said, that came out of a meeting when all the Premiers met a few months ago to discuss this very important issue. Today, this is exactly what we are doing, and we have to congratulate Premier Dalton McGuinty for having asked the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to come up with Bill 175, which will be a great help for all Ontarians and for all Canadians.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to add comments to the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. Unfortunately, I don't speak French, so I missed most of what he was talking about, but we are certainly interested in Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act.

In theory, our party is in favour of labour mobility. I think this is the kind of bill where there are a lot of different groups out there that will have an interest in it. So far, to be honest, we haven't heard too much from any of them, although I had a meeting with the certified general accountants the other day, who also said they're in favour of labour mobility, but mentioned that they're excluded in this bill; there's some provision that excludes them in the bill. So they weren't really very happy about that.

I also note that historically, Ontario has probably had the most challenges with labour mobility between Ontario and Quebec, where often Quebec restricts our labour from working in the province of Quebec,

whereas we've—most of the time—had fairly open doors. So this bill does not affect Quebec, as far as I understand, and I would say that's certainly a problem.

But this is a bill that definitely would benefit from committee hearings, so we will look forward to extensive committee hearings. I hope it's publicized in a way that all those who would be interested in making comments and suggesting improvements or changes to it will have an opportunity to do so. I shall look forward to that.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I listened intently to the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, and the problem is, there are already rules in place. For instance, let's take the nursing profession: If I'm not mistaken, they come up to Canada on a regular basis recruiting our nurses and doctors to go to the States. Their qualifications are more than welcome in the United States and anywhere else in the world.

It's not about whether it's mobile or not; it's about the qualifications. If someone is practising a trade or profession in Nova Scotia—and their standards are lower than ours—and they come to the province, the province simply is saying, "Raise those standards so that person can be competent in the province of Ontario." If our standards are the highest in Canada, so be it. That's better for the public, it's better for safety, and it's better for people in general.

I fail to see the relationship between the medical profession and this bill. If you are a qualified doctor in Canada, you can practise anywhere in Canada. If you come from another country and you may fall short in one area, you can be trained up to the level in a local hospital to get that thing that you need.

The thing is, it has been protectionism. It has been the old boys' clubs that have stopped people being hired. It's not about qualifications; it's about the old boys' clubs in every profession protecting their turf and territory, and that's why some of these people from foreign countries and other provinces have trouble getting in.

So with all due respect, there are a lot of things that if you make—I'm a welder in Ontario and I can weld anywhere in Canada. So I don't understand what the barriers are that they say are so big. They're not so big. It's because we have a high standard in Ontario, and when people come here, we expect them to be able to meet that standard. And that's basically, I think, a good thing.

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

Mrs. Maria Van Bommel: I want to also weigh in on this discussion, and I want to first of all commend the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. He certainly is very familiar with the issues that have been very predominant in the construction industry, especially as mobility of labour goes from Quebec to Ontario and back.

It's ironic in many ways that we have freer movement of labour—and of many things—internationally than we have interprovincially. That's where the agreement on interprovincial trade and internal trade is so important, because these are issues that we haven't been able to wrestle to the ground yet. It certainly has required of many people a bit of research to find out if they're able to practise their trade in a different province.

As was pointed out earlier, in some cases even a doctor moving interprovincially has to go past the College of Physicians and Surgeons in order to do that. I know that, because as a former chair of a hospital board, we had recruited a doctor from Newfoundland. We did finally get him into Ontario, but the board had to wait while that doctor went through the college to be able to qualify to practise in Ontario.

It made absolutely no sense. We had a doctor shortage in Strathroy; we needed the doctor to come. He was Canadian, he was trained in Canada and yet we still had to get him through the whole issue of moving interprovincially in order to have him to come to the community. It was crazy, because we could have gotten a foreign-trained doctor easier than we could get a doctor from another province.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I just want to make sure that everybody has a chance to read Bill 175; it consists of 37 pages. But let me tell you that accountants are part of it.

Section 8 covers the accountants of Ontario.

There's another point that is very important for border communities, like in my case and also on the Manitoba-Ontario border. We have doctors and nurses practising on both sides, and we know the experience we have gone through. The doctors like to come to work in Ontario, and since 2005, over 1,900 new doctors have received licences in Ontario and we have created 852 spaces in university.

Let me tell you also that item 25 would definitely be of interest to my dear friend from Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, because in there they even recognize musicians and instructors in music—we know that our member from that sector is a good musician. So it does cover a lot of areas, and we will benefit from this. Let's hope that the three parties will recognize the work that has been done through negotiations.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm pleased to be able to take

part in this debate, coming from a border community as I do, and representing a constituency that everywhere borders the province of Manitoba.

People who live in the constituency of Kenora—Rainy River have much experience with what this bill purports to be about.

I want to say to all those tradespeople who used to work in the paper mill in Kenora and the paper mill in Dryden and the sawmill in Kenora and the sawmill in Sioux Lookout and the sawmill in Ear Falls; and to all those people who used to work on the nine paper machines in Thunder Bay that are now closed down, and who used to work at the pulp mill in Thunder Bay that is now closed down, and who used to work on the Red Rock paper machines—two of them are now closed down—and the plywood mill in Nipigon and the waferboard mill in Longlac and the particleboard mill in Longlac and the sawmill in Longlac and the sawmill in Nakina and the two pulp mills in Terrace Bay and the pulp mill in Marathon and the sawmill in Dubreuilville—all of you who are now working in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia—this government wants you to believe that you're not doing that.

I see you just about every weekend, either in the airport in Thunder Bay or the airport in Winnipeg, getting ready to fly off to Saskatoon or Calgary or Edmonton or Fort McMurray or Fort St. John, British Columbia. This government wants you to believe that that's not happening, that there are these huge barriers to interprovincial employment and you're not actually working in Manitoba, you're not actually working in Saskatchewan, you're not actually working in Alberta and you're not actually working in British Columbia. Honestly, what this government says from time to time really does test the limits of reality.

But it's not just those people who are all working outside Ontario. All those nurses who went to Red River College in Winnipeg, who went to the University of Manitoba in Winnipeg, who went to the University of Winnipeg in Winnipeg and went to Brandon University in Brandon, who are now working in Red Lake, in Kenora, in Rainy River, in Fort Frances, in Atikokan, in Sioux Lookout, in Dryden and in Thunder Bay—the McGuinty government wants you to believe that what you're doing is not real; it's not possible for you to be trained in Manitoba and come and work in Ontario.

All those nurses who were trained in Manitoba and worked in Kenora for a while and in Fort Frances for a while and in Dryden for a while and in Thunder Bay for a while and then went back to Manitoba to work—the McGuinty government wants you to believe that you're not real either; that that didn't happen. All those physicians who work at the hospital and at the health centre in Kenora and at the First Nations health centre and at the hospital and the clinic in Fort Frances and who work in Red Lake and in Dryden and in Sioux Lookout and in Thunder Bay—the McGuinty government wants you to believe that you're not real either; that this isn't happening.

All those electricians who are now getting ready to head up to northern Manitoba to work on the power projects there, and the cement workers, the steel and iron workers, the millwrights, machinists, welders and carpenters who are getting ready to head up to northern Manitoba to work on those very significant construction projects—the McGuinty Liberals want you to believe that what you're doing is not real; it ain't happening.

Labour mobility exists incredibly in Canada. It exists. And do you know what? It has existed for a long time.

If the McGuinty Liberals choose to ignore the reality of this in Ontario, take a vacation in Newfoundland and talk to all the Newfoundlanders who do three weeks in Fort McMurray and two weeks back to Newfoundland, who do three weeks in Edmonton and back to Newfoundland, who do three weeks in the gas fields in northern BC and back to Newfoundland, who do three weeks in Yellowknife or elsewhere in the mining developments in the Northwest Territories and then back to Newfoundland.

But you don't have to even go to Newfoundland. You can go to Windsor, where the mayor, just six short months ago, was asking WestJet to implement a direct flight from Windsor, Ontario, to Fort McMurray, Alberta, so that all those people who have been laid off in the car plants in Windsor could get a direct flight to Fort McMurray, work there and yet retain their residence in Windsor. The McGuinty Liberals want you to believe that that's not happening either. But all these things are happening. They happen every day, they happen every week, they happen every month and they've been happening every year for a long, long time.

Are there differences in certification? Yes, there are. Any person going to trade school in Ontario knows that you can apply for a provincial ticket and you can apply for an interprovincial ticket. If all you want to do is work in Ontario, you can complete the apprenticeship and your work at the community college and apply for a provincial certificate. But if you want to work in Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, then you know up front that you want to qualify for the interprovincial ticket.

My nephew graduated from community college just a couple of years ago, completed his apprenticeship in Ontario, wrote his exam for his provincial ticket and then wrote his exam for his interprovincial ticket. Two weeks later, he got a call from a plumbing contractor in Whistler, BC, who said, "People who own a shed want to turn it into a one-bedroom apartment in preparation for the Olympics. People who own a garage, a basement, an attic all want to put in a shower and a toilet and turn it into a one-bedroom apartment. Come out to Whistler, and I promise you that you'll work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. You can pay off your Ontario student loan."

He had no trouble going to British Columbia. He recognized that he had to get his interprovincial ticket, and he wrote that as he was going through the apprenticeship program. But the McGuinty Liberals want you to believe that's not happening. It is happening. It happens every day, every week, every month, every year, and has been for a number of years.

So what is this really all about? What it's really all about is this: It's really not about labour mobility; it is about eroding things like health and safety standards, it's about eroding things like labour standards and it's about eroding things like training standards. It's about the race to the bottom. What this kind of legislation does is—it doesn't say it, but the effect is immediately to create a race to the bottom.

One of the problems we've got in Ontario—this government should be embarrassed to bring this legislation forth at this time—is we've had a number of private colleges out there handing out bogus diplomas and bogus training certificates. If this government can't regulate that in Ontario—I love the excuse of the minister. It's the regular McGuinty excuse whenever they get caught doing something: "I saw nothing, I heard nothing, I knew nothing, and I wasn't smart enough to ask any questions," when bogus diplomas, bogus training certificates were being handed out by fly-by-night community colleges and fly-by-night training organizations.

I say to the McGuinty Liberals, if you aren't awake enough at the switch to stop this kind of bogus activity in Ontario, how do you think you're going to stop it if somebody presents with a certificate or diploma from a private institution somewhere else that isn't regulated in that other province? How are you going to do it? Are you going to say once again, "We saw nothing, we heard nothing, we knew nothing and we weren't smart enough to ask any questions"? Is that what's going to happen?

These requirements that we have in place—health and safety requirements—didn't just appear out of the sky one day. We have them because people died in workplaces, because people were seriously injured. We have them because there were coroners' reports that said over and over again that you must put these requirements in place to protect not only the health and safety of workers but protect the health and safety of the public.

There are provinces in this country, I regret to say, where the attitude toward early childhood education is, "You don't need much training"; they use words like, "Early childhood education is just glorified babysitting." So you have, unfortunately, people getting certificates in early childhood education that have very little to them in substance.

Thankfully, in Ontario, we have started to recognize—although we still have too many unregulated child care centres in this province—that early childhood education matters, it counts, and that early childhood educators should have a certain level of training, education, experience and certification.

This legislation would create a huge hole in that. Somebody could present with a certificate from I-don't-know-what training institute, with very little in the way of course substance or course content or very little in terms of experience or training, and say, "Well, I'm qualified."

I say again: If the McGuinty Liberals can't even properly regulate bogus training in this province, where students were ripped off to the tune of several thousand dollars and got a certificate that was meaningless, with this legislation in place, what are you going to do with somebody who presents a certificate from a training body that you've never heard of in another province and that you have no control over, but who says, "I'm licensed, I've got a certificate for early childhood education"?

This is not about protecting the public; this is not about labour mobility; this is about promoting the race to the bottom, and there are powerful forces out there who want to see a race to the bottom. They want to see a race to the bottom in environmental standards, they want to see a race to the bottom in health and safety standards, they want to see a race to the bottom in minimum wage and they want to see a race to the bottom in labour standards. They think this kind of deregulation is the way to heaven.

In fact, I can refer you to many of George Bush's speeches over the last eight years where he basically said that if we deregulate and if we basically open it up, things will be wonderful. That's what he did with the US financial system: deregulate it and basically allow anybody to offer anything without any proof of the validity and the substance—and he said it would be heaven.

I want to ask you: Do you think that the state of the American economy today is heaven? Ask all of those pensioners, all of those workers, all of those investors who put their money into this totally deregulated race-to-the-bottom system that was created in the United States. Ask them if they're better off today. Ask them if that system works.

Ask them if it works that somebody can offer a financial product from country X and market it in country Y as being a grade A security because you are not allowed to question what went on in the other jurisdiction; you're not allowed to ask questions about the substance or the integrity. Ask them if that has led to honesty, openness, transparency and protection of the public. Ask them. No, you're afraid to ask them because you know the answer.

You know the answer: It was and continues to be a financial disaster that has affected hundreds of millions of people around the world, where all sorts of illegal, shady conduct went on.

But that's what's happening here, I say to you, because I see it all the time: a student from Ontario from a high school in my riding goes to the University of Manitoba, gets a medical degree, passes the requirements and is allowed to come back to Ontario and practise medicine. Why? Because they've met the Canadian standard. All kinds of times, nurses who grew up in the north end of Winnipeg in poor communities go to Red River College in Winnipeg. They complete the diploma; they complete the practicum; they are recognized as nurses in Manitoba. They come to hospitals and community agencies in Ontario and they work. Why? Because they've met the standard that all of us in Canada recognize.

Don't try to pass off this which is in the interest of those people who want to deregulate the economy, who want to take away from municipalities the capacity to promote local economic development—don't try to pass this off as labour mobility. Labour mobility is incredible in Canada, and to the extent that there have been problems, most of those have been ironed out in the last 10 years. This is about creating the same kind of deregulated environment for investment and for those who want to see the race to the bottom that we just saw happen in the United States. Don't try to pass it off as anything else.

Steven Shrybman, who is a pretty good lawyer, has written a legal opinion. He has looked at this bill, and I just want to conclude some of the things that he says:

"There is no demonstrable rationale or need for Bill 175 as virtually all significant labour mobility issues have been successfully addressed over recent years through interprovincial co-operation and other voluntary initiatives such as the red seal program for skilled trades.

"Requiring regulators to recognize occupational certificates given in other provinces with more modest standards will create pressure for them to reduce their own standards to a lower common denominator." George Bush—deregulate; open it up; let it all go to the lowest common denominator—the race to the bottom. And what happens? Americans will tell you what happens. "The requirement for regulatory authorities to harmonize their standards with those of other jurisdictions will add to this pressure", the pressure to lower standards.

"Bill 175 has and will continue to impose significant resource demands on Ontario ministries and regulatory authorities that must now make informed judgments about the efficacy of occupational certification standards and practices in other provinces and justify any higher-standard requirements they wish to maintain and apply to all those seeking occupational certifications in Ontario."

Pressure to lower standards: health and safety standards, environmental standards, labour standards—all those things that I think a civilized society would want to promote and sustain.

"Under Bill 175, municipalities and regulatory authorities such as the college of nurses and the association of early childhood educators are exposed to monetary sanctions as high as $5 million" when they do reject some individual or some applicant who they believe has substandard certification—again, the pressure for the race to the bottom.

"Bill 175 will do nothing to enhance the competence, skill, or integrity of Ontario tradespersons and professionals and is in fact likely to have the opposite effect. By ensuring certifications to those trained to a lower standard, Bill 175 will unnecessarily put at risk public safety and the health and well-being of Ontarians. The mobility scheme that would be established by the bill is also likely to undermine the quality of a myriad of services offered by teachers, health care professionals, accountants, taxi drivers, and" all kinds of "other skilled workers and professionals."

I wonder if the government has any legal analyses, a legal opinion, to support the nonsense that it has been saying about labour mobility in Ontario, labour mobility in Canada, labour mobility that exists every day, every week, every month and has existed for many years.

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

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It's a pleasure to join the debate and to pass comment on the remarks we've just heard from the member from Kenora—Rainy River. Most of the remarks that I heard, while perhaps interesting and entertaining, were completely irrelevant to the purpose of this bill.

The intent of this bill, as those members of the House who have read the bill and understand the bill will know, will affect about 80 regulatory authorities and about 300 occupations. Some of the people who will be affected in a positive way under this bill will be nurses, teachers, architects, engineers, mechanics and many of the skilled trades.

The intent of this bill is to give greater freedoms to the people in our province and other provinces to be able to practise their skill or profession in other areas of the country.

When you talk about creating sinister scenarios, lower standards and risk to the public—they're completely unsubstantiated. What is substantiated is that by the passage of this bill and this legislation, Ontario will become a much more competitive economy, our country will be able to compete in a much more competitive way, and that is good for the working people of this province and this country.

We need to get back to the discussions that would actually perhaps improve this bill. If there are things that could be done to improve this bill, I think we'd be all ears for that.

Providing full labour mobility for these professions and trades we're talking about today is simply going to strengthen the competitiveness and productivity of our province. It's going to help industries address what we certainly see today, and that is changing labour market conditions.

To go off on a tangent, I think, does not do justice to the bill. I think there is obviously some room for debate on the bill, but to use scaremongering tactics on a bill like this is completely unnecessary. I'd ask all members of the House to keep that in mind and support the bill when the time comes.

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

Mr. Norm Miller: I'm pleased to make some comments on the speech from the member from Kenora—Rainy River on Bill 175, the Ontario Labour Mobility Act, 2009. Certainly, he brought up some issues to do with the north and the huge loss of jobs in the forestry sector that we've seen in the last number of years. Of course, we've also seen a huge loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the province of Ontario. This bill is about labour mobility. Unfortunately, what we've seen in recent years is people moving out of the province in search of jobs, and it has just been getting worse.

Of course, we heard last week that the government is on the path for a record deficit of $25 billion. They're accumulating $2.8 million in new debt every single hour of the day. To this point, the McGuinty government has added $13,500 per household of debt for the families in the province of Ontario.

We see lots of other problems that are restricting industry and growth in this province. In terms of this particular bill, the member talked about a Canadian standard—not in a positive way. I would say that our party is in favour, in theory, of labour mobility, and there's certainly some sense to having a Canadian standard, as long as that standard is set at a high enough standard that makes sense, so that you can then work anywhere in the country.

As I previously mentioned, this is a piece of legislation that a lot of people will have comments on. We will be looking for extensive public hearings so that those people that are interested will have an opportunity to make comment to the bill and to improve the bill, and we shall look forward to that.

But there's no doubt that the problem we have in this province right now is people moving out of the province in search of work. We need to create those opportunities here in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I'd like to commend the member from Kenora—Rainy River for his factual—actually, reality; what's going on out there. I don't believe the government is really watching.

It really stunned me what the member from Oakville was saying about nurses. My youngest is graduating in four months from nursing and already the recruiters are circling the colleges and universities to recruit nurses for the States, for Texas, for all over Canada. I don't know what you're talking about, that mobility isn't there already. Twenty-five years ago, I was recruited to go to Labrador City in Labrador to be a welder in an iron ore mill, but I didn't take it. That was 25 years ago. There's no mobility? I don't know what they're talking about. There's been mobility for decades.

Do you know that our doctors, nurses and welders in Ontario have high standards that are in demand all over the world? They're in demand in the States. They come up from Texas to recruit us, from Louisiana to recruit us. If that isn't mobility, I don't know what is; and that's been there for 30, 40 years.

This is just a bill that they're bringing forward to keep some of their supporters quiet. That's all this is. It's got nothing to do with what has been going on. They've had their heads in the sand for 40 years because, I'll tell you, mobility has been around for a long, long time. It always will be and always has been. I don't really know what this is all about.

Laughter.

Mr. Paul Miller: The member from Rainy River is absolutely correct. If you want to lower the standards—laugh and lower the standards—go ahead, because that's where you're headed. You're on a race to the bottom to lower the standards for North America. Thank you very much, McGuinty government.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I just want to reply. I listened carefully to the comments from the member from Kenora—Rainy River and did have the opportunity in August to visit Sandy Lake, Moose Factory, Moosonee and Sioux Lookout.

This issue was brought to my attention, certainly in detail, by my colleague the member from Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. The example that he used with regard to a problem was when the Museum of Civilization was built in Hull. He brought to my attention, in detail, the fact that there were all these skilled people that were living in eastern Ontario who were effectively barred from working on major federal government projects that were in the province of Quebec—part of the national capital region, but on the province of Quebec side. Mr.

Lalonde clearly documented electricians, design people and other skilled trades that were indeed prohibited from working on these major projects, particularly in Hull, Quebec. He was eloquent this morning when he made his comments on the necessity of why the provisions of this legislation, Bill 175, would allow for many of those skilled individuals, particularly in his part of Ontario, to make sure that they would get a fair chance for an opportunity to work, particularly in the province of Quebec.

I essentially agree with the member from Kenora—Rainy River. I know that GE in Peterborough, over the years, have dispatched many of their people working in projects when they were setting up hydro-electric generation plants in British Columbia, Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba and other areas. They would certainly take their skills to do a lot of these set-up projects that would last for many months. But Mr. Lalonde clearly demonstrated where this legislation would help in his particular—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you.

The honourable member from Kenora—Rainy River has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I do want to respond, and I want to say to the member from Peterborough, that the reality is that Quebec, for good reasons, has chosen to establish their construction industry, such that there is in Quebec a drive towards unionization, training, and health and safety standards for their construction industry. If what you're suggesting is that you want to make it easier for non-unionized firms in the construction industry to operate, then I suggest that the McGuinty Liberals come out and say that.

If that's what this is really about, to pave the way for non-unionization, for non-unionized construction workers and for non-unionized construction firms, then have the honesty to say that.

I ask the question: Do the McGuinty Liberals have a legal analysis, a legal opinion, to support their position? I don't think they do. I want to get from Liberal members: What is the motivation for this? Because there is absolutely no evidence that labour mobility is a problem. Canada is an open and free country. Ontario is an open and free province. People are free to move and live wherever they want in this country to work, and they do it all the time. Labour mobility is not the issue.

What the issue is is this: We currently have a Prime Minister who believes, ideologically, in deregulation—and he has been very clear in that—and in the Agreement on Internal Trade. That agreement reflects an ideological commitment by the Harper government to reduce the role of government in regulating the economy. The question is, why are the McGuinty Liberals signed on to this full force?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1018 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Joe Dickson: Today is page captain Rebecca Briell's day here in the Legislature. Rebecca is from Lester B. Pearson Public School in our riding of Ajax—Pickering. Lester B. Pearson is in Ajax.

Please join me in welcoming her parents, Julian and Sandra, and grandparents Gary and Anna to the Legislature today. Of course, Rebecca's beautiful sister is here with them.

Mrs. Laura Albanese: I'm very pleased to welcome to Queen's Park an outstanding constituent of York South—Weston, Mark DeMontis, who is here today in the company of Bonnie Taylor.

Mark is the founder of Courage Canada, and he has skated all the way from Toronto to Vancouver to raise funds for blind youth. He has just returned to Toronto. Please join me in welcoming him to Queen's Park.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: I'd like to welcome one of our fine interns—one of 10 interns we have—in the members' gallery. It's Maegan Baird. She is from Welland, Ontario, and a graduate of McMaster University.

Let me tell you, she is the fourth intern that I'm getting, and we have the best.

Hon. John Milloy: I know all members will want to join me in welcoming Nathan Coschi and Shirley Halme, from my community, who are in the gallery today to join us at Queen's Park.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On behalf of the member from Bramalea—Gore—Malton and page Timothy Choi, we'd like to welcome his mother, Samantha, his father, Brian, his grandmother Wha Sook Choi and his grandfather Jason Choi to the public galleries today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is to the finance minister. Yesterday, Minister Duncan said the sole-source deal he handed to H.H. Angus to operate the Windsor Energy Centre was "a temporary arrangement ... to facilitate keeping the lights on."

I've looked at the Premier's July 20 news release and it doesn't say when this government's pledge to end sole-source contracts may be set aside.

Has a list of excuses for breaking the Premier's word been made available to the public?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, there is a commercial dispute going on between the OLG and the private company involved. The matter is before the courts. It's inappropriate for me to comment on the details of that dispute beyond what I have said in the House before.

Again, this government is committed to openness, to transparency. We have changed the spending practices that governments over the years and across political parties have pursued in the context of how the government itself does business.

As I say, with respect to the energy centre at Casino Windsor, it is a matter before the courts. There is a dispute. We won an injunction, which allowed that centre to stay open. My understanding is, the arrangement which was done by the—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'm not asking about a commercial dispute. The news release issued by the Premier does not qualify the ban on untendered contracts. In fact, the very first highlight of the changes listed is, "All new Ontario government consulting contracts must follow a competitive hiring process, regardless of dollar value." But Minister Duncan and the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. have managed to sign off on at least two gigantic sole-source contracts since the Premier said there would be no more sole-source deals. Minister Duncan gave lame excuses in both instances. How many excuses are there, Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In terms of the situation that involved that specific contract, I do know that steps were taken well in advance of the new policy to provide for the emergency operation of that energy centre in the event that the legal dispute, which, as I say, is before the courts, got to a point where they would potentially not be producing the energy that was needed. It may in fact be that that was signed well in advance of the new policy as part of a response that would be dependent on actions that would be taken by the courts.

As the member opposite knows, OLG did win an injunction to keep—

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: When the new rules came in, Minister Takhar said, "Taxpayers deserve to know that their money is being spent properly. The new rules make ministries and agencies more transparent and accountable." He didn't say "some ministries and some agencies"; he said it applies to all ministries and agencies. He promised transparency and accountability. Perhaps integrity czar Takhar needs to have a little chat with Minister Duncan.

Minister, your conduct shows that you don't believe that the Premier's edict applies to you, but hopefully you still understand what transparency means. Just how many other sole-source deals have you handed out since the promise that these untendered contracts would stop?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Again, the contract in question was done prior to the new policy. It was done as part of a plan to ensure continuing operation. I'm sure the member would want the public to know that a competitive bid is now under way for the permanent operator of that facility.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS

Mr. Peter Shurman: Again to the Minister of Finance: Back when you made a big show of firing Kelly McDougald, you called the Windsor Energy Centre a boil to be lanced. It was constructed in a rush. You didn't bother to tell Ontarians they were on the hook for an additional $80 million for a project in your riding, and—this just in—we now find out the generators at the Windsor Energy Centre have never produced any power. It seems that you spent $80 million to build a giant air conditioner and that this is not a temporary arrangement to keep the lights on at all. Can you tell us, Minister: Does the Windsor Energy Centre work?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I would refer the member to public accounts, and I would say that in fact there were, and continue to be, challenges at OLG. I acknowledge that. We want to ensure that all of our crown agencies are operating at maximum efficiency. When things don't go as well as we would like, we take steps to ensure that the public trust is maintained.

The member will see in public accounts the disclosures of these various expenditures. They're there and they've been there. I think they were disclosed in 2006, I say to the member opposite. We have an interim board operating the OLG, and I am in the process of getting a permanent board to ensure that those important sources of revenue continue to operate.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: Maybe we can get a briefing on the Windsor Energy Centre, and the minister could attend.

What's the point of promising to stop untendered contracts if you're not going to do it? It looks like Minister Duncan couldn't wait to sidestep the rules. At the very time we were debating new legislation to support the McGuinty Liberals' promise, Dwight Duncan and OLG signed not one but two untendered contracts. The RFP drafts prove that what he said about needing to do the Casino Niagara deal with Bob Lopinski is wrong. The fact that the energy centre in Windsor hasn't even been commissioned proves that what he said about needing to do the $15,000-a-day deal with Angus is wrong.

How do you explain such a calamity of incompetence to taxpayers? Minister, why do all your excuses end up being wrong?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: In 1996, the then-government of the day signed a lease with Casino Niagara. There were three-month renewals when the lease expired, and there were a number of them signed between 2001 and 2002, similar to what we did, which the member has called—I apologize; I couldn't hear over the din. I think he talked about incompetence.

The signature on those three renewals was one Tim Hudak, and I think the member may not want to be casting such aspersions on the talents of his leader.

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

Mr. Peter Shurman: I would just like to recap the facts here. Minister Duncan—no one else—planned to spend $400 million on the casino expansion, and went over budget. He planned to spend $50 million for an energy centre and he went over budget. He has claimed that it was necessary to sole-source a contract to keep "the lights on"—your words—but the $80-million energy centre hasn't produced any power. You signed off on an untendered contract for no reason. You've made a mockery of the Premier's word that the McGuinty Liberals were done with these sole-source deals.

Signing off on sole-source contracts was the firing offence that led David Caplan to resign. What will you do, minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I believe that the government Mr. Hudak was part of signed those renewals at Casino Niagara on—I'm going to confirm the number—seven or eight separate occasions. Mr. Hudak himself was the signatory. They did so—

Interjections.

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

You have 10 seconds, minister.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: And so Mr. Hudak did in fact on three occasions sign those renewals. Unlike the member opposite, I thought that was the appropriate thing to do at the time. I thought Mr. Hudak acted appropriately, and we will continue to act appropriately on the file.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Health. Ontario families, particularly parents of young children, are very, very anxious about extremely long waits to get the H1N1 flu shots. They've been told to get their children immunized and to do it at the earliest opportunity, but when they try to do exactly that, the line-ups stretch endlessly. Dr. Allison McGeer of Toronto's Mount Sinai Hospital says, "We clearly did not think carefully enough about how to make the whole vaccine delivery system work."

What is the government's plan to provide immediate relief to families who are waiting hours and hours, even days, for flu shots?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for the question. I know that all members in this House are working together to make sure that we respond appropriately to the H1N1 pandemic. I want to tell the member that she does not need to wait for question period. Anytime you're interested in information, my office will make that available to you.

I'm a mom; I'm a grandma; I acknowledge the anxiety that parents are feeling, but I do want to reassure everyone in the province that we have ordered enough vaccine for everyone who needs it and wants it. We have now received 2.1 million doses of vaccine. Thousands of people have been vaccinated already. We're a week ahead of schedule. Mount Sinai Hospital alone has vaccinated 4,000 people. We're getting the vaccine out as quickly as possible.

I will continue in my supplementary.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I appreciate the minister's offer. In fact, part of question period is informing the broader public as well, which this government seems to have a bit of a problem with.

The situation will likely get worse, as we know, over the weekend and into next week. This morning, we're getting reports of long lineups at new clinics. New clinic locations are seeing very, very high demand. Some describe the scene at some of these locations as "chaotic and confusing."

How is the government tracking and reducing wait times at vaccination clinics currently? What is it going to do to reassure Ontarians that they will, in fact, be able to access the vaccinations in a timely way?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I am pleased that so many people have decided that they do want to take the vaccine, that they are taking their children to clinics.

Our local public health units across the province are responding in real time to the increased demand. They're implementing their plans to get the vaccinations into as many people as quickly as they possibly can.

As I said, we will have more than enough vaccine for everyone who needs it and wants it. The public health units are responding. They are increasing the number of clinics. They are expanding the hours the clinics are open.

I spoke to Dr. King late last night and I told her that if there was anything we could do to help get more people vaccinated more quickly, we were prepared to respond to that request.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: There's a domino effect here, and we're already beginning to see it. A cumbersome vaccination process will lead to higher rates of infection—and that's already putting an incredible strain on emergency rooms across the province. It has also taken a toll, as everyone knows, on the Telehealth phone hotline, where some callers are actually being made to wait up to seven hours to speak to qualified medical personnel.

What resources is the minister prepared to commit to ensure that worried Ontarians have quick access to H1N1 medical advice in person, as well as through the Telehealth network?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite is right; there has been a dramatic increase in the number of calls to Telehealth. In fact, they're experiencing five times higher than normal volume. We have responded. We have increased the number of nurses by over 400 hours to try to respond as quickly as we can. We're also training more people to try to ease that burden.

I do recommend to people, though, that they go to the website ontario.ca/flu. We have put on the website a self-evaluation tool, where people can go through a questionnaire and take the steps that are recommended on that website.

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Minister of Health. We see how important our health care system is when it is put to the test, like right now. We need to be spending every single health dollar wisely. Yesterday, at the public accounts committee, MPPs from the governing party voted to stop the auditor from looking into executive compensation in the health sector. Does this minister think that was appropriate?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: My understanding is that public accounts has invited members of the ministry and members of eHealth to return to public accounts so that they can continue to ask and answer the questions that members of this House have. I think that's the appropriate step to be taking, and I encourage members of the committee to ask the questions that their constituents would expect answers to.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Families in Ontario are starting to see health care cuts already: ER closures in Port Colborne and Fort Erie, plans to cut 37 nurses at the Sudbury Regional Hospital, and 69 beds and 79 staff gone at Quinte health centre. If people in these communities are being asked to make sacrifices, shouldn't we at least consider whether we've done all we can to curb executive salaries?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I have to take exception to the premise of the question. Services in health are not being cut in this province. In fact, we are significantly expanding health care coverage. Whether it's access to primary care, whether it's shorter wait times for important procedures, health care is significantly better now than it was when we took office in 2003. By any measure you can use, health care is better. We've increased spending. We've increased access to primary care. We've dramatically shortened wait times. Health care is significantly better than it has been since we were elected.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: It might work for the Liberal backbenchers, but it doesn't work for the people of Ontario. They know when their hospitals are closing, when their emergency wards are closing and when beds are closing in their communities.

This week more than ever, people are thinking about how important their health care system is to them. The Premier says that cuts are coming, but in communities across Ontario, the cuts are already here. People who are losing their emergency rooms and seeing nurses fired expect to see some balance from this government.

Why is the government unwilling to even consider some of the sky-high salaries of compensation with executives in our health care system?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The notion that health services are being reduced is simply erroneous. I would urge members of the public and members of this Legislature to actually go to the Ministry of Health website, where they can for themselves track the improvements we've made in wait times by procedure, by hospital. They can explore that website and they will see for themselves—they don't have to take it from me—how we have made targeted investments that have resulted in real improvements for health care for the people in this province.

ELECTRONIC HEALTH INFORMATION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is for the Minister of Health as well. Yesterday, at the public accounts committee, the members for Peterborough, Ottawa—Orléans, Timiskaming—Cochrane, Willowdale and Guelph voted to block Sarah Kramer and Dr. Alan Hudson from giving evidence about the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle. My question is this: Who ordered Jeff Leal, Phil McNeely, David Ramsay, David Zimmer and Liz Sandals to block Ms. Kramer and Dr. Hudson from coming forward to tell us what they know?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the earlier question, which seems quite similar to this one, members of the ministry, employees of the ministry and eHealth have been called before the committee. They will come; they will respond to all of the questions that are being asked by members of the Legislature. That's the right process. I know they will provide answers to the questions that members in this Legislature have.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: The vote by the McGuinty Liberals to block Sarah Kramer and Alan Hudson's evidence is proof that we need an independent public inquiry to get to the bottom of this billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle.

Ms. Kramer and Dr. Hudson are the most important witnesses as to what went wrong and which consultants benefited from their Liberal connections. The McGuinty Liberals must come clean. Why are they trying to silence the two people who know how these deals were done, by whom, and any information that should be given to the police?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said, I applaud the members of the public accounts committee for exploring this issue, but I also ask that they explore and actually read the Auditor General's report. If they were to actually read the report, they would see that we have made significant improvements. We have come a long, long way in getting eHealth on the road.

I am absolutely committed to continue with the plan to get eHealth records. It's critically important to the sustainability of our health care system as we move forward.

LAW ENFORCEMENT

Mr. Rosario Marchese: My question is to the Deputy Premier. Mr. Chen is a shopkeeper in downtown Toronto doing his best to run an honest business—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. We have a format where a member asks a question and a minister responds to a question. If two members have a question or want to debate an issue, take it outside.

The member from Trinity—Spadina.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: David Chen is a shopkeeper in downtown Toronto doing his best to run an honest business to support his family and to contribute to his community. Mr. Chen confronted a known shoplifter back in May. He and his two coworkers apprehended and detained the thief and waited for the police to come. The result: The thief gets a reduced sentence for testifying against Mr. Chen and Mr. Chen gets charged with committing a crime.

How do the charges against Mr. Chen serve the public interest?

Hon. George Smitherman: I'd have to say on this matter—which, of course, I've followed with significant interest in the media—that I have two very distinct disadvantages, beyond all of those others that are well-known. The first is that this matter is before the courts, and also that the minister who would be more familiar with the exact circumstances isn't available today. I will impress upon him that you've asked this question and ask him to endeavour to speak with you on whatever matters are appropriately discussed in the public domain, given the circumstances that it is before the courts.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Deputy Premier, I understand what you said, and I just wanted to tell you that Mr. Chen is here in the gallery with many of the small business folks that are here.

Interruption.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you, sir, for sitting down.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: He apprehended a well-known shoplifter, and most reasonable people believe that he did the right thing.

I have to tell you that I had a meeting on October 23 with a lot of the small business community in my riding—Scadding Court—and I have to add that the small business community was palpably angered and frustrated. Giving the thief a break while charging Mr. Chen has given rise to public outrage. Common sense must prevail.

The Attorney General has the power to instruct the prosecutors to use their discretion and to drop the charges against Mr. Chen. Will you or he at least consider that?

Hon. George Smitherman: It's certainly a privilege to have a representative cross-section of small business representatives alongside Mr. Chen here in the Legislature today.

I know that—

Interjection.

Hon. George Smitherman: You're unhelpful.

I know that the honourable member who has asked the question has also, in the past, been constrained by circumstances where a matter is before the courts. I just want to tell him that I will, as he has asked, take the matter up with the Attorney General, who I'm sure will be available to have further conversation with you on this important matter that has touched many of us very, very emotionally, as we witness the hard efforts that small business people are involved in every single day, something that I had the privilege of doing in this city for 10 years.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. Minister, residents of Hamilton are hearing the media reports about delays at H1N1 clinics set up by public health units, and I know that many members of this House, like me, are hearing first-hand from our constituents who have had some difficulty accessing clinics.

Minister, I know that families are anxious about when they can take their families to get vaccinated, but they don't want to wait in lines, especially long lines, in this cold weather. There have been suggestions that the province should direct public health units to hold H1N1 clinics 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

My question to the minister: Minister, will the government be acting on the recommendation to expand H1N1 clinics, 24 hours a day, seven days a week?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: This is a very important question, and I'm sure all of my colleagues are getting the same questions in their offices.

I share the concerns that people are waiting a long time to get the vaccinations. As I said, I did speak to Dr. King last night. I talked to her about this issue. She reassured me that the rollout was proceeding as planned and that public health units were responding, in real time, to the higher-than-anticipated demand. Some are expanding their clinic hours. They're increasing the number of clinics.

I spoke to Dr. King, and I asked her to please let me know if there was anything more that needed to be done from our end to get the vaccinations out to people as quickly as possible.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: I've also been hearing from some of my constituents on Hamilton Mountain, Minister, who are complying with the instructions not to rush to the emergency room when they have flu symptoms. They're calling Telehealth, only to be put on hold for sometimes over an hour. They're calling to get information about their symptoms and what course of action they should take, but without a quick response, some are forced to go right to the hospital.

Could the minister please provide this House with information about how Telehealth is coping with the increase in calls, what the government is doing about it and if there are any other options for Ontarians looking to get medical help before taking the step of going to the emergency room?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: There has been a dramatic increase in the number of calls to Telehealth: five times more calls than we would expect at this time of year. I want to say thank you to Ontarians for using the Telehealth service. It is a good service.

I also want to reassure them that we're doing everything we can to respond as quickly as possible. We've ramped up staffing. All available resources have been put on the phones. New staff are being trained to respond. Between October 19 and 25, 430 additional nursing hours were added to accommodate the increase in demand.

I do urge people in the province to go to the website, ontario.ca/flu, where we have put a self-assessment tool. People can go through the steps on that self-assessment tool and follow the instructions that are given to them on the website.

FLU IMMUNIZATION

Mrs. Christine Elliott: My question is also to the Minister of Health. I have been listening very carefully to the questions that have been asked of her this morning with respect to H1N1. I've also been listening to Dr. King, who does assure us that there is an ample supply of the vaccine. I'm very happy to hear that.

The H1N1 virus isn't keeping 9-to-5 hours. Neither should we be. So my question again to the minister is: Will you commit to keeping the H1N1 vaccination clinics open 24 hours a day?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member opposite. To you I offer the same: If you need any briefings at all, we are more than happy to respond to that.

As I have said, I have spoken to Dr. King. She has assured me that the vaccination clinics are rolling out as planned and that they are responding in real time to the higher-than-anticipated demand. Some of that response does mean longer hours. It does mean more clinics.

Our public health units are working very, very hard to get vaccination into as many people as is possible. We do have more than enough supply for the province of Ontario.

I am asking that highest-risk groups go first and that those of us who do not fall into that high-risk group wait a little bit to get the vaccine. Let those who need it the most go first.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Christine Elliott: I understand that public health professionals are doing all that they can right now, but they simply don't have enough resources to keep up with the demand, and we need to be able to meet that demand.

Parents and families are really frustrated right now because the research is showing conflicting messages between what the Ministry of Health is saying and what the public health clinics are doing. There are different opening hours and different clinic hours and times; they're constantly changing.

Fortunately, there's a way that this can be resolved. Instead of people going to the clinics, can we not bring the clinics to them? Will the minister please commit to opening up workplace vaccination clinics and clinics at school in order to get the people who are most at risk vaccinated as soon as possible?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member. I know we all have ideas about how we could do this better, but I, for one, am relying on the medical experts. We have known H1N1 was coming. We have been planning very hard for it. Those plans are being executed and the public health units are responding to increased demand.

This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue that affects all of us. The experts are doing their job. I have made the offer to Dr. King: If more needs to be done, I want her to let me know. I'm relying on her expertise and I think the rest of us should too.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Acting Premier. Yesterday in the House, the minister responsible for pensions made a perplexing statement. He said that the implementation of the Arthurs recommendation to protect monthly pension benefits up to $2,500 would result, and I quote, in "a massive increase in what employees have to contribute in order to fund the PBGF." Will this minister stand in the House and admit that (1) employees do not pay directly into the guarantee fund—pension funds do; and (2) nowhere in the Arthurs report is it recommended that individual employees pay directly into the fund in the future? Will he stop the scaremongering?

Hon. George Smitherman: I would say to the honourable member that I'm pretty sure that he has misinterpreted the answer.

I listened carefully to what the Minister of Finance said yesterday. I believe what he said to you was—you asked him to implement one part of a report that you liked, but he said that to move forward and implement the entire report would see the circumstances where individual employees would be expected to contribute substantially more than they have been so far; not specific to the fund that you referenced, but that many of the recommendations in Mr. Arthurs' report have broad implications. To implement the whole report, as you called for one portion of it to be implemented, would have left other things undone. I think that that may help to clarify the matter for the honourable member.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The minister made another perplexing statement yesterday regarding pensions. In responding to a question as to why Ontario wasn't following Quebec's lead in helping safeguard the pensions of Nortel employees, he said, "What the government of Quebec is doing is exactly what we would do in the same circumstances ... it would not be appropriate to characterize it as doing anything different than Ontario is doing."

Will the minister admit that the Ontario government has not followed the lead of the Quebec government in offering a helping hand to Nortel employees and has neither guaranteed the capital of Nortel employees' pensions in Ontario, nor has it agreed to hold off on a windup and give the assets five years to regain their value?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think what would be appropriate to acknowledge is that successive governments, over time, on the matter of the pension benefits guarantee fund, have created circumstances where it's unable, really, to fulfill its stated purpose and intent. A good bit of this responsibility, as I understand it, is to be borne by members of that member's party, who created this concept of "too big to fail."

The point of the matter is that it's a very challenging circumstance for many individuals. We know that, and accordingly, the Minister of Finance, carefully considering the recommendations of the Arthurs report, will seek to move forward in the best possible fashion, recognizing that the circumstances at hand at the moment are particularly challenging, especially for many individuals whom we all know.

TAXATION

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question today is to the Minister of Revenue and I ask it on behalf of my son, Braden, my daughter, Shanae, and all their friends who play sports in the great riding of Peterborough. In cities and towns across Ontario, hockey is a way of life, and Peterborough is no different, with strong minor hockey associations and teams like the Peterborough Petes for all kids to look up to.

Minor sports associations and families in my riding are concerned that the HST is going to place an additional and unsustainable burden on minor sports. They are concerned that these changes are going to mean less access to these sports for them. Some people are trying to claim that the HST is going to apply directly to children's recreation fees. We know that is not true, but the HST will apply to some items the minor sports associations need to provide their members. Would the minister tell us, on behalf of Braden and Shanae, if the HST means fewer kids will play minor sports in my riding and across this great province?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to say to my friend, as one hockey dad to another, that what we're doing in our tax reform package is getting people back to work. The reason we do that is because the greatest indicator of whether a child can play a minor sport is whether or not their mom or dad has a job, and we have to make sure that people get back to work in this province. That's why we are doing our tax reforms.

But I would say specifically to parents that if they look at the registration for their child's minor sports today, they should see whether or not they are today paying the GST, because I can assure them that if there is no GST on the registration today there will be no HST on the registration in the future.

I would also remind, particularly our municipalities, that under the current GST rules, a municipality that provides minor sports for children who are under the age of 15 and also for people who have disabilities—that there is today no GST, and as a result, there will be no HST, just to bring some clarity to the issue.

But the most important thing we can do is make sure that parents have a job so their children can engage in minor sports.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: Certainly, the opposition likes to portray the HST as having a negative effect on people when they talk about increasing hockey fees, but we need to do whatever we can to get families back to work so they can get their kids into minor sports and other activities.

Interjections.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: Business also says the HST is going to make Ontario more competitive and create jobs. I know our government has supporters from the business community, including the Ontario Chamber of Commerce and the Toronto-Dominion Bank.

Would the minister tell us about low-income earners faced with increased fees? Are there any benefits for them in the short term?

In

summary, Minister, how will the HST help to create jobs and help low-income earners in the province of Ontario?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would remind the member that the reason why our tax reform package has been endorsed by business and also by poverty activists is because we have struck the right balance. We are ensuring through our tax reform package that those families that have the least means will have the greatest benefit by way of our tax credit reform. It is why the federal government today provides a GST rebate of some $140 for a child, and we'll be adding an additional $260 per child permanently, tax-free, to the children who qualify in the province of Ontario.

As well, in the first year, a year of transition, we will be providing support to consumers, and that for those families that have a combined income of less than $160,000, they will be receiving, by way of three cheques, some $1,000 in the first year. That is prepaying the tax on some $12,500 worth of purchases. We will be there for the people of Ontario and our consumers.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): It is a Thursday, and perhaps there are some members who wish to get on the road a little earlier, and I can certainly arrange for that if that is what they desire. But I do want to remind the members, as I just did earlier in question period, that this is the opportunity to question the government. If you want to have a cross-debate or a discussion across the floor, and I say this to members on both sides of the House, please take it out of the chamber so that it doesn't interfere in the flow of question period, because there are many members in this chamber who do want to hear the questions and the answers.

DRIVER EXAMINATION CENTRES

Mr. Frank Klees: To the Minister of Transportation: This relates once again to the government's apparent indifference to the fact that the ongoing strike at Ontario's licensing offices continues to wreak hardship on people right across this province.

I want to ask the minister this: Why does he and his colleague the Minister of Labour continue to claim that they don't want to interfere in the negotiating process when now we find out that since the beginning of the strike, more than 1,000 G1 and more than 250 M1 licence applications and written tests have been administered through the Bay Street office of ServiceOntario in downtown Toronto? How can the minister justify administering tests in downtown Toronto and not make the same services available to people right across this province?

Mr. John Yakabuski: That's shameful.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Before the member for the Ottawa Valley starts giving some interjections, he should know that this is historic; this has always been the case. Remember, we're talking to individuals, good friends of mine, who were once transportation ministers: my friend the honourable Norm Sterling, in days gone by; my friend who asked the question, in days gone by. That has been the case for a long period of time. That has been grandfathered into the system since the day that my friend—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I will offer a final warning to the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke for the next 19 minutes and 53 seconds of question period.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: When the previous government signed the contract with Serco, it was decided at that point to retain testing services, excluding road tests, at the College Park location, originally located at Queen's Park. This location is an exception to the ministry's contract that you signed on behalf of the government of Ontario. You don't have to live in the Toronto area to visit it, but of course it is much more convenient to people there.

I appreciate the member's concern about it. I share his concern—

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

Mr. Frank Klees: I am aware that the United Steelworkers made an offer to the minister to extend those services throughout the province of Ontario and, in the course of the strike, make it possible for people to access those written examinations in the same way that they're available in downtown Toronto. It has also come to my attention that the minister refused to co-operate on that basis.

On behalf of people in Windsor, Sarnia, Thunder Bay, Ottawa and across Ontario who don't have access to the downtown Toronto office, I'm asking the minister: Given the fact that his negotiations are going nowhere, will he reconsider and ensure that those essential services are made available to people right across the province without discrimination?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, of course, you would know, as a result of the contract signed between the previous Conservative government by my good friend Norm Sterling and circle, they're not my negotiations. I am concerned about those negotiations, I must say.

It's interesting that the member raises the issue that he does. If we were talking about bringing in replacement workers or, as people in the union would call them, strikebreakers in order to get this facility going again, there would be a huge uproar. In fact, that is really what is being suggested in this case. Remember, as you would know, because you implemented the contract he signed, that would violate the contract. There would be a huge legal suit as a result of that, because that that would violate the terms of the contract that has your fingerprints on it and Mr. Sterling's fingerprints on it.

So I'm very surprised that you, of all people, would bring—

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

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The city of Hamilton is reporting a projected budget shortfall of $31.5 million, largely due to rising social services costs during these difficult economic times. Hamilton was expecting $16.5 million from the province to help cover the costs of providing social assistance, a provincial responsibility that the McGuinty government is shirking.

When does this minister plan to announce that the Ontario government will cover the cost of social services that municipalities like Hamilton provide in good faith on the province's behalf?

Hon. Jim Watson: I had a wonderful opportunity earlier this week to be with Mayor Eisenberger and tour the beautiful city of Hamilton with my colleague from Hamilton Mountain and the Minister of Government Services. I always enjoy going to visit Hamilton to see the amount of money that has been invested in that city from the McGuinty government.

We had an opportunity to talk about the $7.1 million for 81 rental and supportive housing units. We also talked about $110 million since 2003 that's gone into transit to help the people of Hamilton, $156 million in highway infrastructure and $136 million in roads and bridges money.

This government has stood by Hamilton for the last six years. We've signed a deal with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Next year, Hamilton will benefit as a result of uploads of ODSP and the first phase of Ontario Works.

So we're there with Hamilton. We look forward to partnering with them in the future.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This minister knows very well the pressure on the operating budgets of every single municipality in this province, from Hamilton to Ottawa to everywhere else. The reality is, they're picking up the costs of this government's responsibilities. It's bad enough that the McGuinty government refused Hamilton's much-needed disaster relief funding to repair massive flood damage that affected 7,000 homes. Now, with social services costs, which are on the climb during this economic tough time, again we see that the Liberals at Queen's Park are ignoring Hamiltonians.

Minister, will the McGuinty government make good on its obligation to Hamilton and commit to the $16.5 million they need to pay for the province's programs?

Hon. Jim Watson: I don't know why the honourable member who represents Hamilton always talks down her hometown. We're proud of the fact that our members Ted McMeekin and Sophia Aggelonitis have committed funding for Mohawk College and the McMaster renovation, a great innovation for that particular community.

Let me quote the mayor in a letter to me just a little while ago: "I applaud your willingness to continue working together with our city and other municipalities, as well as your prudent decision to continue investing in our communities."

As a result of the upload, which was signed a year ago this week, estimated benefits to Hamilton, when fully uploaded: 72 million new dollars for the people of Hamilton and the taxpayers of Hamilton; infrastructure stimulus funds, $61 million; the Recreational Infrastructure Canada, Ontario program, $3.4 million.

We've been there in the past, we'll be there in the future. We have great confidence in Hamilton—

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

FINANCEMENT MUNICIPAL /

MUNICIPAL FUNDING

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Ma question s'adresse au ministre des Affaires municipales et du Logement. Monsieur le ministre, de nombreux résidents de ma circonscription s'inquiètent de la capacité de leur municipalité de faire face à cette période économique difficile. Ils sont confrontés à des difficultés budgétaires et ils doivent faire des choix difficiles entre des programmes et des services importants sur lesquels leurs concitoyens comptent.

Il y a un an de cela, notre gouvernement a fait une annonce importante : l'achèvement de l'Examen provincial-municipal du financement et du mode de prestation des services. Ce rapport préconisait la prise en charge de plusieurs coûts de l'aide sociale, comme celui du programme Ontario au travail, de même que les prises en charge déjà annoncées du Programme de médicaments de l'Ontario et du Programme ontarien de soutien aux personnes handicapées.

Est-ce que le ministre pourrait faire une mise à jour sur la prise en charge ainsi que le premier anniversaire de l'Examen?

J'étais extrêmement fier en octobre dernier lorsque je me suis joint à mon collègue le ministre Dwight Duncan et aux représentants de l'AMO et de la ville d'Ottawa pour annoncer l'achèvement du rapport consensuel sur l'examen provincial-municipal.

Ce fut un moment historique pour la province de l'Ontario, et quel meilleur moyen de mettre l'accent sur le partenariat que nous sommes parvenus à rétablir avec les municipalités dans cette province? Une fois ces coûts pleinement pris en charge, les municipalités auront droit à des avantages nets par année de 1,5 $ milliard. On célèbre le premier anniversaire de cette entente, et encore de bonnes nouvelles pour toutes les municipalités de la province et pour les contribuables.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary? The member for Ottawa—Orléans.

Mr. Phil McNeely: I know that municipal leaders and members of my community truly appreciate the work you have done on this and your advocacy for municipalities at the cabinet table. I'm proud to be part of a government that works in partnership with our municipal partners to deliver on the needs of our communities.

In our hometown of Ottawa, I hear from residents frequently asking what the province is doing to assist our community. Affordable housing and public transit are always top-of-mind concerns, and so are social assistance costs and infrastructure needs.

Minister, what do the uploads mean for Ottawa and what impact are they having today on our city?

Hon. Jim Watson: A year ago this month, we signed an historic agreement with all municipalities, including the city of Ottawa, and as a result of the uploads that the government of Ontario is going to take back from the municipal sector, the city of Ottawa will be ahead by over $122 million. That is great news for the taxpayers and the city of Ottawa. In 2009 alone, the uploads are saving taxpayers and the municipality $18.7 million.

We're also proud of our investments in Ottawa. Social housing dollars: $47 million this year to provide more social housing and affordable housing for our residents. As a result of the Investing in Ontario Act, $77 million is going into Ottawa to provide greater access for transit, to clean up the Ottawa River. It's unacceptable that raw sewage is going into the Ottawa River in the 21st century. These are just some of the examples, including over $500 million in infrastructure projects since 2003.

We've been there for Ottawa, and we look forward to being there in the future for the city of Ottawa and the taxpayers of Ottawa.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care.

The town of Milton, the fastest-growing town in Canada, has been keeping up with growth, but the hospital services in Milton have not. Milton hospital was built to serve a community of about 30,000 people; today, the population exceeds 90,000 people, and by 2021, the population of Milton is expected to surpass 180,000 people. Failing to address the situation at Milton hospital puts residents' health and lives in jeopardy.

Minister, when will the people of Milton have an expanded hospital?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I thank the member for raising the question, as he did yesterday in estimates.

I do know that there is money that has been allocated, that your hospital has received for planning purposes. Many hospitals are in that position.

You do know, also, that this government has really accelerated hospital construction. There are more than 100 projects that are either under way or completed right now across this province. Part of our $30-billion ReNew Ontario strategy included $5 billion for hospital construction and reconstruction. That is an enormous investment, no matter how you cut it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As I mentioned, Milton is the fastest-growing town in Canada—in fact, in North America. No town in Ontario has a more compelling case than Milton for an expanded hospital.

Minister, an expanded plan for Milton District Hospital was submitted to the ministry over a year ago, for which there were some funds put out. Still, the only answer that we've had from the Liberal government for that plan submitted a year ago is silence. The doctors and nurses of Milton hospital are doing a tremendous job, but they are forced to work against the force of inadequate infrastructure.

Minister, I've asked you before: When will the second phase of the hospital plan be implemented? We've been waiting a year already.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: I do commend the member for his advocacy on the part of his community, but I would appreciate it even more if he would support the government's approach to capital expenditures across the province. It's not about one hospital; it's about our health care system.

I think it's important to acknowledge that our government has spent more on capital projects for hospitals than the previous five governments combined. We've had a lot of ground to make up for, but we are continuing our commitment to build the infrastructure that is required for excellent health care in this province.

BUS TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Yesterday, the Manitoba government and Greyhound announced an agreement to continue bus services to rural and northern Manitoba while they work out the final details of a long-term agreement. How is it that in northwestern Ontario, rural bus service is still scheduled to end on December 2, one month from now? How can Manitoba get an agreement and yet people in northwestern Ontario are still facing the loss of a bus service, in many cases the only transportation service they have?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would say to the former minister, first of all, that the reason they can get it—if you're willing to shell out money and subsidize the private sector in this, I guess you can get any kind of agreement you want.

I remember your earlier statement—I wish I could find it in here; I'll paraphrase it, then—you were characterizing the company as perhaps trying to intimidate government into providing money for them, and you were saying this was a ploy of some kind. Someone will send the actual quote; I'm sure it's going to come.

I want to say to the member: We are concerned about this. We do know that there are at least two other companies who have expressed interest in providing that service in northwestern Ontario. We're encouraging them to come forward with those proposals, which I believe they are. I think it makes an awful lot of sense.

At the national meeting of transportation ministers—

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister talks about intimidation. No; I said from the beginning that Greyhound is in business and they're engaged in a bargaining tactic, and now, in Manitoba, the government of Manitoba and Greyhound have reached an agreement.

To say that you don't believe in subsidization—this government already provides $35 million a year for GO buses in southern Ontario and $25 million a year for bus and train service to Ontario Northland in northeastern Ontario. If it's good to subsidize intercity bus service in southern Ontario and it's good to subsidize it in northeastern Ontario, why don't people in northwestern Ontario count as well? Why are they facing the loss of bus service by December 2?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As I indicated to the member, they aren't necessarily facing that. I know that Greyhound has said they're going to withdraw their service. There is an indication that there are two other companies, which you would be aware of—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I'm not going to quote it. It's okay. I know it. He paraphrased it himself. To be fair to Howard, he paraphrased it himself. He said that it was a tactic, and I understand it is a tactic.

I want to say that when the transportation ministers of Canada met to discuss this matter, there was no appetite for subsidization of Greyhound in that particular case. There was a recognition, and the federal minister said he was not interested in it at all. He has characterized them as a very wealthy company that appears to be using pressure tactics at this time. But I can—

Interjection.

Hon. James J. Bradley: If you want to be critical of other services that are provided by GO, I will tell the people of those communities that you're not in favour of that, unless you can get exactly the same thing in northern Ontario. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to do that.

IMMIGRANT SERVICES

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question today is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. There is a growing need for improved access to services for newcomers in Guelph and Wellington. Guelph has a long history of welcoming newcomers. When I was a kid, about 40% of the population of Guelph came from Italy. But over the last decade, Guelph has welcomed approximately 7,000 newcomers. In fact, Guelph has one of the highest proportions of immigrants in Ontario. Newcomers in Guelph are in need of quality services to settle, to integrate into the community and to find a job.

Minister, what are you doing to support newcomers who choose to make Guelph their home? What assurances are you able to provide to those newcomers who intend on making Guelph their home?

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. By 2016 or earlier, 100% of our net labour force growth will depend on immigration. That's why it is important that Ontario keeps its door open to newcomers, now and in the future.

That's why we invest in newcomers across Ontario, including the city of Guelph. In Guelph, we invest in settlement services, language training, bridge training and credential assessment. We strongly believe, that through these services, we are able to integrate our newcomers sooner and better.

It is true that these individuals arrive with many hopes, dreams and aspirations. It is Ontario that benefits the most when these newcomers are able to live out their hopes, dreams and aspirations here in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve P