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

September 29, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Sep-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 29 September 2008 Lundi 29 septembre 2008

JACK WILSON

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL POLICIES

INCREASING ACCESS TO QUALIFIED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS FOR ONTARIANS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 VISANT À ACCROÎTRE L'ACCÈS DES ONTARIENNES ET DES ONTARIENS AUX PROFESSIONNELS DE LA SANTÉ QUALIFIÉS

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

C. DIFFICILE

FEDERAL LIBERAL

ELECTION PROMISES

FEDERAL LIBERAL

ELECTION PROMISES

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

C. DIFFICILE

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN /

FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG

ONTARIO ECONOMY

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS

CHILD PROTECTION

VISITORS

PETITIONS

SEXUAL REASSIGNMENT SURGERY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GRAFFITI

HOSPITAL SERVICES

GRAFFITI

EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE

FIREARMS CONTROL

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DAVE TEETZEL

EVENTS IN ETOBICOKE–LAKESHORE

ROSH HASHANAH

LONG-TERM CARE

CLASS SIZE

PROSTATE CANCER

AWARENESS WEEK

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN

PUBLIC HEALTH

ROSH HASHANAH

SPECIAL REPORT, AUDITOR GENERAL

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CHILD AND FAMILY SERVICES

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES SERVICES

À L'ENFANCE ET À LA FAMILLE

REPRESENTATION AMENDMENT

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA REPRÉSENTATION ÉLECTORALE

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

HEALTHY SCHOOLS /

ÉCOLES SAINES

YOUNG OFFENDERS

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

YOUNG OFFENDERS

HEALTHY SCHOOLS

DEFERRED VOTES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL

FISCAL POLICIES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COLLEGES COLLECTIVE

BARGAINING ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LA NÉGOCIATION

COLLECTIVE DANS LES COLLÈGES

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

JACK WILSON

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would just ask the members to remain standing for a moment of silence in recognition of Jack Wilson, father of one of our presiding officers, Jim Wilson.

The House observed a moment's silence.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL POLICIES

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 25, 2008, on the amendment to the motion relating to calling upon all federal party leaders and Ontario candidates in the upcoming federal election to outline their plan to ensure fair treatment for Ontario.

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I wasn't sure I was going to be speaking so soon on this. I thought we had completed with Mr. Klees and we were going on to the complete rotation here. So I apologize for my tardiness in not getting up in time.

I want to just read the motion and the amendment as well. The Premier moved the motion last week. He said:

"I move that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario calls upon all federal party leaders and Ontario candidates in the upcoming federal election to outline their plan to ensure Ontario is treated fairly so that our province has the same opportunities to succeed as the rest of Canada, including:

"—fairness for unemployed workers who currently receive $4,630 less in benefits and supports than Canadians in other provinces;

"—fairness for Ontario's public health care system which is receiving $773 million less in per capita funding this year than the rest of Canada;

"—fairness for our economy in southern Ontario, the only region in Canada with no federal economic development programs;

"—fairness in Ontario's infrastructure funding that is being shortchanged by $970 million in per capita funding compared to the rest of Canada;

"—fairness in equalization payments with a commitment that if Ontario qualifies for payments under the equalization program, we will receive our full share of funding as the program exists today; and

"—a commitment to reduce the drain on Ontario that is now caused by annual transfers of more than $20 billion from this province for programs and services in the rest of Canada."

Our colleague Mr. Shurman had also made an amendment to this, which apparently we will be voting on this morning. He adds that the government motion "be amended by adding the following point at the end: '—fairness in Ontario's taxation policies so that people already overburdened by taxes in this province are not subjected to the proposed carbon tax.'" I believe it's Mr. Dion who is planning that with his green shift movement in the federal platform.

One of the things I wanted to bring up is that I find it quite disturbing—maybe more ironic than disturbing—that we have a motion like this on the floor. I think that, generally speaking, most of the people in this Legislature would support reaching out to the federal government to see if we can receive what we would call better treatment for our taxpayers. I think that's our responsibility and I think in the end we will probably be supporting this. However, the reason I feel a little disturbed about this is that we tried this before in the House with resolutions, back when it was the Harris government and the Chrétien government was in Ottawa.

Health care funding at that time was around 13%. On every dollar put into health care spending in the province of Ontario, 86 or 87 cents was paid for by the province of Ontario, and the federal government was putting in 13 or 14 cents. You may recall we ran some ads on TV and that type of thing. And in this House we put through a motion that all three party leaders write to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance at that time, in a non-partisan manner, asking the federal government to up the funding to health care in Ontario. I recall that letter was sent out.

The letter was under the signature of, at that time, Premier Harris; the third party leader, Mr. Hampton; and the Leader of the Opposition, who at that time was, of course, Premier McGuinty.

Premier Harris and the third party leader, Mr. Hampton, agreed to sign that letter—and you may recall that letter was all over. But the Premier, at that time the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. McGuinty, refused to sign it. Now he's here today asking everyone in this House to support his motion when he wouldn't sign a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on behalf of health care.

I see today they're asking for "fairness for Ontario's public health care system which is receiving $773 million less in per capita funding this year than the rest of Canada." I can't understand why he would ask for this today, yet five, six or seven years ago, when he was the Leader of the Opposition, he refused to sign the letter of support for that. I find that very disturbing, because it's playing politics with a very, very important issue. I hope that if there's even one cent that can be gained for the province of Ontario through this resolution today that we will—I will support it for that reason alone.

But at that time, the Liberal Party would not sign that particular motion. It's disturbing that today we come back and hear it's a whole new day and we're supposed to forget about the past.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: He's doing what Harris tried to do.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: But the reality is that Prime Minister Chrétien originally balanced the books of the country by—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: He's following Harris. That's what he's doing.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Would you quit?

What I'm saying is that the Prime Minister in fact did balance the books of the country by cutting health care payments; that's what happened. And here we are today still $773 million behind. I will give complete credit to the current federal government. I believe very strongly that they've done a fairly good job in trying to up payments in a lot of different areas. I know that they've settled the outstanding labour market agreement plan that had been in place. I know that just this year alone, the Ontario government received another $311 million, effective April 1, for training purposes.

Now, that being said, I believe about $2 billion in additional training money has flowed this year from the federal government to the Ontario government for the sole purpose of retraining individuals, and I don't think they've ever received one bit of credit for any of that. We try to bring this up in the House, but when these fancy program announcements are made, we never hear that that was actually federal money.

I know that just a week ago, we had some issues around additional funding for the Midland Area Reading Council—the most vulnerable people in our society are the people who can't read and write—and they were having to lay off people at their offices in Midland. Basically, the government was humiliated into coming up with some of the labour market agreement money to help the Midland Area Reading Council balance their books for this year, because they're teaching the most vulnerable people in our society. If anybody needs to be retrained, surely it's the people who need to learn how to read and write so they can get some kind of a job.

We talk about fairness, and I am very, very concerned about the agriculture community. I took a short trip down to Quebec this year. I've got to tell you—something better in agriculture is happening in the province of Quebec than is happening here .I travelled through a lot of rural Quebec, and the one thing I noticed was a lot of additions going on to barns. I saw a lot of modern equipment in the fields. It seemed that every farm was alive and viable. What we've seen in the province of Ontario, is that one by one, large operations—whether it's in dairy, beef or hog production, we've seen them dropping off.

Right now, in the county of Simcoe, which I believe is the largest county in the province, I believe there are only two hog farmers left—two people who are actually raising hogs. That's a far cry from 10 or 12 years ago, when we had probably 150 hog operations in the county of Simcoe.

Fairness is also something I want to talk about. I don't see these sorts of things in the motion, but if we're going to talk about fairness, I think we have to start talking about fairness to our small business operators. One of the things that is really disturbing is that these small business operators, under the Smoke-Free Ontario Act, have to place, I guess they are called power windows—over their ads to display any kind of cigarettes. I'm not really entirely opposed to that. However, what I am opposed to is the fact that in almost all of the First Nations, we have huge sales in these smoke shops.

I understand that in some areas 30% to 35% of the cigarettes that are being used in specific areas are coming from these smoke shops. There are no power windows there. They advertise freely on the side of the road. There's no one controlling this whatsoever, and I think it's very unfair that we ask one group of people to cover up the cigarettes and make sure that nothing can possibly be exposed—unless you want to buy cigarettes, and then the government would get the tax on that.

However, in these smoke shops that we see through some of our First Nations, I just cannot believe that we have no authority and that the government is not taking any steps to combat that.

So, when we talk about fairness, we have to go all the way with this. It's one thing to have the federal government doing one thing. We can talk about all the federal party leaders, and in a way, I guess that's what this motion is all about: It's trying to get the federal candidates, the federal leaders, to all come out in their campaigns and say what they're going to do for the province of Ontario. So far, I think it's been unsuccessful. I think Mr. McGuinty thought he had a lot more power than he actually does.

The reality is that I've heard almost nothing said that would indicate that any of the party leaders, including Mr. Dion, are interested in satisfying the needs of Mr. McGuinty at this point, because he was obviously playing politics and trying to divert attention from very, very serious problems, those being the economy right here in the province of Ontario and the loss of manufacturing jobs.

I also wanted to say that we had an interesting debate on apprenticeships here in the House the other day. We talk about fairness—fairness to our young people. I can't believe that this House voted down Laurie Scott's motion, which would create a ratio system equal to the rest of Canada. If we want the federal government to be fair to the province of Ontario, shouldn't we at least be fair to our own apprentices and allow them to be the way they are in the rest of Canada?

Interjection.

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Yes, I can handle heckling, but not when I can't hear myself think.

I found very, very disturbing, in this House, that here's the government saying, "Well, let's treat Ontario like the rest of Canada." Then let's treat Ontario's apprentices like the rest of Canada's. That was an area I wanted to just mention very briefly.

I want to also zero in on, I thought, a really outstanding

article the other day, and I want to put it on the record. It's by Linda Leatherdale, the money editor from the Toronto Sun. I want to read her

article into the record—I think I've got enough time to do that. The

article is called, "Wake Up, McGuinty; Premier Seems to have No Plan to Pull Us Out of our Tailspin.

"US bailout or not, a fierce financial tsunami is building and sooner or later will hit Ontario—a province already struggling and this week hit with more blows.

"News that PPG Canada is closing two of its plants—one in Mississauga, the other in Owen Sound—shocked 320 workers who will lose their jobs and sparked howls of complaints that Premier Dalton McGuinty isn't doing enough to keep business here.

"'His policies are scaring jobs away. He's the head of the biggest province in the country, and if he doesn't get off his butt, there won't be any manufacturing left,' complained Jean-Paul Tombu, who's worked at the 880 Avonhead Rd. plant in Mississauga for 19 years.

"Tombu, who turns 55 this year and fears he won't be able to find another good-paying job, was particularly critical about McGuinty's energy policies. 'If he doesn't do something about these high electricity prices, he might as well kiss the province goodbye. He's killing manufacturing, and service sector jobs are not going keep this province afloat.'

"What Tombu doesn't understand is how US President George Bush can bail out Wall Street with a $700-billion US rescue package—yet McGuinty won't reinstate a cap on electricity prices, after breaking an election promise that caps would stay.

"Jeremy Neuhart, a spokesman for US parent firm PPG Industries, confirmed the two plants are closing, effective early 2009, with the work being moved to plants in the US. The Owen Sound plant, which employs 170, produces glass for both the automotive and residential real estate markets; and the Mississauga plant employs 150 and produces automotive paint coatings. PPG operates eight other plants in Canada.

"Neuhart blamed the closures on a slump in the automotive and housing sectors, plus restructuring as the firm put more focus on specialty products. A production line at an Illinois plant that produces glass will also be idled, he said.

"Meanwhile, Ottawa-based Allen-Vanguard Corp. also announced job cuts. The manufacturer of hi-tech security equipment will lay off 102 or 15% of its staff.

"Bottom line is Ontario job casualties are piling sky high, with 228,000 lost manufacturing jobs since 2004 and 16,300 agricultural jobs. But while the private sector sheds jobs, Queen's Park has been on a hiring spree, with 42,100 new public sector jobs since the October 2007 election." That's 42,100.

"And while Ontario bleeds, other provinces are poaching out our workers.

"Next week, Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall will be in town with 50 employers in tow, seeking to fill positions"—likely apprenticeship positions. "Wall will speak at the National Job Fair and Training Expo at the Metro Toronto Convention Centre on Tuesday at 10:30 a.m. And at a barbecue on Monday night at ET Seaton Park in Thornhill, his Employment and Labour Minister Rob Norris will be luring high-skilled immigrants who can't find jobs in Ontario to Saskatchewan.

"'What a sad statement when provinces like BC, Alberta and Saskatchewan chase our workers for jobs,' said Conservative leader John Tory. Last week, Tory staged an economic summit where business, labour and academic leaders urged a business-better climate and an overhaul of the Liberals' flawed skilled labour program.

"'This government is a wrecking crew using excessive taxation, excessive regulation and a bad attitude,' said Tory.

"On Tuesday, I'll also be speaking at the Job Fair. My time slot is 3 to 4 p.m. See you there." That's when Ms. Leatherdale will be speaking.

All I'm really trying to say here is that we have people from the media and from other provinces—leaders of other provinces—all identifying the problems happening here in Ontario, and our Premier seems to be zeroing in on one thing; that is, trying to blame the federal government once again, this time trying to drag all the political parties into the argument to see what they'll do for Ontario. But I think what we really have to do is make people feel welcome in Ontario—get rid of the red tape, get rid of the bureaucracy that surrounds people wanting to start jobs and start to create investment in Ontario—and I don't think that's happening.

I talked to a firm in my riding just a couple of weeks ago, and they told me that they just don't feel welcome in Ontario anymore. It's a sad experience when people who have 500 or 600 employees feel they're not welcome in this province. Of course, it's not only Saskatchewan and Alberta that are luring our workers and employers away; it's also, now, a number of the states: Tennessee, for example, and North Carolina. And do you know what? I think the one thing I'm hearing more than anything is that they don't feel welcome here anymore.

Someone goes in to do some inspection in their building and shuts the plant down for a few days or charges them huge fines for something that seems kind of frivolous, and they wonder, "Why am I even here? Why am I trying to invest? Why am I trying to create an economy here in Ontario when other people in other countries and other jurisdictions would welcome me?"

Although this is a bit of a fluff resolution, and I don't for one second expect the government members to support the amendment, the reality is that we've got a government here that really doesn't care a lot about who is hired here. They've been riding a strong economy created by the previous government—that's plain and simple; we all know that—and we're sadly watching our economy deteriorate. Mr. McGuinty is looking for anyone to blame, and of course it's a good opportunity, with a federal election coming on, to try to get some publicity for himself and blame the federal government.

I don't think the people of Ontario are buying that; I don't think the people of Canada will buy that either, because you have to realize that the rest of Canada is doing very well.

I appreciate this opportunity to speak this morning, and I look forward to the vote.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: It's a privilege and a pleasure to rise in the debate today and speak about this fairness for Ontario motion that was filed by the Premier and the government opposite. In doing a little bit of research on this matter, one has to go back to Hansard to see, I guess, the strange set of circumstances over the last couple of years when the Liberal government was very much in favour of what the Conservative government in Ottawa was doing. I need look no further, for the first quote, than the then finance minister, Mr.

Sorbara, who rose in this House in his budget speech of 2007 and said the following: "It was the Premier who took on this issue, and it was the Premier who negotiated the greatest improvement to fiscal fairness since the era of Lester Pearson and John Robarts. In recent weeks, we have reached agreement on federal funding for the environment and for public transit. That agreement is evidence ... that when governments work together, we ... make real progress"—again, Greg Sorbara, budget speech of 2007.

I remember standing in this House as finance critic for the New Democratic Party and referring to Mr. Sorbara and Mr. Flaherty, his federal counterpart, as the Tweedledum and Tweedledee of Canadian politics, because they were both speaking from the same songbook and saying the very same thing. They were both full of self-congratulation on how one side was listening to the other and in turn being listened to. The reality is, if Mr. Sorbara was correct at that time—and I'm not going to ever say he was not—that an accord was reached. The government in Ottawa did listen. Mr. Sorbara and Mr. McGuinty were both very proud of the accomplishments of that day.

Then we have a motion here today which completely belies the statement of only 18 months ago.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: His hypocrisy is coming to light.

Mr. Michael Prue: I would not use that word.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: It may not be parliamentary.

Mr. Michael Prue: It is not.

Then I did some more research, and here's another really good quote. This time it's from Mr. McGuinty—March 7, 2007—which was also around the time of the same budget: "Since we like to lay claim to the fact that Ontario is both the heart of Canada and the economic engine of Canada, this is certainly ... a great day for Canada. It's a great day for our environment and our economy. It's a great day, as well, for Ontario's fight for fairness."

Premier McGuinty, 18 months ago, stood in this very House, talked in glowing terms about the federal government and how the federal government was being fair to Ontario, and took kudos all around, especially from his Liberal colleagues, for the magnificent job he had done in promoting fairness. And here we have again a motion before this House saying quite the opposite.

I don't know what has transpired in that time frame, other than the economy has worsened, other than this government has failed to do, I think, what has been necessary to protect jobs and to protect the economic prospects of ordinary Ontarians.

The final quote, again from the Premier: "Absolutely nothing can cool the warm enthusiasm we all share today." He was talking, again, about his negotiations with the Harper government and particularly his negotiations with federal Finance Minister Flaherty.

We have, then, a motion before us where the Premier is saying to ignore what he has said before, to ignore the negotiations that took place before, to ignore the détente that was agreed to and the financial remuneration that flowed to Ontario, and instead, he has a list of some six requirements that he believes are necessary for Ontario to lay claim to monies that he believes are owing to us.

I would like to talk, first, about the employment insurance. It is absolutely true that workers in Ontario receive less employment insurance than workers in other provinces. No one could deny that. It is true that in provinces like Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, where the employment rates are much lower than in Ontario, people generally are able to qualify and to get more monies than they are in Ontario when they find themselves unemployed. One has to question how this has happened. Is Ottawa asleep at the switch or did Ottawa plan to do this all along?

I have to suggest that this was planned a long time ago and it is not the Harper government that did it. It was Paul Martin, when he was finance minister, who accomplished all of this. I didn't hear any Liberals in those days standing up and saying, "Paul Martin is wrong." I didn't hear any Liberals saying, "We have to debate this in the House, and we have to seek fairness for Ontario workers."

What has happened has been a travesty to the people of Ontario. What has happened, because of Paul Martin and the federal Liberals and the government before this one, is that people who are on employment insurance in Ontario used to qualify in great numbers. When you found yourself unemployed, you used to be able to apply, and about 80% of the people who found themselves unemployed qualified for the benefits into which they had paid over the course, sometimes, of a lifetime. When a factory shut down or when one got laid off or when work was no longer available, then there was this social safety net available, and 80% of the people qualified.

Today in Ontario, only 40% of the people qualify and one has to ask how this happened. Did this happen because the Conservative government in Ottawa did some horrible thing? No, they haven't changed the rule at all. What has happened is that Paul Martin's legacy has finally kicked in and people today in Ontario are hugely disadvantaged.

I haven't heard the Premier talk about this. I haven't heard him say why all of a sudden it's important when it wasn't important before, save and except there are a lot more unemployed Ontarians today; save and except there are a lot more factories shutting down today; save and except there are a lot more jobs being transferred south of the border, and even south of that one, to Mexico. That's the reality of what happened.

We have to look at the reduced benefits. Benefits have actually been reduced, and again that is the legacy of Paul Martin and what he did when he was finance minister.

Look at who is being hurt the most. Who is being hurt the most? It is primarily women and new immigrants. They are the ones who are suffering the most under this employment insurance scheme. One only has to look at the statistics for Ontario and one will see exactly who is suffering. If one was fortunate enough to have been born here, then you will see that 31% of people who were born in Canada qualify for employment insurance, versus 23% of those who have recently come to Canada. So only 23% of the population who have recently come to Canada can qualify.

And it's even harder upon women, and, I presume, because of the two statistics, immigrant women: 30% of women qualify for employment insurance but only 19% of immigrant women do. So they are being hugely hurt by this, and this needs to be redressed.

The motion should read not only that Ontarians should be getting more money but that we should seek to look at the imbalance whereby people who have recently arrived in this country are paying employment insurance but are not receiving it.

The Premier went on to talk about fairness in transfers, and I agree with fairness in transfers. I have agreed, as an Ontarian, my entire life and I agree today that we need to transfer funds to those areas of the country that are not as well off as Ontario once was.

We have a whole fiscal policy in effect where money would flow to places like the Maritimes, where money would flow to rural Saskatchewan or to areas where employment was not as high and where the economy was not as good. It's an important thing about being a Canadian. I am proud to be a Canadian, and I am proud of the fact that money went from this province to other provinces which were not as well off.

The whole question comes down to this: Are we as well off today? We are certainly not as well off as Alberta, with the giant oil sands and the booming economy. We are not as well off as Saskatchewan. We are probably not as well off as British Columbia. The question has to be asked: Can those transfers continue, or should those transfers be continuing? That is a question, I think, for another day. The Premier is right to make the point that the transfers need to be looked at, and in fact they will be looked at.

The question comes down to when, and it's probably 2010, by which time it will be clear whether the Ontario economy has improved or not improved, whether we are a have or a have-not province. I'm not sure that there's much sense in debating it today. The reality of the situation will become abundantly clear as this economy changes.

It is up to this government to ensure that we remain a have province. It is up to this government to put in the fiscal framework and the financial incentives to lure businesses to this province, to keep businesses in this province and to keep people working. I hear precious little from the government on this, even though I come here every day. I hear precious little about everything except their five-point plan, which does not appear to be working.

I look at economic development. They're talking about Ontario as the only place that doesn't have economic development. I would state categorically: Whose fault is that? Is it the federal government's fault that we don't have a good economic development plan in southern Ontario, or is it the government of Ontario's fault? The McGuinty government has been here for five years, and I have yet to see an economic plan. When any discussion or talk takes place about a jobs commissioner, about industrial hydro rates, about manufacturing tax credits or any other plan that is brought forward in this House, it is all pooh-poohed.

The government says, "We're not going to do that." But I haven't seen any economic plan whatsoever coming from their lips that is producing any jobs, that is keeping any jobs, that is helping the people of this province. And yes, it's very easy to blame the federal government, but I think the government should look at itself very long and hard in the mirror to try to determine whether or not it is doing everything that is necessary for jobs.

I also want to talk about fairness, because this whole thing presupposes fairness. Ontario is not being treated fairly, and I would think that that's a pretty reasonable argument given the circumstances. But how is Ontario treating cities and towns? With absolutely anything but fairness. Let's criticize the federal government because they're not flowing money to us, but let's not talk about the fact that we're not flowing money to cities and towns across this province in a way that will make a long and substantial and sustaining difference.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: One point one billion, Michael.

Mr. Michael Prue: My friend here likes to mouth off a little bit about $1.1 billion, one-time-only funding, which every single person at the AMO conference, every single mayor and reeve and councillor has said—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: Well, of course they'll take the money, but they were also told by the Premier there won't be any money next year. You forget that, my friend from Northumberland, who likes to talk of things he doesn't know anything about. He likes to mouth off about things of which he knows nothing. He likes to say I'm wrong when he doesn't even have the courage himself to stand up and speak on this issue.

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: Madam Speaker, I can see the peanut gallery is going full-rung here.

They talk about a big plan, but they're very paternalistic to towns and cities. They talk about uploading the download, but do they do it? Of course they don't do it.

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: Michael, ambulance, child care—

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Member for Quinte West, please come to order.

Mr. Michael Prue: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I was wondering when you would intervene on the rudeness of this member.

They talk about uploading the download but the reality is they haven't done it. This member talks about ambulance services, but the reality is that five years ago the cities did an in-depth study and said that there was a $3.2-billion download. Today, they've done the self-same study and it's a $3.8-billion download because this Liberal government hasn't done anything except tinker around the edges. All they're ever good at is tinkering around the edges. Cities and towns across this province are starting to implode. They are starting not to be able to do things they need to do, like safe water.

They are starting not to be able to fill the potholes, fix the infrastructure. It is simply not happening.

I know they're all going to be thankful for $1.1-billion one-time funding this year. They're all going to stand up and say it's a good thing, but if we're talking about fairness for towns and cities, it can't be a one-time-only. I'm sure the Liberals would not be happy if it was one-time-only from the federal government for one year and next year you're not going to get anything. That's not the kind of fairness you're looking for from the federal government, nor is it the kind of fairness that we should be giving to the cities and towns.

This government needs to make a commitment, if it is to be taken seriously in Ottawa, to upload that download, because when I hear the finance ministers and the Conservatives in Ottawa talking about Ontario, they say the reason that our property taxes are so high, and rightly so, is because we are the only jurisdiction in this country that remains with downloaded services on the backs of property taxpayers—things like daycare, things like Ontario Works, things like social housing and, yes, even to this day, 50% for ambulance services and public health. These are all provincial matters, and the cities are also seeking tax fairness.

The result, of course, in the end, is the besieged taxpayers and the reality that they must endure. Property taxpayers in Ontario pay the highest rates of property taxes in the entire world. Is that fair? I don't think that's fair. Is this government doing anything about it? Not a whit. If this government is to really want us to believe that they are seeking fairness, then they have to seek fairness for others over whom they have some control. Part of that is to upload the download, and part of that is to give the cities the necessary tools to find alternative sources of funding to the property tax.

This government has chosen not to do it; this government has run and hidden away from that; this government, before the last election, refused to even let the property taxes debate come before this House and simply froze the MPAC statements until after the election.

This week and next week, people across this entire province are going to get their house assessments. People across the province are going to find out how much the value of their house enhanced the likelihood of how much taxes are going to increase—taxes that are too, too high, taxes that are impossible and taxes without which cities and towns will not be able to function. It all comes back to this government. They talk about the fairness that they expect from Ottawa, but they don't deliver the fairness that ordinary Ontarians need in their cities and towns.

I believe in fairness, and I believe that we have to ask that Ottawa do the right thing by Ontario. We need to do what is necessary to get economic development in this province. We need to do what is necessary to put people back to work in this province. We need to do what is necessary to change the laws for employment insurance, health and other things so that Ontarians are treated the same as others. But I am also a very proud Canadian who wants to share. I want to share, as Ontario has done throughout my entire life, with those provinces that do not have enough.

As a proud Ontarian, I want to do the right things by our cities and towns, to share with them, because they are in far worse financial shape than the government of Ontario. They are struggling to make ends meet. One need go to almost any place in this province and see that there is a malaise out there, that it is difficult for the mayors and councillors and reeves to deliver the kinds of services that the people expect.

It is impossible for them to build the infrastructure, to maintain the infrastructure, to fill the potholes, to have clean drinking water, to staff the libraries and to do the thousand things that municipalities need to do.

If it comes down to fairness, I will support this motion for Ontario. I expect the government of Ontario to do the right thing by giving fairness to the people in our cities and towns.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Ms. Sylvia Jones: I must say I'm intrigued that the Premier's brought forward this motion, fairness for Ontario. Believe it or not, the Premier doesn't speak on a lot of bills and motions that we bring forward in the House. So it intrigues me that no member of his caucus has chosen to speak on this. For an issue that is so important that the Premier of Ontario has brought it forward in the form of a resolution, the members of the Liberal Party who are listening to the debate today have chosen not to participate.

I want to continue on the theme that the member from Beaches—East York raised about the fairness to, what I would call in the provincial Legislature, our stakeholders, and that would be the hospitals, the municipalities, the school boards—the people whom we directly serve in our role as members of provincial Parliament—because if we're going to go with hat in hand to the federal government and demand that they treat us fairly, I think it is only reasonable to assume that the people whom we serve directly, through our legislation, would be afforded the same courtesy.

As a member who is representing primarily a rural and small urban centre riding, I'm going to start with the gas tax revenue, because we are, for lack of a better word, getting shafted on the current breakdown. Essentially, the gas tax that the Ontario government is collecting is going only to municipalities that have public transit. And while public transit is an important part of our transportation infrastructure, it is not the only part.

I am speaking, of course, from a rural view of our roads and bridges, which are in need of repair and are also a very important part of the infrastructure that Ontario taxpayers quite frankly deserve and expect to have their provincial and municipal governments maintain.

The federal government, in its most recent budget, implemented the gas tax fund, which helps to build communities by providing predictable funding. I would like to underline the word "predictable," because while one-off announcements are welcome and appreciated, they make it very difficult for our municipal partners to plan how they're going to replace and repair infrastructure and how they're going to build new infrastructure that they need as new populations come in.

The federal gas tax fund helps to build communities by providing predictable funding in support of municipal infrastructure that enhances the environment and quality of life. Furthermore, it benefits communities by providing funding to increase the capacity of communities to undertake long-term planning.

The refrain I often hear from taxpayers, particularly ones who are managing homes and businesses is: "Why doesn't government do a better job of planning? Government has to know that we are going to have an increase in population. It has to know we're going to have children in an area who need to be educated or that a community that is expanding is going to need hospital beds. Why doesn't the government do a better job of planning?"

I can tell you that one of the reasons municipal governments struggle with it is because of these one-off announcements we like to do—let's call it the AMO Gimme—where the Premier stands up once a year at the Association of Municipalities of Ontario annual conference at the end of August and announces the next great treat he is providing to the municipal partners. I think that if we truly respect what our municipal partners are trying to do when they are planning our communities and building our communities, we would give them some continuity and some ability to know what to expect from the provincial government.

I was actually quite pleased that our colleague in the PC caucus John Yakabuski, the member from Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, raised this in a resolution in the spring. You may remember that the resolution was, why can't we use provincial gas tax dollars in all municipalities across Ontario? Do it as a per capita assessment, but essentially say, "We trust you, municipal partners, to know what your priorities should be in terms of infrastructure, and we will give you the gas taxes in order to do that."

Because there isn't a member among us who knows how much the price of gas is hurting us, both in our pocketbooks and in our communities as we decide what jobs to take and where we can go—yet, as municipal governments, they don't have the ability. Let's face it: The vast majority of people assume that if it's called a gas tax, it's going to go toward transportation infrastructure. It's not. Some $2.3 billion dollars is being collected, and the government is using it for whatever they deem to be the issue of the day.

I think the municipalities would appreciate, and taxpayers would assume, that taxes collected under the guise of a gas tax would actually be used for transportation infrastructure and not picking and choosing—cherry-picking—which municipalities get to have it.

The other thing I'd like to speak on is fairness when it comes to our health care sector. Again, I'm looking at it from the lens of Dufferin—Caledon. We happen to be in the Central West LHIN. The local health integration network prepared a study, and basically, the study talked about all of the different health care services people would expect to receive within their community. They rated us and the services that we get in Dufferin—Caledon compared to the other LHINs across the province. Unfortunately, it was not a pretty picture. For mental health, we rate 14 out of 14: 14 th in the province because we are given less money from the provincial government than any other LHIN across Ontario.

Again, the average Ontario taxpayer would assume that their provincial government would say, "If you live in Oakville, if you live in Orangeville, if you live in Sudbury, you deserve the same level of care." It's not happening.

I see it every day; I hear about it every week in my community, as people are either asked to go to other parts of the province to get the care, or worse, told, "You have to be on a waiting list because in the Central West LHIN, we don't have enough services, we don't have enough beds, and we don't have enough practitioners to assist you at this point." In mental health, most dramatically, you are talking about people who are in crisis. You are talking about family members who are being asked to travel two and three hours to assist in the treatment.

It's unreasonable and unfair that that unfairness is continuing under the provincial Liberals.

Community care access: Again, that's where we like to say, "You're going to be healthier, and you're going to get healthier faster, if you can recover in your own home. And we, the government, are going to assist you by bringing in health care professionals to assist in your recovery." Community care access centre serving Dufferin and Caledon—I'm getting calls every week, "My services are being cut." It's not because the professionals are not there to service them; it's because the provincial government has said that community care access centres across Ontario are not equally funded based on per capita.

I don't understand it. I don't know how you can justify it when, again, we say we're supposed to have the ability, no matter where we live in Ontario, to expect a level of service. We're not getting it. We're not getting it with mental health, and we're not getting it with community care access centres.

I guess what I'd like to follow up on is the fairness for Ontario motion and how it relates to what's happening on the street now. When I talk and when I have meetings in Dufferin—Caledon, the number one issue that people raise with me is, "What is the provincial government doing to ensure that our economy bounces back? What is the provincial government doing to assist our economy in moving forward in the years to come?" Because anybody who reads a newspaper, anybody who turns on a television understands that there are many, many factors coming from either across the border or internationally that we cannot influence. However, there are many that the provincial government can assist with.

There's an excellent article, which I hope the members take some time to read, in the Globe and Mail today, from Don Drummond. He talks about how we have to move to a new Ontario and look at the economy in a different way, take some of our blinders off on how we've been dealing with things in the last 50 years and move forward. He raises some excellent suggestions on what the provincial government can actually do.

Because I think we all acknowledge that the provincial government isn't the panacea and cannot solve the world's crises; we can't put a wall up around the borders of Ontario and assume that we're going to live in a magical land. However, there are things, in terms of the education rate and high school dropouts, in terms of the capital tax, in terms of the taxation system generally, that we could proactively be debating and proactively be bringing forward and discussing in the legislative forums, instead of simply pointing to the federal government and saying, "We'd like more money, sir."

I think that when I was elected and when all of the members of the House were elected, they assumed that we were going to do more than simply point fingers and hold out our hands for money. They assumed that we were going to use our collective intelligence and our collective experiences that we bring to this chamber and actually come forward with some solutions. If we can listen to the Don Drummonds of the world and the experts who are in the field and actually dealing with these issues on a daily basis, then so be it.

I don't understand why the only thing that the Premier has deemed valuable enough to speak of on this motion is to say, "The federal government has to treat us better." Maybe next week the Premier could come back into this chamber and say, "Here are the five or 10 points that we're going to bring forward in the next legislative session that deal with shoring up our economy, that deal with encouraging manufacturing in Ontario, that deal with actually speaking to the people who are generating jobs in Ontario," and say, "This is how we're going to ensure Ontario's success for the next five or 10 years." I don't see that, and it disturbs me that we haven't moved beyond the finger-pointing and we are instead going to talk about, "Well, they didn't do the right thing, so we're just going to yell and cry in our soup," I guess.

I don't know.

The people of Ontario, the taxpayers of Ontario, deserve more than an exercise in and a motion on finger-pointing. I would hope that next week and the week after, we will start to see some of those proactive, engaged, interested initiatives coming forward from the government benches that will actually bring some hope to the economy, to the taxpayers and to the families of Ontario.

I appreciate your time.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Thank you. Further debate?

Seeing no further debate, Mr. Shurman has moved that the government motion be amended by adding the following point at the end: "fairness in Ontario's taxation policies so that people already overburdened by taxes in this province are not subjected to the proposed carbon tax."

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? I heard a no.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

I believe the nays have it.

Pursuant to standing order 9(d), the vote on the amendment to the main motion is deferred—and the main motion, in fact, itself; they are both deferred to deferred votes taking place this afternoon.

Vote deferred.

INCREASING ACCESS TO QUALIFIED HEALTH PROFESSIONALS FOR ONTARIANS ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 VISANT À ACCROÎTRE L'ACCÈS DES ONTARIENNES ET DES ONTARIENS AUX PROFESSIONNELS DE LA SANTÉ QUALIFIÉS

Resuming the debate adjourned on September, 23, 2008, on the motion for second reading of Bill 97,

An Act to increase access to qualified health professionals for all Ontarians by amending the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 / Projet de loi 97, Loi visant à accroître l'accès des Ontariennes et des Ontariens aux professionnels de la santé qualifiés en modifiant la Loi de 1991 sur les professions de la santé réglementées.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I'm pleased to rise in the House today to continue the debate on international medical graduates, Bill 97. I rise today to address this very serious issue that I, myself, have been concerned with since being elected as the MPP for Thornhill, particularly because Thornhill is a riding where we speak, at last count, something like 145 languages.

It is arguably the riding that is most diverse in this province, and therefore I'm very much concerned with the issue of what to do with international medical graduates, many of whom have come to see me personally, many of whom live in my riding and many of whom are engaged in work other than the work that they should be doing—this in the face of the vast shortage of physicians and medical personnel that we experience.

I also rise as a resident of Ontario, concerned—and who wouldn't be—with the fact that something in the vicinity of one million Ontarians or more at this point do not have access to a family physician. Of those million-plus, over 100,000 are children. This is a situation that we cannot allow to persist.

At first blush, I was pleased to hear that the government was concerning itself with the question of international medical graduates, because where, if not within our midst, could we find a better place to look for doctors willing, ready and able to be doctors? Barriers that prevent international medical graduates, or what we call IMGs, from practising medicine in Ontario are a very serious and dangerous challenge that puts lives at risk every single day. If you don't have access to a doctor, what can you say other than that there are lives at risk? People are not being treated when they require it.

This is very much an ongoing concern, as I've mentioned, to me in my riding since being elected.

I might say a word about Thornhill. Thornhill, just north of the 416, is a riding that people in this chamber and outside know to be a wealthy riding. The average household income exceeds $100,000. Where, if not Thornhill, would you find a riding more capable, from at least a monetary perspective, to protect itself? Can you buy insurance? Can you buy your way into a medical situation that you need? The answer is no.

And I might cite at this point a statistic that I carry around in my head, and that is with approximately 7% of our citizenry in Ontario lacking a personal physician or lacking access to a family doctor, Thornhill is no different. Our statistics at last count were the same as anywhere else in Ontario; approximately 7% of Thornhill residents, of my constituents, don't have access to a family doctor. So we are as affected in Thornhill as we are in any other part of Ontario.

The lack of opportunity for international medical graduates to practise medicine in Ontario means that the people of Ontario will be forced to continue to endure doctor shortages in the future unless and until the government takes serious and effective action immediately. Sadly, I don't believe that Bill 97 addresses that.

I guess that Bill 97 was the government's attempt to address this challenge, but it falls short. Bill 97 is simply a shift of responsibility or, if I may use an oft-repeated word in this chamber, a download of responsibility from itself, from health and long-term care, to the College of Physicians and Surgeons. In fact, this bill is proof that the McGuinty Liberals either underestimate the problems facing Ontarians trying desperately to find a doctor and/or they do not take the issues raised by international medical graduates, IMGs, seriously.

Now, in my initial phase as a member of this chamber—and I'm talking about back last year, not too much away from a year ago—I made it my business to have private meetings with HealthForceOntario, with the College of Physicians and Surgeons, with the Ontario Medical Association and notably with the local health integration network, the LHIN, that serves my area. The problem is not international medical graduate certification; the problem is residency spaces, places to put people who are international medical graduates so that they can be integrated into the system. It's barely above 200. We simply can't accommodate.

I, like my colleagues, can provide examples from my riding of Thornhill of how the McGuinty government has failed the people of Ontario and failed to ensure access to physicians, and I'd like to share two particular stories because I think they're poignant. One was being approached by a pediatric specialist late of Russia—actually, late of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics—a fully trained doctor, a pediatrician who graduated and practised in eastern Europe, now living in Thornhill. And what is she doing? She's writing for a foreign-language newspaper because she still can't practise medicine.

She has all of the appropriate qualifications, but she can't find a residency spot. This woman has said directly to me, "I would be happy to move to Thunder Bay. I'll move anywhere you want. I'll practise as a family practitioner. I don't need to be a pediatrician, I just want to do what I was trained to do, which is to serve people." She can't do it, and it is not going to be changed as a result of Bill 97, and that grieves me.

Here's one that's even more poignant: a surgeon from Russia, shut out of the system because of unnecessary barriers. This man's qualifications: He's a spinal surgical expert, so he has that experience. He has worked in frigid climate conditions up in Siberia. He has worked with the Russian military, so he has done in-theatre surgical work. This is a valuable individual in his 50s. How many years does he have left where he could contribute to what we need in Ontario?

He went so far as to contact the Canadian military and say, "I want to practise medicine so badly, I want to practise my specialty so badly, that I am perfectly happy to be assigned to Afghanistan to do what it is I do: work in-theatre, help our soldiers." "No. Unless you're a Canadian medical graduate, we don't want you," was the answer that he was given. So what's he doing? Writing software. There's nothing wrong with writing software, but in a situation where we need physicians, how can we allow him to write software, when we're so desperate?

Madam Speaker, this is not a prop. I know props are not permitted in this chamber, but what I'm holding in my hand is the text of Bill 97. This is simply a cut-out from the bill, the Liberal government's proposed solution to the tremendous challenge facing our residents, our health care system and our international medical graduates. This is it; that's the whole bill. I know that many IMGs, as well as members of this Legislature and Ontarians looking for a doctor, have been breathlessly awaiting government action on this issue, and we are supposed to believe that this has now happened.

We're supposed to believe that this has made things change. Alas, the long-awaited moment arrives and what we all got was this little piece of paper; it means nothing. I'll read it because it's only going to take 30 seconds of my time: "It is the duty of the college to work in consultation with the minister to ensure, as a matter of public interest, that the people of Ontario have access to adequate numbers of qualified, skilled and competent regulated health professionals." That's the whole piece of legislation that we're debating here today. That's not going to solve a problem; that downloads a problem.

Are Premier McGuinty and the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care really suggesting that when skilled, experienced, talented foreign-trained physicians come to me to ask what the government is doing to help them meet Ontario's health care needs and share their expertise, I'm supposed to show them that piece of paper?

Do you know what these people go through? They go through their boards and their certifications, they go through a two-stream placement system, trying to find residency. If they really want to practise medicine, they go and they find their residency, and where do they go? To another province or to the United States, and they never come back. That's why thousands of people who could be practising in Ontario and serving the million people, of whom, once again, I say over 100,000 are children, are not here; they're somewhere else.

This is what the McGuinty Liberals have to show after $12 billion collected in health care premiums, dare I say, taxes: just over five lines in five years. According to my simple math, that works out to one line of legislation per year in office. Five lines that do nothing except shift the blame and shift the responsibility for solving the problem onto the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons—that's what you've done. Five lines, which, to the Liberal member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore, who spoke to the bill last Monday, apparently constitute a comprehensive strategy.

We in the opposition have learned not to expect much from the McGuinty Liberals, but we have been trying to figure out just how they could fail the people of Ontario on so many different fronts.

Health care: Just look at the fact that in the 905, per capita expenditure on health care is just above the $700 mark, and anywhere else you go in the province—the 416, by way of example, is in the order of $950. What a disparity that is. When is that going to be addressed?

The economy: The world is crashing around us, and Ontario, through its finance minister, will issue just a statement on our affairs in, oh, three weeks or so—maybe four weeks—at the end of October.

Safety and security: Shootings going on almost daily, and what do we hear from the other side? A ban on handguns. As far as I'm concerned, a ban on handguns exists.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Order.

Mr. Peter Shurman: So why are we talking about that? We're talking about illegal handguns that you don't want to go and get.

The mystery has been solved. The key to Liberal failure, to the piles of pointless legislation they've introduced and the ineffective, meaningless proposals they've bored us with for the past five years is the Liberal government's understanding, or lack of understanding, of the word "comprehensive."

I may not know a lot, but I know that any comprehensive strategy to solve even the most insignificant of problems requires more than five and a half lines of minuscule print, and what we are talking about today is much, much more than a minor difficulty. This is about health and about life, and if I take those two words and put them together, what I'm talking about is the personal security of the individual here in our Ontario. We're not addressing it adequately, and this bill does nothing to change that. This so-called strategy is nothing more than the government telling the college to seal a leak with chewing gum, only it doesn't even offer to provide the gum.

Perhaps the entire McGuinty cabinet should take a walk through the press galley here at Queen's Park and ask one of the journalists for the definition of the word "comprehensive." What does "comprehensive" mean? It's top to bottom and bottom to top, and they don't understand it. As the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore admitted last Monday, the problem of opening access to our health care system for international medical graduates is one we've been hearing about for a while. There are ways to do this, and Bill 97's download is a very minuscule aspect of this.

For example, we have been talking in this province about another college, another university, that could educate that many more medical students. We've been talking in Vaughan—in my riding of Thornhill, of which Vaughan is part—about a hospital that can't even get the $3 million to $5 million that is necessary for master planning. We've been talking about that since it was recommended by the LHIN last spring.

Also last Monday, the new Minister of Health and Long-Term Care—may he serve Ontario better than his predecessor—was thrilled to inform this Legislature that last week the college voted to allow doctors trained in other Canadian provinces and in the US to practise in Ontario without being subject to additional registration requirements—whoop-de-do. What a stretch. We're going to let them into Ontario. This government is proof that if you aim low, you will achieve little. That's what you do: You aim low, and you achieve little.

Creating expectations—I know all about selling. If I say I'm going to get it for you for a dollar and I get it for 90 cents, you'll love me, and if I get it for $1.10, you'll hate me. The other side constantly creates expectations that it can achieve. That's called low-balling. Apparently, after years of talking and debating and studying this problem, the Liberals have managed to convince the College of Physicians and Surgeons that it's okay to let doctors trained in Canada practise in Ontario without additional registration requirements. Well, can you believe that? This is a big achievement?

This is the success of the so-called partnership? Maybe—by Liberal standards. So I hope you will forgive the lack of enthusiasm you're hearing from me and from my colleagues.

This is not a reason or a cause for the government to pat itself on the back but to reflect on its failure. This proves that we are years—decades—behind in what we ought to be achieving right now, and it's not the only example. I myself recently underwent surgery at Toronto Western Hospital. I know first-hand how capable our doctors, nurses and medical staff are. The quality of care they provide to patients—if you are lucky enough to be able to get to them, you get it. But how overloaded do you want our medical people to be?

Doctor shortage is not the only difficulty that Ontarians have to contend with when it comes to accessing our health care system. To illustrate, allow me to read a letter I recently received from a constituent. This letter came in last week, and there's not a word of a lie, not a joke in it:

"Hi, Peter:

"I received in the mail, about a month ago, a notice telling me I have to renew my health card with a photo version. The form advised me to call a specific" toll-free "number ... to book an appointment to get the new card....

"I have tried to book an appointment at least three times a day since I received the notice and I always get a busy signal. Of interest, the form suggests I phone between 10 and 4 Tuesday to Friday to obtain the best service. As I have been doing that, all to no avail, this leads me to wonder, if this is their best service, what is their worse service like? And, by the way, what happens on Mondays or before 10 a.m.?

"I have now received a reminder notice which suggests that 'my health coverage may be affected if I don't obtain a new card.' Well, frankly I don't know what to do. I'm busy running a small business that, you know, creates jobs; therefore, I simply cannot spend my whole day phoning to get an appointment. Yet I'm told my coverage is in danger of some unspecified type.

"Perhaps you could convince Mr. McGuinty and his merry band of 'spend it like drunken sailors' ministers to use some of that massive increase in health premiums that he imposed to hire another operator or two. It would serve two purposes:

"(

a) It would help re-employ some of the unfortunate folks from the manufacturing sector who have lost their jobs due to his unwillingness to actually do anything about the tax structure for business;

"(

b) It would get me a health card.

"I appreciate you're busy being a voice of reason in the Liberal wilderness in Queen's Park, but any advice you could give would be appreciated.

"Sincerely

"Peter Symons."

Thank you, Mr. Symons. I think you about summed it up.

I can predict that the Liberal response to this inquiry will start with something like, "We have a comprehensive strategy to streamline" whatever. Calling Bill 97 a solution to the barriers faced by international medical graduates is comparable to telling my constituent to just keep calling. Bill 97 is an insult. It's a slap in the face to the people of Ontario who are suffering doctor shortages, and it's a slap in the face to the trained physicians forced to work in unrelated jobs rather than utilizing their full potential in a country that was supposed to be their land of opportunity.

I want to ask, is this really the legacy of this government? Is it really what it wants to leave behind: five lines on a scrap of paper? That, and a series of bans that also claim to be comprehensive strategies. Let's see. There was a ban on carrying illegal guns in cars, which I presume was the government's version of a comprehensive strategy to ensure safety and security. There was the trans fat ban that the government probably considered as a comprehensive plan—they said so at the time—to ensure the health and safety of students in Ontario schools.

In the short period of time that I have left to speak, I'd like to leave the McGuinty government with some recommendations that would go a long way to resolving some of the challenges in the health care system and in the province in general:

(

a) Put together a plan to create new medical schools;

(

b) Use some of that $12 billion in health care tax that you grabbed from people and fund a new medical school at York University;

(

c) Fund the new Vaughan hospital;

(

d) Follow the example of our government and increase medical spaces by at least 30%.

And finally, do yourselves and this province a big favour and stop using words you don't understand. Call a spade a spade; otherwise, the only comprehensive plan you'll be left with is an exit strategy right out of office.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mr. Paul Miller: Quite a colourful and comprehensive strategy by my colleague from Thornhill. I might give him a helpful hint. In Hamilton, we have a central area where we go to get our health cards. You take a number, you sit there and you probably, within an hour, have your new health card. They also do that for your passports and other things, so I don't know why that individual is waiting for an appointment. That confuses me.

The Health Sciences were very interested in that and they're moving in that direction to possibly help people with that situation. That would be a positive move, and I'd like to see that implemented and pushed by the College of Physicians. But the problem is, as we all know, in the past some of these organizations have been an old boys' club and they're not open to introducing new people to the field; it's kind of protectionism. Plus we would like to see the bill cover more areas that would be beneficial to the people of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: I want to keep my comments to specifics about Bill 97. I want to congratulate the member for Etobicoke—Lakeshore for the hard work.

I do have to make this comment to the member for Thornhill: What a blast from the past. It's too bad that you weren't in government when your party was in government. Maybe the cuts that we experienced throughout Ontario might not have happened. But don't take my word for it. Vote to support Bill 97.

My municipality, the municipality of Kincardine, was so impressed with this bill that they decided to talk to other municipalities to find out how much support there was, and I want to tell you that they received 115 letters of support for that. So it's not only the member for Huron—Bruce talking in support; 115 municipalities agreed with the municipality of Kincardine. Why did they agree with them? They understand that it's a comprehensive strategy. They understand that we must go to our international market to fill up the gaps that the previous governments left. We've doubled the residency spots.

I have to say I'm just absolutely taken aback. The member for Thornhill, when he was out campaigning, did he not remember what his party said? They were going to cut $2.6 billion out of health care. And then he brings forward his asks today, and I have to say—

Mr. Peter Shurman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: We never said that. We've made that point in this House before.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): —point of order. Thank you. The member for Huron—Bruce.

Mrs. Carol Mitchell: Thank you. We hear that, but where did they think the money would come from? So here we go again.

It's with pleasure that I support Bill 97. We know it's a comprehensive plan. Not only that, over 160 municipalities get it. It's just too bad the other side didn't get it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments.

Mrs. Christine Elliott: Bill 97, Increasing Access to Qualified Health Professionals for Ontarians Act: another Monty Pythonesque bill from this government. Contrary to what the member for Huron—Bruce said, there's no comprehensive plan here to increase health care professionals. It's just another hollow promise and all it ends up doing is downloading, as the member for Thornhill said, responsibility for dealing with physician shortages onto the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the 23 other regulatory colleges that are involved with regulating health care professionals.

A million Ontarians in 2003 did not have access to a family physician; a million Ontarians still don't have access to a family physician, and this bill is going to do absolutely nothing to change that. There's nothing substantive in this bill whatsoever.

There are lots of creative suggestions that this government could have come up with, but instead it's just a big announcement. That's what it's all about. What could they have done? They could have taken up the possibility of creating a new school of medicine—it's been talked about, but of course it's not allowed for in this bill—expanding medical school spaces, and been creative, as they are in a number of universities right now, talking about having satellite campuses, trying to create medical spaces more inexpensively, but still increasing the number of medical graduates in the province of Ontario. But they didn't do that with this bill.

What about implementing a long-term physician recruitment strategy? They could have done that. Again, they decided not to. What about establishing an independent human resource planning facility for health care professionals? They could have chosen to do that, but they chose not to do that. There are so many opportunities that could have been taken up with respect to this bill to really do something to ease the physician shortage in Ontario, which, I would have to say, is particularly acute in my riding of Whitby—Oshawa, another underserviced area, another area with a great university. Why can't we be creative about creating new medical care spaces? Not addressed in Bill 97—what a shame.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Questions and comments?

Mr. Michael Prue: To comment on the remarks by the member from Thornhill, I always listen intently to what he has too say. He does it with some panache, he does it in colourful language and, I dare say, he attempted to be quite comprehensive in his comments given the limitations at the time, the 20 minutes available to him.

He made a good point in terms of the underutilizing in our province of foreign-trained professionals, particularly physicians, and the need for us to do something about it. I believe that this bill will go part way, and I will have an opportunity myself in just a couple of minutes to comment on the bill. He made the very good point that we need to utilize, in the best possible way, the talent of those people who choose to come to live in the province of Ontario and in Canada.

It seems to me that when you uproot someone, or if you allow someone to come from his or her country with skills that are much in demand there, the least that we should be prepared to do as a society is to utilize in the same way the skills that they were using before. It seems to me passing strange that we take physicians and nurses and health care professionals out of countries, particularly in the Third World, where the demand is even much higher than it is here, and the ratio much higher between doctors and patients, and we bring them to this country and then not utilize that skill.

I think the member has made some very good points.

I don't know how my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus are going to vote on this bill. Obviously, it may be in need of some tweaking, and perhaps the five-point action plan which my colleague from Etobicoke—Lakeshore put together needs to be included and we need to get specific strategies incorporated into the body of the bill.

Having said that, I await my turn.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): The member from Thornhill for a response.

Mr. Peter Shurman: Thank you to all of my colleagues for responding, including people from the government side.

There's just one wish that I would like to express, and that is that in responding to the comments that I've made—because I'm as passionate as anyone in this House on any side about having to integrate international medical graduates into our system—please don't treat us and please don't treat Ontarians as being somehow or other naive. That's what some of the comments, for example, from the member from Huron—Bruce, suggest.

I thank her, but to say that this is a "blast from the past"—maybe you don't have as many international medical graduates who want to be integrated into the system in your riding as I do in mine. You don't get comprehensive when you put in five lines without a strategy that surrounds it, and you don't do anybody any good when you continually accuse our party of wanting to cut $3 billion out of health care. That's not something we ever promulgated.

As far as other members are concerned, my colleague from Whitby—Oshawa brought positive suggestions, which I included in my discourse as well, that have to do with the HR aspect of this, the issue of bringing a new college on stream, the issue of creating trading facilities that can integrate some of these newer Canadians into our society and help some of the Canadians who have been long-suffering souls, not capable of having a doctor of their own.

As far as member for Beaches—East York is concerned, he believes along with me that we have much to do and that we do have to integrate newer Canadians into the system. That's what IMGs are. Thank you to all members for the response, and let's hope we can move forward with something that is comprehensive.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Andrea Horwath): Further debate?

Mr. Michael Prue: I stand to speak to this bill with perhaps a little bit of a mixed message, although I think ultimately I will support the bill as it is currently written.

There is an outstanding need for us to utilize the talents of the people who come to this country, an outstanding need for us to use their talents for the benefit of all Ontarians and to make sure that people who are struggling to try to find a family physician are given the opportunity to do so. I believe that this bill will in part answer some of that dilemma.

I want to speak about a couple of areas first, in terms of what I see as an ongoing problem. I had an opportunity on the weekend to go to the Beach Citizen of the Year award, and a new citizen was inducted. The outgoing citizen of the year, a wonderful woman by the name of Mary Christie, came up and talked to me. She talked about the difficulty her own mother is having in a long-term-care facility that is just outside the border of Beaches—East York; in fact, it's in the former municipality of Scarborough. Her mother lives in a long-term-care facility and requires some ongoing care in oncology.

Her mother and the family were told that they had to go to the local LHIN. The local LHIN was supposed to come up with a way of getting her mother the services that she needed.

You can imagine the frustration that Mary Christie and the family had when the LHIN reported back that there really weren't any services that could be made available because her mother is now a resident in the former city of Scarborough, and the former city of Scarborough is part of a LHIN that extends from the border of Beaches—East York—Victoria Park—all the way out past Clarington.

I don't know how far east it goes, but I do know it goes north all the way to Algonquin Park and that certainly it is the same LHIN in which my parents live, in Cardiff, Ontario, which is about a two-and-a-half-hour to three-hour drive on a good day from my own home in Beaches—East York. So it's a huge LHIN. That LHIN is not able to look after the needs of the family, my constituents in Beaches—East York, because the mother is in a long-term-care facility in the former city of Scarborough.

It is part of the overall plan that this government has in instituting only a limited number of LHINs and that the availability of some of the services—it seems bizarre to people like Mary Christie that her mother, who has lived her entire life in the Beaches—East York area, cannot now gain access to services which are readily available in the downtown Toronto LHIN; that she is not eligible and the only alternative would be to take her mother out of the long-term-care facility, where she is receiving excellent care, and to transfer her to one in the Toronto area so that those services might be made available. This is symptomatic, in my view, of what is happening in terms of health care.

This bill does a number of things—and I would like to commend the member from Etobicoke—Lakeshore. That doesn't happen very often in the Legislature, that a member of the opposition will stand up and commend a government member, but I think she has attempted to do a good job. The report is short, it is small, but she has made some key recommendations. The first one of those is the fast-tracked and simplified registration process for physicians already practising in Canada, the US or other countries with comparable health care systems. I am in agreement with that.

I am in agreement that they should be fast-tracked, but I have to pose the same question, and I think it needs to be part of the record and part of the overall discussion, about the recruitment of people who come from countries where those physicians, medical practitioners, nurses or other health care professionals are in huge demand.

Madam Speaker, as you and others in this chamber will know, I spent more than 20 years working in the immigration department of Canada, at which time some five million people came forward as immigrants to this country. In those 20 years, five million people came forward with skills and abilities that they wanted to contribute.

I understand the magnet that this country is. I understand that the standard of living is very high. I understand that our social policies over many years have been such that we have wonderful things like medicare, that we have a social safety net—albeit as fragile as it is these days—that we have an opportunity for good jobs and good places in which to educate our children and ourselves, and that people want to come here.

But we have recruited people, in some instances—and I think the government needs to look at this—to come when we knew full well that their skills and abilities would not be recognized when they first stepped off the plane. People would come from countries like Afghanistan or countries in the Third World or in much of sub-Saharan Africa who had skills and abilities which were hugely in demand in their own country, and they would come here not being able to use those.

You might wonder why I am posing the whole question of immigration when many people think that it is a matter of federal jurisdiction. In fact, it is not simply a matter of federal jurisdiction.

Section 93 of the British North America Act and the Constitution of Canada have two joint jurisdictions: One is agriculture, which we all know very well because we have an agricultural minister here in Ontario and a federal agricultural minister as well; and the second one is immigration, and we have a Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and as well there is one in Ottawa. But the bringing to Canada of immigrants has been left largely in this province to the federal government.

Other provinces have stepped in much more aggressively than we have been willing to do. Perhaps the most aggressive province has been Quebec. The province of Quebec, many years ago, I believe 30 or 35 years ago, developed their own grid system. They developed their own norms of assessment so that they could look at people in terms of what kind of immigrants Quebec needed. They looked at that system in order to help to recruit and to bring people to that province that were in need and in demand, and so that the jobs were available for them to do upon arrival.

Ontario has not done that, and Ontario continues not to do that. I think that this is something where we are lagging behind. If we are clear that we want people to come to this country, if we are clear that we want people with foreign credentials to be recognized when they arrive here, if we are clear that they are going to be of benefit to this province, then I think we have to get into the immigration game. We have to do more like what the province of Quebec does and set up our own grid and/or set up visa officers in the field who will help to recruit and to explain to potential new Canadians and new Ontarians the way that the system works in Ontario.

It is not fair, and it continues not to be fair, to take people from the Third World, to take them from doing good work for people who desperately need their services, and to bring them here and not utilize those same services. It's important for those who are here already, for those who have made the choice, to fast-track them and to simplify the registration process. But it is also equally as important for new recruits that may be coming forward in the weeks and months and years in advance of now that they are given every opportunity to understand the circumstances before they are removed from one country and brought to another.

I think the whole ethics, the whole morality, of what we're doing needs to be looked at. I believe that the province of Ontario has the economic weight and the fiscal muscle to be able to accomplish this.

I know that when we were talking about fairness just a while ago, one of the issues of fairness that was raised in the past was the whole issue of immigration, immigration settlement and Ontario getting the same money as other provinces. The reality is that Quebec gets the most money not simply because the federal government wants to give money to the province of Quebec, but because they have established their own grid system and visa officers, and this is an attempt by the federal government to pay those monies in order to allow Quebec to do what it needs to do.

I believe Ontario should go down the same road. I believe that Ontario should be out there recruiting the kinds of professionals we need. It need not be confined to medical practitioners. It can be a whole broad range of things: everything from nuclear scientists, if that's what we need, to engineers. It can be recruiting people in less glamorous jobs. If Ontario needs janitors, then let's recruit janitors. If Ontario needs teachers, let's recruit teachers. If Ontario needs people who work in factories, let's recruit those people who can work in the factories. But Ontario has not done that.

I would simply suggest that in line with this bill—and I think this bill is fine—we need to look at the ethics and the morality, and Ontario also needs to get into the immigration game if we are ultimately going to be successful. To let some other jurisdiction, such as the federal government, choose our immigrants does not do justice to the people of Ontario, and ultimately we will be scrambling, as we are scrambling here, to do the right thing.

I also want to talk about the other aspects of this bill: creating a transitional licence to allow internationally trained physicians to practise under supervision while they complete their education. This is akin to an apprenticeship, and I have to agree that this is a good idea. I have always thought that this was the ultimate way in which internationally trained physicians and nurses and other medical practitioners should be brought into the field. They have education, sometimes comparable, sometimes better, sometimes not as good as our own.

I think that this is symptomatic of what has happened in our province, so we need to have a transitional licence to allow people like him with all those skills and abilities to do anything from a couple of months to a year and transition into the Canadian experience. The same that holds true of that man, I'm sure, would hold true of dozens or hundreds of other people who come from far-flung jurisdictions across the world.

A simple opportunity to work alongside a Canadian licensed doctor or team of doctors, either in a hospital or in general practice, and then to write the exam or to show that they have gained the necessary skills and abilities is all that should be required. I agree with this point as well.

I have about five minutes left, but I'm mindful of the time. It's about time for me to stop so I will do that and resume on the next occasion.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The time for debate has ended.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I take this opportunity on behalf of the member from Ottawa Centre to welcome a group of visitors from the Canada Meets Germany organization who are going to be visiting Queen's Park today. It's a pleasure to have them with us.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My first question is to the Premier. Premier, my question to you is quite simple: I'd like to ask you how many full-time public health units in the province of Ontario are still without a full-time medical officer of health?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. David Caplan: Public health and the capacity of the system has been something that we've been working very hard to address. I understand there are approximately one third that still have acting medical officers of health, and it's a situation that we're working quickly to resolve.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It is absolutely disgraceful that five years since this government came to office, one third of communities still don't have medical officers of health. You have failed to address this particular problem. As you know, this was one of the key recommendations coming out of the Walkerton report, and that is that you were supposed to hire full-time officers of health for every community in the province of Ontario. You have failed. The Ontario Medical Association twice last year reprimanded you and indicated how urgent this was in the case of a medical crisis.

As of Friday, you give them more responsibility. We don't have people in place—one third vacant. How can we have confidence in your government to improve local infection control and track C. difficile—

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

Hon. David Caplan: The member is incorrect. In fact, every unit has a full-time medical officer of health: Two thirds are permanent, one third are acting. We do believe that public health units are fully equipped and able to do the very important work on mandatory reporting. The member presents incorrect information and traffics in this fiction. Unfortunately, it would be helpful to the public if the member would present correct information and the correct characterization of the situation with our public health units.

This member, in particular, is a former Minister of Health. This member was responsible, in the words of the chief medical officer of health for the province of Ontario, for turning her back on public health in the province of Ontario. The report that the member refers to refers to the tragic consequences that we see in this province when a member does not take their responsibility seriously. I can assure this member, in particular, that we have learned—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It's obvious that this Minister of Health is not prepared to assume any responsibility for the public health and safety of people in the province of Ontario. There is an outstanding recommendation, number one, coming out of the Walkerton report. You've been there now five years. If you can't do the job and hire the medical officers of health that are needed in this province, then you better move over and give it to a third person. I can tell you there are serious gaps in the system.

You've also said that you've created infection control practitioner positions, but you haven't told us how many you've actually filled. I ask you again, how can this situation give any confidence to people in the province of Ontario when it comes to C. difficile when you haven't been able to hire the people needed to track the infections and make sure people don't die?

Hon. David Caplan: I'm happy to share the information with members of the House. On Friday, in fact, we had wonderful steps that were taken that had begun under my predecessor, Minister Smitherman, under which we were able to take the next steps to protect Ontarians. We offered both opposition critics briefings by the chief medical officer of health, and I can tell you that both critics refused to take us up on those opportunities.

I want to have a chance to share with the Legislature today that we've established the Provincial Infectious Diseases Advisory Committee, or PIDAC, staffed by some of the leading experts in our province, to be able to provide the kind of guidelines and supports that are going to be required. We are in fact the second jurisdiction now in Ontario to have public reporting, clear accountability guidelines and transparency to provide that information for Ontarians. If Ontarians go to www.Ontario.ca/patientsafety—

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

C. DIFFICILE

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: He mentions the briefings. Yes, if you want a last-minute briefing and you want to make sure it's not at the convenience of the health critics, make sure you give them a time that they can't be accommodated. What a big excuse.

I would say to you, Minister, that it's becoming apparent that you're not going to assume responsibility for the health and safety of people in this province. You and your Premier should have followed the recommendations of the Peterborough Regional Health Centre report in 2004, which said you should track C. difficile deaths. Why has it taken you four and a half years to begin mandatory reporting, and why have you not followed through and aren't tracking the deaths on a monthly basis?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, this was addressed by Dr. Michael Gardam and Dr. Michael Baker, two infectious disease and patient safety experts in the province of Ontario. Unfortunately, the member is engaging in this political gamesmanship when medical experts are saying that these are complicated and difficult matters that oftentimes people in the medical field have some debate around, that there is no consistent methodology, nor is there an ability to do so.

In fact, as the member well knows, or would have known if she had taken us up on the offer to have a briefing on this, as Dr. Baker has said, he's asked for the very best advice by Dr. Vivek Goel and many others to put this into place. In fact, what is in place are 14 regional infection control networks, 166 new infection control practitioners, and we've added to those, in fact, with more—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I think there's only one person who might be a little ignorant of the facts, and that might be the minister himself. Last week, he said to reporters —

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member to withdraw that. Personal attacks on one another are not appropriate for the chamber.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I would withdraw that he lacks knowledge of the facts.

Last week, in responding to reporters, he indicated that his wife had told him that C. difficile had been around for a long time. The one, thing, then obviously the minister doesn't understand completely is that the strain of C. difficile in the province today, and raging throughout the world, is much more deadly than it was five, 10 and even two years ago.

So I ask you, Minister, are you prepared to acknowledge that there is a need for an investigation to find—

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

Hon. David Caplan: I do want to correct my record as well. I did indicate both opposition members—I should say that that is not correct. My colleague from Nickel Belt did take us up on the offer to have a briefing by medical experts. This member did not. She does not because she doesn't want the facts. She does not because, unfortunately, it was her failure as a former Minister of Health that she turned her back on public health.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: That is a personal attack.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock for a moment, please. I recognize that in the heat of debate in here that things can get said, but we do need—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I appreciate the member from Newmarket—Aurora's comment both ways. I think we all just need to be diligent in the responses. We certainly can choose to poke fun at maybe some lack of knowledge or lack of understanding, but try and do it in a general way and not use it as a direct attack at a member. I say it from both sides. The more we can be conscious of that and maintain decorum, I think, helps this place function better.

Minister?

Hon. David Caplan: Speaker, thank you very much. I quote former chief medical officer of health Dr. Richard Schabas, who says, "This was a government"—referring to the member when she was the Minister of Health—"that really held public institutions in contempt ... [It] was contemptuous of people who worked for public institutions," and in public health. That's the record of this member when she was on this side of the House, guarding and protecting the health of the people of Ontario.

It's a very different situation now, where we've put in place protections, internationally recognized and award-winning hand-washing protocols and a hand hygiene project—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister, thank you. Final supplementary.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Mr. Speaker, I can tell you one thing. If this minister is more interested in finger pointing than protecting the health and safety of people in the province of Ontario, then he should continue day after day to stand up and do some finger pointing.

The reality is this government has been in power now for five years. The first outbreak of C. difficile was in Peterborough in the fall of 2003. Since that time, they have chosen not to assume any responsibility or any accountability. They have been totally missing in action.

People have died in this province—thousands of people, by the way—and I'm going to ask the minister again: Is he prepared to assume accountability and launch an investigation into the cause of C. difficile in order that we have a complete picture of the situation?

Hon. David Caplan: I disagree completely with the member opposite. In fact, starting in 2004, shortly after the outbreak that the member mentioned, is when action ensued by my predecessor and by this government.

I would quote for the member a recent editorial from the Belleville Intelligencer: "But playing political ping-pong with this issue is not the right road to take. To suggest the government of Premier Dalton McGuinty is afraid of an investigation of the deaths from C. difficile is crass political opportunism ... All political parties should work to ensure infection control is as stringent as it can be, without trying to score political points out of a tragic situation."

Sadly, my friend opposite doesn't take the wise advice from the good folks in Belleville. Unfortunately, she doesn't take the wise advice from right across the province of Ontario. If she were to be honest with the people of Ontario, that this government has taken the appropriate action—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member to withdraw the comment.

Hon. David Caplan: I withdraw, Speaker. In fact—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): New question. The leader of the third party.

FEDERAL LIBERAL

ELECTION PROMISES

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Premier. Now that the federal Liberals, under Stéphane Dion, and the NDP have released their election platforms, can the Premier tell Ontario voters which platform will reverse the unfair and disastrous employment insurance cuts that have for years resulted in lower per capita employment insurance benefits for laid-off Ontario workers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I welcome the question. I welcome the support of the leader of the NDP in our shared quest for fairness from the federal government, and I look forward to having that resolution passed—ideally unanimously—in this Legislature very soon.

We've sent letters to all the federal party leaders as well as to every single candidate presenting themselves, seeking a seat in the House of Commons, and we've said we'd like to have answers by 3 October. We'll make those answers public, but until we receive those answers, we won't know exactly where the parties stand.

I understand that many of the platforms, if not all the platforms, are now out, but we're looking for some very specific responses to some very specific questions. We have yet to receive those, and as I say, as soon as we do, we'll make them all public.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Mr. Dion has released his election platform. It states what he's prepared to do, but the Premier somehow doesn't want to refer to it. Let me help the Premier out.

The Liberal platform of Mr. Dion only offers help for seasonal workers, a proposal that will create more inequalities and unfairness between laid-off Ontario workers and workers in the rest of the country.

The NDP is committed to making 80% of unemployed Ontario workers eligible for employment insurance, the situation that existed before employment insurance was cut by the former federal Liberal government. That's good news for Ontario workers.

My question: When will the Premier acknowledge that his federal Liberal cousins have rejected his fairness for Ontario workers campaign and won't get the job done for laid-off Ontario workers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: —we're also understanding that the Conservatives are putting forward the position held by the federal Conservative party. I understand that as well.

What I'm trying to do is what I believe to be the responsible thing. We're trying to advocate on behalf of all Ontarians, independent of how they vote in the upcoming federal election. We're looking to see what federal parties are offering by way of addressing recurring unfairness. It is true that the NDP have spoken to this issue; it is true that the Liberals, through their platform, have spoken to this issue.

But the leader of the NDP also knows that during the course of a political campaign, not only do we put out a platform, but from time to time our position is sought in response to a specific letter coming from a stakeholder group. We've done this here on behalf of 13 million Ontarians and we look forward to a specific response to issues that we have raised.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: But, Premier, Mr. Dion has spoken. He has released the Liberal platform, and it will do nothing for those hundreds of thousands of laid-off workers in Ontario. But one of your other so-called fairness demands has been that the federal government address manufacturing job losses in southern Ontario by establishing an economic development agency. Hard-hit southern Ontario has been completely ignored in the 76-page Dion Liberal election platform. New Democrats are committed to creating an economic development agency for hard-hit southern Ontario.

I ask the Premier: When is the Premier going to endorse Jack Layton and the NDP as the right choice for laid-off Ontario workers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand where the leader of the Ontario NDP is coming from on this score. He's very open and honest about this, and very partisan. I think what is better for us to do, certainly on this side of the House as the government, is to awaken all Ontarians, independent of how they vote in the upcoming election, to the notion of unfairness. I want to add this to the conversation that has taken place during this period of the election.

I want all Ontarians, again, independent of how they vote, to push all their candidates and ask them if they're prepared to stand up for fairness when they get to Ottawa. Are they prepared to understand that here in Ontario we're coming up short when it comes to employment insurance, infrastructure, health care and other areas? That's what this is about. It's not about—

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

FEDERAL LIBERAL

ELECTION PROMISES

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question is to the Premier again. The cards have been put on the table. Your federal Liberal cousins—I think your seat mate is your brother. He's the federal MP for Ottawa South. Nowhere do they respond to those two critical things for all of these jobless Ontarians: No economic development strategy for southern Ontario and no real addressing of the employment insurance inequality. Premier, I'm asking you: Are you now going to point out these failings in Mr. Dion's federal Liberal platform and how badly they let down laid-off Ontario workers?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I really not sure what more I can add to this, except to say that again, I appreciate that the leader of the NDP is very open and honest about this. He wants all Ontario voters to vote for the NDP: open, closed, shut. I understand that.

I think we have a bit of a higher responsibility to encourage all Ontario voters to be thoughtful. The additional consideration I'd like them to weigh when it comes time to vote is, who's going to stand up for Ontario? Who's going to address employment insurance issues and infrastructure issues? Who's going to address the unfairness when it comes to health care? Who's going to give us a regional economic development plan for southern Ontario? Those are the kinds of questions that we want all Ontario voters to consider, independent of how they vote in the end.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: I'm simply seeking a little honesty from the McGuinty Liberal government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the member to withdraw the comment. We just spoke to the members about this very issue.

Mr. Howard Hampton: I withdraw that.

I'm simply asking the McGuinty government to now pay attention to the test that the McGuinty government issued.

I note that other Premiers from other provinces—for example, the Premier of Saskatchewan is here in Ontario today. He says that Ontario has a job shortage, while Saskatchewan has a worker shortage. They're looking for people to fill 10,000 jobs in Saskatchewan, while their economy is booming. He says, "Hey, I recognize there's a problem in Ontario."

I'm asking the Premier of Ontario: Do you recognize there's a problem of lost jobs in Ontario, and do you recognize that the Dion Liberal platform won't do a thing to address it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm really pleased about the developments that have been taking place of late in the province of Saskatchewan. The commodities market there is booming; they're really bringing in tremendous resources on the basis of potash, oil and uranium. That's great news for the folks of Saskatchewan. I think it's a bit of a tribute to the quality of our workforce that they're coming here.

One of the things that I would remind Ontarians to do is to keep in mind that we've got 100,000 jobs in Ontario that we can't fill. That's why we've been putting such a strong emphasis on retraining opportunities for Ontarians who have lost their jobs. I'm not about to say to Ontarians that they can't travel elsewhere to find employment, just as I wouldn't say to the folks of Saskatchewan that they can't travel elsewhere to find employment in this great country that we share and love. But what I am saying to the people of Ontario is that we're going to continue to work as hard as we possibly can on a number of fronts, including ensuring that we receive fairness from Ottawa.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I want to bring the issue back to jobs: the loss of jobs, the fact that the Dion Liberals propose to do nothing in terms of employment insurance fairness and nothing in terms of addressing that job loss in terms of manufacturing in southern Ontario. It's happening almost daily. In Niagara this week, AbitibiBowater is temporarily shutting down its paper mill, laying off almost 500 workers.

I ask the Premier again: Since the Dion Liberals, federally, propose nothing to address this disastrous loss of manufacturing jobs in southern Ontario, when is the McGuinty government going to take some action to address this disastrous loss of manufacturing jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my colleague that 60% of all new jobs created in Canada since January of this year were created here in the province of Ontario. The unemployment rate today in Ontario is lower than it was five years ago. We continue to work hard and well with folks in the manufacturing sector. My friend knows that we have eliminated capital taxes for manufacturers and those in the resources sector.

He may know that I had the opportunity to visit the very plant that he referenced a moment ago when I was in Thunder Bay. I had a good opportunity to chat with some of the folks there, and there are some challenges associated with just getting access to fibre and making sure you have enough wood to do the kinds of things that they want to do there to operate their energy-efficient apparatus.

But the fact of the matter is, we continue to generate 40% of all the wealth in the country, and we continue to generate jobs more quickly than anybody else.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Regarding the comments made by the Minister of Health in the briefing, I have the proof on my BlackBerry that, yes, I was offered a briefing at 1 o'clock Thursday and then the ministry called to cancel it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. I will trust that the minister and the member will clear the air on this issue of the briefing.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Tell the truth, David.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Kitchener—Waterloo, would you please withdraw your comment?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I withdraw.

Hon. Michael Bryant: On a point of order, Speaker: I appreciate that there is obviously a time for a debate back and forth in between question and supplementary, but I wonder about the use of points of order to provide, in essence, a rebuttal 10 minutes after the fact.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'm letting the clock run because the point of order was initiated on the opposition side. I think the general consensus around this place has been that we try not to have points of order during question period, but I do, under parliamentary procedure, have to honour them.

New question.

EASTERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is for the new Minister of Economic Development. I want to congratulate him on winning his new responsibilities. I think "winning" is the right word.

Minister, in the run-up to the last provincial election, Premier McGuinty, with great fanfare, announced the eastern Ontario development fund. The Premier's press release states that applicants will know if their proposals are successful within 45 days of applying.

Minister, can you tell us how many firms or individuals have applied and how many have been successful?

Hon. Michael Bryant: I know the member will want me to provide the most up-to-date numbers, so I will certainly undertake to provide those numbers to the member.

I want to thank the member for his good wishes, so to speak, and say as well that the establishment of the fund and the strategy was very much for the purpose of recognizing the particular regional opportunities that exist in eastern Ontario, ones the member is certainly aware of. As a result of that and as a result of significant hard work by our member of provincial Parliament Jean-Marc Lalonde, we were able to use this to leverage opportunities and jobs for the purposes of making eastern Ontario an even stronger region in this province and this country.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Nice words, but I didn't hear any substance.

It's been two months now since the glitzy launch of this program. We cannot find any evidence that one business—not one business—has seen money flow. There doesn't seem to be a sense of urgency—almost lethargy, some might say—while families and communities are suffering in eastern Ontario. We have almost weekly announcements of job losses. Breadwinners have to move out of their homes and their hometowns, even their provinces, to find work. So I ask the minister to explain to us and the people of eastern Ontario why the money isn't flowing, and why isn't eastern Ontario a priority for your government?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Obviously, the eastern Ontario development fund and the $80-million investment is just a sign of the enormous support of this government for eastern Ontario.

If the member has a particular project that he wants to work with the government on or wants to bring to the government's attention, I appreciate that, and we'll certainly work with the member on that front.

This is the government that in fact established an eastern Ontario development fund; his was the government that cancelled the eastern Ontario development fund. In the last election, they offered to open up some kind of an office or something. So I think, from the Premier's actions, our commitment to eastern Ontario is very clear, and I think it's very clear from the member's previous government's actions—

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

C. DIFFICILE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Under the new reporting system, hospitals will post the number and the rate of C. difficile infections at the end of the month following the event. That could be up to 60 days after an outbreak has been declared. You made it mandatory for hospitals to immediately report clusters or outbreaks of C. difficile to their health units, but you made it totally voluntary to report the same to their staff, their patients and their communities. Why doesn't your plan include any requirements or guidelines for immediate local public communication of C. difficile outbreaks?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, there is a requirement through the public health unit that if there is an outbreak, it immediately be publicly reported. The member is quite incorrect in the facts that she has presented, and I hope this presents a chance for her to correct her record; she has unfortunately muddied these waters.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Nickel Belt.

M me France Gélinas: I did take the briefing, and this is a question I asked Dr. Williams directly. He said that it is up to the health unit or to the hospital to decide if they are going to advise the public of an outbreak. This is a question I asked directly, and I asked him, "Why don't we have guidelines? The hospital has to report to the health unit so we know that there is a cluster or an outbreak. How come there's no communication mechanism?" I was clear in this question, and he was clear in his answer to me: There is no such requirement.

Your plan for dealing with C. difficile outbreaks emphasized the importance of best practices for handwashing—you talked about that—room cleaning and proper isolation of patients. But in many Ontario hospitals, which are overcrowded and understaffed, hospital personnel do not have the time or the facilities to implement these best practices. Have you, Mr. Minister, assessed the resource implications of implementing C. difficile best practices in all 228 hospital sites that have to report?

Hon. David Caplan: In fact, when we asked Dr. Baker and Dr. Gardam to provide us with the very best advice, we also asked Dr. Vivek Goel, who is the president and CEO of the Ontario Agency for Health Protection and Promotion. He says, "In jurisdictions where they launched into it without taking a more systemic approach," as we have done in Ontario, "they found that the estimates ... varied widely from one hospital to another." He goes on, "We're going to look at the tools which have been developed for classifying the causes of death and assemble expert panels," as Dr.

Baker has, "identify and take a sample of cases from across the province, and evaluate what proportion of those cases can be attributed to C. diff."

In fact, we've taken a comprehensive approach. Quite shortly, we'll be releasing the generic output specifications which will go to the capital guidelines for hospitals on infection control practices and a whole range of other elements—

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

DRAPEAU FRANCO-ONTARIEN /

FRANCO-ONTARIAN FLAG

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: My question is to the minister responsible for francophone affairs.

Jeudi dernier, j'ai participé à l'inauguration de deux monuments francophones de l'est ontarien, soit à Rockland et à Casselman. Laissez-moi vous dire que c'était la journée du drapeau francophone, emblème de la communauté francophone, drapeau illustrant le courage, la solidarité et la persévérance de la communauté franco-ontarienne. Laissez-moi vous dire que plus de 2500 personnes ont assisté à ces deux inaugurations.

Je dois dire que le 21 avril 2001, les trois partis de cette Chambre, de cette Assemblée législative, ont accepté à l'unanimité la reconnaissance du drapeau franco-ontarien.

Madame la ministre, qu'a fait le gouvernement pour assurer l'épanouissement et le développement—

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

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Je voudrais remercier mon collègue de Prescott-Russell pour son engagement envers la communauté francophone. Je vais être très claire ici aujourd'hui : les membres de ce gouvernement appuient la communauté franco-ontarienne.

J'étais très déçue la semaine dernière, lorsqu'on fêtait le 33 e anniversaire du drapeau franco-ontarien, que le député de Thornhill s'est levé pour insulter les Franco-Ontariens, pour dire—il parlait du drapeau franco-ontarien—« to divide our great Ontarian community. »

Alors, je voudrais lui rafraîchir la mémoire : C'est son parti, lorsqu'il était au gouvernement, qui a divisé cette communauté-là. C'est son parti qui a voulu fermer l'Hôpital Montfort. C'est son parti qui a réduit le nombre de personnel et le financement de l'Office des affaires francophones. C'est son parti qui divise la communauté de l'Ontario. Nous, les—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Merci. Supplementary?

M. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Il n'y a pas de doute que les commentaires faits par l'opposition conservatrice la semaine dernière étaient insultants à l'égard des membres de la communauté francophone, qui croit au respect et à l'égalité.

Lorsque j'ai lu dans le journal Le Droit d'Ottawa les commentaires de mon collègue de l'opposition, je ne pouvais pas y croire de mes yeux. Un commentaire comme celui qu'a fait le député de Thornhill est irrespectueux, inutile, et met la population mal à l'aise.

Madame la ministre, que diriez-vous aux francophones pour corriger les dommages causés par les propos insultants de l'opposition, et je—

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

L'hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Oui, je dirais à la communauté franco-ontarienne que ce gouvernement ici a toujours été en arrière d'eux pour les appuyer. C'est ce gouvernement qui a donné 185 $ millions pour reconstruire l'Hôpital Montfort. C'est ce gouvernement qui investit dans l'éducation franco-ontarienne. C'est ce gouvernement qui est toujours en arrière d'eux dans leurs luttes et dans leur succès.

Ce n'est pas le drapeau franco-ontarien qui divise; ce sont des commentaires comme ceux du député de Thornhill.

Again, I'm asking John Tory and the member from Thornhill, would you stand up today and apologize and admit that your comments were disrespectful and divisive? I ask for an apology today.

Le drapeau franco-ontarien, comme le dirait ce grand poète, renferme dans ses plis l'espoir de tout un peuple.

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Premier. "Go west, young man, go west." That is the message today being heard at Toronto's national job fair. Saskatchewan's Premier, Brad Wall, is visiting to poach Ontario's coveted workforce. I don't blame him. Ontario workers are some of the best in the world. The Premier loves to boast about his retraining programs, but what is the point of retraining workers when there are no jobs? We need it both ways, Premier.

The Premier will probably say that he has a five-point plan. Well, that plan is not working, Premier; it's clearly unbalanced. Before anything else, we need to retain and attract investment. In order to save and create jobs, we need a competitive business environment.

Premier, will you adjust your so-called plan, or are you simply going to stand on the platform and wave goodbye to Ontario's workers as they fade into the sunset?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty, Premier: To the Minister of Economic Development.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Well, on the contrary, it is in fact the case that it is Ontario that the government of Saskatchewan is coming to, to try and attract jobs, and that is thanks to the investments and interventions and the climate that has been created by the government through its investments in education and post-secondary education and skills, and with respect to advanced manufact