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

November 7, 2002

37th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2002-Nov-07 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 7 November 2002 Jeudi 7 novembre 2002

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM CARE

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

LONG-TERM CARE

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

LONG-TERM CARE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

JERMAIN AND KEVIN EBANKS

HYDRO RATES

VETERANS

HYDRO RATES

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

VISITORS

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

DEFERRED VOTES

VICTIM EMPOWERMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'HABILITATION

DES VICTIMES

EMERGENCY READINESS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002

SUR L'ÉTAT DE PRÉPARATION

AUX SITUATIONS D'URGENCE

SUSTAINABLE WATER AND

SEWAGE SYSTEMS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA DURABILITÉ

DES RÉSEAUX D'EAU ET D'ÉGOUTS

GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR

L'EFFICIENCE DU GOUVERNEMENT

LEGAL AID SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES SERVICES

D'AIDE JURIDIQUE

AGRICULTURAL EMPLOYEES PROTECTION ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LA PROTECTION

DES EMPLOYÉS AGRICOLES

VISITORS

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

REMEMBRANCE DAY

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO DEREGULATION

HYDRO RATES

INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

TEACHERS' STRIKE

HYDRO RATES

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTHY LIVING

HYDRO RATES /

DÉRÉGLEMENTATION DE L'ÉLECTRICITÉ

EARLY YEARS CHALLENGE FUND

HYDRO RATES

AMBULANCE SERVICES

BILL 207

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

CUSTODIAL CARE

HYDRO RATES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

KEEPING THE PROMISE

FOR A STRONG ECONOMY ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR LE RESPECT

DE L'ENGAGEMENT D'ASSURER

UNE ÉCONOMIE SAINE

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Thursday 7 November 2002 Jeudi 7 novembre 2002

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

LONG-TERM CARE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I present the resolution that, in the opinion of this House, the Ernie Eves government should immediately

establish minimum standards of care for nursing homes and homes for the aged, including the reintroduction of minimum hours of nursing care and the requirement for a minimum of at least one bath a

week.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member has up to 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Mrs McLeod: This is, in all likelihood, the last opportunity I will have to bring forward private member's business to this House. I've chosen

to use the opportunity to present this particular resolution because of a growing personal sense of outrage I have at the Harris-Eves government's, in my view, deliberate abandonment of our most

vulnerable seniors. I know that in the course of the morning's debate we will hear members of the government say, "This government has made the largest investment in long-term care of any

government in history," so I want to put that argument into the context of fact.

The fact is that this government's investment in long-term care is almost entirely to bring in new long-term-care beds. That's fine, but we have to understand

that that investment in long-term-care beds was because one of the first actions of this same government was to engage in the shutting down of thousands -- thousands -- of acute care beds and to

shut down fully 40% of the chronic care beds in this province. They wanted to put the chronic care patients into long-term-care beds, and they wanted to do that to save money, because in chronic

care you get over $200 a day to care for patients, while in long-term care it's more like $100 a day.

This government seems to keep getting caught by surprise. To their surprise, they discovered there wasn't room in the long-term-care facilities for all these

chronic care patients who were about to be displaced. There were waiting lists across the province; there were 18,000 people on waiting lists for long-term care. So this government did indeed

belatedly recognize that they had to build some new beds. Six years later, some of those new beds are coming on-stream. We still have waiting lists for long-term care, we still have patients

sitting in acute care beds, and we still have people being discharged from hospital without adequate home care.

In the meantime, when our long-term-care facilities did have a vacancy, they were taking patients with higher and higher levels of need for care. But this

government did not transfer the chronic care dollars to the long-term-care facilities, so those long-term-care facilities or nursing homes or homes for the aged are caring for these much needier

individuals with very minimal dollars. Very little of the new money this government will say it has invested in long-term care has gone to actually improve the care for people in our homes for the

aged and nursing homes.

Along with the New Democratic Party, about two years ago, I think, we had a series of hearings across the province on long-term care. We heard story after story

from anguished family members who came forward to tell us of their concerns about the lack of quality of life, in fact their fears for the very safety of their loved ones in our nursing homes and

our homes for the aged. At one point -- it was in Thunder Bay, my home riding -- somebody who works in a nursing home, a staff person, came forward at the end of the hearings. She was in tears. She

said, "I know how concerned you are. I know we're not doing what we should be able to do to provide care, but you've got to understand how few resources we have to work with."

The staff of our nursing homes and homes for the aged are as distressed as the families of the residents in those homes and as concerned not only for the safety

of those residents but indeed for their own safety, as overworked, exhausted, stressed staff try to provide care for these very high need individuals.

The government's response to this was to cut the minimum number of hours of nursing care. There was a regulation that set

a minimum; it said every individual should have 2.25 hours of nursing care. This government responded to the concerns for care by cutting out the minimums, because how else could they begin to meet

the needs of these individuals with the dollars they were giving? They couldn't be held to account for the enforcement of the regulation and not have to put more money into it. Now we are last in

this country -- last in this country -- in the numbers of hours of nursing care that individuals in nursing homes and homes for the aged receive. In fact, as I understand the independent study that

was done, we are probably last in comparison to the United States and in comparison to European countries in the numbers of hours of nursing care that we provide our residents. We are last in our

support for people with behavioural problems, last in our support for people who require rehabilitation.

When the people in the long-term-care facilities were driven to the point of desperation last spring and ran a very strong campaign to make us all aware of the

needs in those homes, what was this government's next response? If you'll recall, in that campaign one of the issues was that residents get a minimum of one bath per week, and the minister, quite

rightly, responded, "That's what's in the regulations. It's a minimum. That's what's required." But it became a flashpoint, so this government's response was to remove that regulation and to

replace it with a regulation that simply says they have to give sufficient care to maintain personal hygiene.

The minister says, "We don't want numerical standards, because if you have a numerical standard, a minimum becomes a maximum." A minimum only becomes a maximum

if the funding body, the government, only funds to the level of minimum care. If they provide more dollars, more care can be given; you don't get held to the minimums. But at least you need some

basics, some basics for which this government can be held accountable.

The other way that you get minimums becoming maximums is if you ration care and set the maximums, which is what this government has done with home care, but that

again is another story.

The minister says, "We want to give people the flexibility to meet the patients' needs. That's why we don't want numerical figures." You only have flexibility if

you have enough money to meet the needs. The minister says, "We want to move to outcome measurement instead of numerical standards." How do you measure outcomes for quality of life of people in

nursing homes and homes for the aged? You can't look at mortality rates; that's not an applicable figure for this particular population. So do you look at whether or not people are developing

bedsores? Do you look at the outbreak of influenza? As an outcome, how would you look at the effect on an individual of the number of hours that somebody sits waiting to have somebody come and feed

them? How do you measure the outcome on quality of life of the number of hours that somebody in a nursing home or home for the aged spends in isolation and in silence?

I've two stories that I want to tell in my last three minutes. One is the story of my mother; I've told it in this House before. My mother spent the last three

months of her life in a home for the aged, and because it was a municipal home for the aged in my home riding of Thunder Bay it benefits from a 20% top-up; they have a little extra money. This home

used that money to provide an occupational therapist for the Alzheimer's unit. That occupational therapist made the last three months of my mother's life the best quality of life that she had had

for the last two years, because they found ways in which she could respond.

I believe that there should be minimum standards for bathing and there should be minimum standards of nursing care and we should go beyond those. I believe that

we should have a standard that says there should be rehabilitation, there should be occupational therapists and that our seniors deserve no less than what will contribute to their quality of

life.

My second story is one that is not as happy. It's the story of my mother-in-law. You have to know that my mother-in-law was a brilliant woman who got a

university degree and a scholarship to go to the Sorbonne back in the 1920s when women weren't doing that. She devoted her life as a minister's wife to charitable work in our community. She

remained feisty, bright and independent until she succumbed to Alzheimer's disease at the age of 82. My mother-in-law also spent the last months of her life in a nursing home. It didn't happen to

have the 20% top-up, it didn't have an occupational therapist, it didn't have enough staff to actually feed the residents of that nursing home -- at least, not unless they waited for a long time --

and it certainly didn't have the staff to take them for walks or to talk to them. They did their best. The staff in that nursing home did their best. But the best they could do was to try to keep

people safe and, indeed, to keep their diapers changed, because that's what maintaining personal hygiene really means in those settings.

I don't think it was enough for my mother-in-law, a person who gave and gave and gave. I don't think it was enough to say that her needs were being met because

her personal hygiene was being looked after. I think if my mother-in-law had not been a victim of Alzheimer's and was in that nursing home seeing what was happening to the people around her -- I

don't think, I know that my mother-in-law would have been outraged, because it was that kind of outrage that she brought to injustice throughout her life. She deserved more. She would have believed

that the people who shared that residence with her deserved more. She would have anguished for the staff trying to provide care.

I brought this resolution forward today because I wanted to express in this House what would have been my mother-in-law's outrage in this last opportunity I have

to bring forward private member's business. I ask this government to finally take action in concern.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): It's a pleasure for me to participate in the debate this morning. I'll be supporting the resolution and, at the

end of my remarks, will be making some suggestions about how it might have been strengthened, because I believe it could have been.

Let me begin by saying that it is a tragedy -- a tragedy -- that this government cares so little for the frail and elderly in Ontario long-term-care facilities

that they can't even protect them by having in place minimum standards for nursing care and minimum standards for bathing. That is a fact. The government cares so little -- so little -- for the

frail and the elderly in Ontario long-term-care facilities that they have done away with minimum standards for nursing care and minimum standards for bathing.

You see, before this government was elected, under our government there was a minimum standard for nursing care. It was 2.25 hours of hands-on care per resident

per day. One of the first things that Jim Wilson, who was then the Minister of Health, did was to do away with that minimum standard. I don't think residents asked for that minimum standard to be

abandoned. I don't think families of residents in long-term-care facilities asked for that. I know the unions that represent people who work in nursing homes, like ONA, SEIU and CUPE, certainly

didn't ask for the minimum standards to be done away with. I suspect that some of those for-profit long-term-care operators, especially the big corporations, had the government's ear on this one.

They didn't want to be bound by any standards, because if they were not bound, maybe they could have less staff and more profit. That's what happened, and it is a shame that the government listened

to that lobby instead of protecting families and the residents themselves who are in those facilities.

The real question is, has that lack of a standard had a negative impact on the care of the frail and the elderly? And the answer is, you bet it has -- absolutely

-- and this government has the proof. You see, this government funded a study done by PricewaterhouseCoopers that was released in January 2001, and in that particular study PricewaterhouseCoopers

compared the needs and the services provided to long-term-care residents in Ontario facilities to the needs and the services provided to residents in more than seven other jurisdictions: Manitoba,

Saskatchewan, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, South Dakota, Sweden, Finland and the Netherlands. The results of that work done by PricewaterhouseCoopers, independent of this government, independent

of my political party, were shocking.

They discovered, for example, that residents in Ontario long-term-care facilities received less nursing and therapy services than similar jurisdictions with

similar populations. Furthermore, Ontario long-term-care residents have some significant differences in terms of their level of depression, cognitive levels and behavioural problems, which

indicates a higher need for service levels to meet higher care requirements.

The second shocking thing found was that the proportion of care provided by registered nurses in Ontario is less than in all other jurisdictions. In Ontario,

registered nurses are now providing 2.04 hours of care per resident per day. That is less than the minimum standard that was in place. That shows you what happens when you abandon minimum

standards. Then some of these homes worked to even lower common denominators.

What they also found was that, in terms of rehabilitation services, only 10% of residents who have the potential for rehabilitation actually receive that

rehabilitation. Or with respect to behavioural therapy, despite the fact that 61% of the residents in Ontario long-term-care facilities present with behavioural issues -- the highest of all the

populations -- they receive among the lowest levels of therapy: only slightly more than 10 minutes per person per day.

Is the question, then, do they receive less care because Ontario residents in long-term-care facilities have better health than the health of the other

populations that were studied in other jurisdictions? The answer there is again no, because the rates of depression in Ontario long-term-care facilities were higher than anywhere else except in the

Netherlands; Ontario had higher levels of residents having suffered strokes than Saskatchewan and Manitoba; Ontario had among the highest levels of residents with dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

In fact, the authors of the study made this particular point with respect to those residents in their care. They said:

"The ... authors note that this finding has `significant implications for the care and treatment of these individuals' for several reasons. Clearly ... in order

to offer adequate care for people with dementias, there must be sufficient numbers of staff. And, in order to ensure safe, appropriate and quality care, staff must be specially trained so they will

have the necessary expertise required to meet the needs of these residents. Failure to ensure these fundamentals may inevitably result in a diminished quality of life for residents, excessive acute

care hospital" stays "and increased strain on staff in long-term-care facilities."

Why do I make this point? I make the point because this report, paid for by this government, released in the beginning of 2001, clearly shows that the absence of

minimum standards of care does have a negative impact on the frail and the elderly living in Ontario long-term-care facilities. It impacts on their health directly. They are at the bottom -- the

bottom -- of the heap in terms of receiving nursing care, rehabilitation etc, and it is wrong -- absolutely wrong -- that in the province of Ontario our residents in long-term-care facilities

should be such a low priority for this government that they are at the bottom in terms of the care they receive in comparison to so many other jurisdictions. This government should be embarrassed

about that fact and this government should be doing something about it, but they are not.

You would have thought that the government would have learned something from the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, learned

that you need a minimum standard at the outset to at least ensure adequate care. What did this government do instead? On July 31 of this year, this government then did away with the minimum

standard of bathing in the province of Ontario. That fact came to light quite by accident at the estimates committee when we dealt with the Ministry of Health on September 10. I was asking

questions to the minister with respect to a number of the changes the government had announced on July 31 with respect to their 15% fee increase for residents in long-term-care facilities. One of

the things the government had promised in that press release of July 31 was to "amend Ontario's bathing regulation to better meet ... individual needs."

So I asked the minister if the regulation had been passed. He said yes. I said, "Does that now mean three or four baths a week?" and Mr Clement said the

following: "It was decided that that would create more problems than it would solve in terms of minimum standards, so we've actually thrown it back to the sector." Well, they sure have. They've

abandoned completely the minimum requirement for bathing and left it to the sector to decide if and when a resident might actually get a bath.

It's interesting if you look at the old regulation, because the old regulation said the following: "The nursing staff shall ensure that residents who are

confined to bed or who are incontinent have a complete bath daily or more frequently where necessary to maintain cleanliness and that ambulant residents have a complete bath at least once a

week....

"The nursing staff shall ensure that proper and sufficient care of each resident's body is provided to safeguard the resident's health and to maintain personal

hygiene."

The government did away with that minimum standard, even though that standard was inadequate, and replaced it with the following:

"The nursing staff shall ensure that proper and sufficient care of each resident's body is provided daily to safeguard the resident's health and to maintain

personal hygiene." The word "bath" doesn't even come into the equation. The outcome of this is really clear. When you did away with the minimum standards for nursing care, quality of care for

residents went down. That was shown in PricewaterhouseCoopers, and there is no doubt that quality is going to further deteriorate because this government has now done away with the bathing

standard.

I want to read a letter that was sent to me by a resident in St Thomas about this serious issue, because she really makes the important point. It was sent to the

Honourable Dan Newman and reads as follows:

"I was astounded to read that prior to August 1, the Nursing Homes Act mandated a minimum of one daily bath for bedridden or incontinent residents. My husband is

incontinent but only receives one bath a week which is insufficient, unsanitary, disgusting and obviously a violation of the old Nursing Homes Act." And it is, because he was supposed to receive a

bath a day. "I have demanded improvements numerous times, repeatedly requesting a minimum of one additional bath per week, but to no avail. The typical response from management is that they'll do

what they can when time permits, but they're understaffed and have lots of other things to do etc....

"Now we're faced with new regulations that don't even assure my husband of one bath a week. If you think" -- and this is to Minister Newman -- "as you are quoted

as saying, that: `Obviously, if someone needs a bath every day, they're going to get it,' then you are sadly misinformed about the state of care in these facilities.

"The old regulations were scrapped because your ministry didn't want LTC facilities taking the `one bath a week' standard as a maximum. Well, I assure you that

even those lax standards are not being adhered to today, and the new standards will do absolutely nothing to improve the situation. Instead they will result in even fewer baths as they will allow

individuals to interpret the regulations however they choose."

She is absolutely right -- absolutely right -- that this will mean even worse care in terms of bathing for residents in long-term-care facilities.

The other sad reality is that despite the announcement the government made on July 31 that they were going to put $100 million into nursing homes to improve the

quality of care as some form of compensation for a 15% fee hike for these same residents, that money is not going to hire new nurses and new personal care aides.

I want to just quote the minister's letter to residents to put this into context. This went out July 31, and he said, "This investment will add an additional

2,400 nurses and personal care workers to the long-term-care sector, or approximately 3.9 nursing and personal care staff for each 100-bed facility."

Do you know what? On October 16, we raised the case of three for-profit nursing homes in Durham to find out how that money that was supposed to be spent on

nurses and personal care aides had in fact been spent. Here's what happened. In one of those homes, a telephone receptionist was hired. In another of the for-profit homes, a part-time social worker

and two part-time personal care aides were hired on contract till the end of this December. In the third for-profit home, there were and are no plans to hire new nursing staff at all; they're using

all the money to buy diapers, probably so they can let those poor frail and elderly seniors sit even longer in soiled diapers, and that is absolutely wrong.

We raised this question. The minister said the following in response: "The $100 million in nursing and personal care that was announced on July 31 must be spent

on nursing and personal care. That's why we made the decision. There's nothing else that money can be spent on; it must be spent on hiring additional nurses." He is completely out to lunch, because

that's not what's happening.

We came back into this House and raised the case of Rainycrest Home for the Aged in Dryden, where every single penny was spent on the operating deficit of that

facility. We raised the issue of North Centennial Manor in Kapuskasing using half of the new funding to cover WSIB and long-term disability benefits. Not one new nurse is being hired. Lady Isabelle

Nursing Home in Trout Creek is not spending a cent of that on staff. The Extendicare in Haliburton, Versacare in St Catharines and South Centennial Manor in Iroquois Falls are using all their money

to cover their operating deficits; not one single penny on new staff. Extendicare in Sudbury is hiring one RPN and that's it.

This minister was not upfront and honest when he told residents that in terms of jacking up their fees by 15% they were going to at least get more care. That is

not happening, and that was this government's fault, because they should have made sure that every single penny went to nurses and personal care aides. They're not doing it, and the quality of care

for residents in our long-term-care facilities, which was already at the bottom of the heap in terms of the report that this government commissioned and that was made public, is going to get even

worse. That's how much you folks care about residents in long-term-care facilities.

The sad reality is that if the government really wanted to protect the frail and elderly in long-term-care facilities, there are a couple of things the

government could do. The first thing the government could do is regulate a minimum standard of care in long-term-care facilities. SEIU last year came forward with a proposal of 3.5 hours of

hands-on care per resident per day in long-term-care facilities. New Democrats support that call, because there has to be a minimum standard and it has to be higher than what it was, because

clearly the results of PricewaterhouseCoopers show how dramatically the care of Ontario residents has declined since this government cancelled that minimum standard.

Secondly, there has to be a regulation with respect to the minimum standard of bathing. If a resident needs a bath a day, a resident should have a bath a day,

and that should be in regulation so that nursing homes have to provide that.

Finally, we need more inspectors in long-term-care facilities to ensure compliance. That is not happening now, and that is why nursing homes are able to get away

with what they're able to get away with. This government should be hiring more compliance officers who go in unannounced to ensure that regulations are being met.

I say in conclusion that it is a tragedy, it's a shame, that this government cares so little for seniors that they have abandoned all standards of care, and that

is why the quality of life for these residents in these facilities is so poor and so awful.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to address the member from Thunder Bay-Atitokan's resolution that our government

"should immediately establish minimum standards of care for nursing homes and homes for the aged, including the reintroduction of minimum hours of nursing care and the requirement for a minimum of

at least one bath a week" for residents.

Let me say that the Ernie Eves government is committed to meeting the long-term-care needs of Ontario's growing and aging population, and we've taken strong

action to address this challenge since we were first elected in 1995. I may add that in my riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford we have had a significant increase in the number of long-term-beds.

There's one project in particular, Victoria Village, which is a tremendous project. There were 132 long-term-care beds awarded to allow this project, which will be a seniors facility providing many

services for our seniors population, to get off the ground. I might add that they're also going to have, as a part of that project, a facility that will allow for seniors to come in from the

community to get their bathing requirements done. A part of this facility will offer that type of service, and that's a very significant feature of this project. Also, there have been beds that

have gone to Grove Park Home -- 62 -- the IOOF and Woods Park home, throughout the city of Barrie, and also there have been beds granted down in Bradford-West Gwillimbury at the south end of my

riding. So there has been significant investment in this area of long-term-care beds, and I'm very pleased that it's happening in my riding.

The fact is, cookie-cutter approaches to health care such as the member opposite is suggesting haven't worked in the past, they don't work today and they won't

work in the future. Our government has not and will not engage in this approach, but this is exactly what the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan's resolution would do: place a uniform standard over a

diverse province where health care needs vary from region to region and citizen to citizen. This simply won't do, and the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan should know that.

When it comes to imposing a minimum standard for bathing and nursing in long-term-care facilities, such a concept just wouldn't serve the best interests of

residents. That's because Ontario funds more than 60,000 long-term-care beds, and each of those beds is occupied by an individual resident with individual needs. That's why our government supports

the flexible approach of personal care plans for each and every long-term-care facility resident in Ontario. Personal care plans mean that the long-term-care facility residents in the province are

assessed according to their individual requirements to ensure they receive the personal care that they need. This means even better care for residents and greater peace of mind for families.

As you know, our government changed the regulations concerning personal care in long-term-care facilities to ensure consistency across the board and the

province. The new regulation for the Nursing Homes Act, the Homes for the Aged and Rest Homes Act and the Charitable Institutions Act specifies that nursing staff ensure that appropriate care of

each resident is provided to safeguard residents' health and maintain personal hygiene. Compliance advisers are making sure this regulation is being followed.

Our government's commitment to even better personal care for residents of Ontario's long-term-care facilities certainly doesn't end there. That's because earlier

this year my colleague the Honourable Dan Newman, Associate Minister of Health and Long-Term Care, announced a $198-million investment to improve the delivery of long-term-care services across

Ontario. Of this, $100 million will go to enhance the delivery of long-term-care nursing and personal care services, as well as programming and support services. That is a significant investment

and commitment to the personal needs of our seniors. I am proud to say in this House today that this is the single largest infusion of funds into nursing and personal care services for the

long-term-care sector in the history of this province.

This investment didn't happen when the Liberals were in power, and it wasn't made by the NDP. It was our government that made this investment so that the health

care professionals on the front lines, the people taking care of our parents and grandparents, will have the resources they need to provide even better long-term care in our province. By making the

investments that need to be made today, rather than putting them off like the Liberals and NDP did, we can make sure that quality long-term-care services are there where and when they're needed, no

matter where you live in Ontario.

Based on estimates from the nursing home sector, this unprecedented funding could see as many as 2,400 nurses and personal care workers added to the

long-term-care sector. That represents 3.9 full-time equivalent staff per 100-bed facility. That means even better long-term-care services for the people of Ontario today, even better long-term

care tomorrow and even better long-term care in the years to come.

Our government firmly believes that taxpayer dollars spent through the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care should be spent on the actual health and

long-term-care services that the people of Ontario need throughout their lives. That's why we made our unprecedented funding announcement, and that's why we changed the legislation to provide even

better care for our most vulnerable citizens.

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I'm pleased to rise and support my colleague's resolution for minimum hours of nursing care and the

requirement for a minimum of at least one bath per week. It's almost a shame that we need to make this resolution, that we've come to this in Ontario in 2002, isn't it?

Here's a little background from cards that we all receive. We all receive thousands of cards from residents on the long-term-care situation. I'll just paraphrase

some of it. If you already have a friend or a family member in any of the over 525 long-term-care facilities across Ontario, you will understand why I'm asking for your help. If you don't, the

following information will help you: over 60,000 Ontarians living in long-term-care facilities are older, frailer, sicker and require more care than ever before; 95% require assistance to get

dressed; 94% require some assistance to eat; 63% suffer from dementia; 39% are aggressive; 56% have circulatory disease and 49% have a musculoskeletal disability.

Government funding has not kept pace with this increase in resident need. Current funding levels allow for four minutes to assist with getting up, washed,

dressed and to the dining room, 10 minutes for assistance with eating, 15 minutes of programming per day and, until recently, one bath per week. Of course, even this was removed recently. These are

seniors who have played by the rules, paid taxes all their lives, want to live their last years with dignity and comfort, and are being told no. They're very angry and very hurt. They're very

upset, and they don't trust any of us now.

Another thing that is really problematic in our communities that affects long-term care, even for those residents who finally do get into these facilities -- the

physician shortage makes it impossible for many to be able to go into these facilities. It's a huge problem across the province. Part of that, of course, is the ridiculous funding for physicians to

visit long-term-care facilities: $17. It's absolutely ridiculous. That is the kind of value we place on our doctors' services in long-term-care facilities. It's very difficult to find doctors, and

people are suffering as a result.

This afternoon I will present thousands of cards to the Minister of Health from people who, because of the inadequate care in long-term-care facilities or

because of long waiting lists to get into long-term-care facilities, are complaining because of the cutbacks to community care access centres. Their home care has been cut drastically. In my

community, Jim Murray, the same hatchetman who cut home care is now cutting our education system, and it's very problematic. We have a lot of challenges in our community because of what this

government has done.

I want to talk about some of the cards. They're all typed, but some people have added anecdotes that really touch us when we read them.

From Anna Liburdi: "People deserve and want to remain at home as long as possible because inadequate care is provided in most long-term-care facilities according

to seniors. On behalf of my grandson, who will not be able to be kept at home if I get cut, I am protesting cuts to home care."

They went to a meeting and we talked about long-term care and home care. One lady said, "I attended; I heard; I don't like what I heard. You and your party" --

talking of course about the government -- "and CCACs should be charged with abandonment by the sick, disabled and elderly."

Another woman said, "How would you like to have to have a neighbour come into your home to dress you, clean you up after an accident etc? I do and it is

horrid. My caseworker is overworked. I get one hour per week for a bath. The rest of the time I rely on strangers. I am not the only one. Wake up here. We have feelings; we are hurting."

"You are killing us. No care; no meals; no help at all. I hope I die before it gets any worse. At least I will be out of your way. We are dying."

These are handwritten. "People with disabilities living in their own homes, God bless them because you don't" -- to the government. It's very sad, but we have

to put this on the record.

Here's another one from Betsy Watson: "I hope my husband and I die soon. We were so proud to have good care at home for our handicaps etc. Now with your cuts

we are in terrible shape. I hope you never have to endure the shame we do now."

These are linked. When you have waiting lists for long-term care, when you have inadequate care in long-term care, people are at home more. With cutbacks to

home care, that is inadequate as well. We are hurting the most vulnerable in our society. We are hurting those who have built this province for us to enjoy, for our children. Now in the last years

of their lives, we have abandoned them. Shame on the government.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure to rise this morning to make a few comments on Ms McLeod's motion. I'm pleased to join my

colleagues to respond to the question from the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan regarding a minimum standard for bathing and nursing in Ontario's long-term-care facilities.

With regard to the issue of a minimum standard for bathing and nursing in long-term-care facilities, the fact is that such an approach simply wouldn't serve

the best interests of residents in Ontario's long-term-care facilities. That's because long-term-care facility residents are assessed according to their individual needs to ensure they receive the

personal care they actually require in that particular home. Compliance advisers ensure the regulations are being followed as well.

As my colleague stated earlier, in July of this year the Ernie Eves government announced $100 million to enhance the delivery of nursing and personal care

services in long-term-care facilities, as well as programming and support services. I'm proud to say that this announcement brought our long-term-care facility funding levels to an unprecedented

$1.8 billion. This $1.8 billion represents an increase of more than 50% over the $1.15 billion that was being spent when our government took office in 1995.

We've been moving ahead with this initiative as part of our commitment to ensure that long-term-care facility services

are not only of the highest quality but also readily accessible for current and future residents as well. The July announcement that my colleague the Honourable Dan Newman, Associate Minister of

Health and Long-Term Care, made was part of our $198-million investment to improve the delivery of long-term-care facilities and greatly enhance long-term-care nursing and personal care services in

long-term-care facilities across our province. Based on estimates from the nursing home sector, this funding could see as many as 2,400 nurses and personal care workers added to the long-term-care

sector. That represents approximately 3.9 full-time equivalent staff per 100-bed facility. As my colleagues have stated earlier, that investment also represents the single largest infusion of money

into nursing and personal care services in the long-term-care sector in the province's history.

There's no question that our government's commitment to address the needs and meet the challenges of Ontario's growing and aging population is clear and

strong. That's evident because we're putting more money where it's needed most. That's also why we've initiated annual reviews of the long-term-care facilities and developed a province-wide

tracking and reporting system to monitor the reviews.

An ongoing professional development and training strategy has been developed for ministry compliance advisers involved in the inspection of long-term-care

facilities. That strategy focuses on best-care practices, competencies, multi-disciplinary team approaches and consistency in

interpretation and application of long-term-care facility standards,

regulations and legislation.

What's more, we are carrying through on our commitment to conduct a major review of the long-term-care facility compliance management program in partnership

with the long-term-care sector. The review covers a number of initiatives that include reviewing standards, analyzing data trends, developing a risk-management framework, training to promote

consistency among the compliance advisers and, finally, a review of the legislation and regulations. Once the review is completed, recommendations will be developed which will form the basis for a

plan of action.

I want to join my colleagues today to emphasize in this House that our government, the Ernie Eves government, truly appreciates the work of Ontario's

long-term-care professionals. And at the heart of long-term care are the nurses, whose skill and dedication makes all the difference to the well-being of the residents. Our government will continue

to work with nurses and other professionals, with owners and operators of long-term-care facilities, and with other members of the long-term-care sector to ensure the highest level of service

across the spectrum of long-term care in this province.

Our record has been very good to this date. In fact, if you're looking at the long-term-care facilities that we've built across the province, the 20,000 new

beds that are currently being developed, along with 13,000 beds that are being developed to a class-A standard, I think it's safe to say that our government has done an excellent job in this area,

considering the fact that in the previous 10 years before the government came to power no new long-term-care beds were opened in the province.

That's our record and our commitment, and I appreciate the opportunity today to say a few words and to respond to Mrs McLeod's resolution.

Ms Caroline Di Cocco (Sarnia-Lambton): It's with great pleasure that I rise to speak on Mrs McLeod's resolution, "That, in the opinion of this

House, the Ernie Eves government should immediately establish minimum standards of care for nursing homes and homes for the aged."

I find that, in this day and age, to actually have to be in this House to ask for a resolution to establish minimum standards, is almost as if we're returning

to the Dark Ages when it comes to our long-term-care standards. I agree with her comments, and I certainly know that she has a great in-depth understanding of this sector, that the Harris-Eves

government has abandoned many aspects of our social services in this province.

I hear over and over again, as everyone hears, that this government's argument is they've put more money into long-term care. Well, they have put more money

into long-term beds, but I want the public to understand something that has been stated before in this House, and that is, they first shut down I believe it's 40% of the chronic care beds. These

patients of course had to be put someplace else, so of course they had to be put in long-term-care facilities. Therefore there was a need to put more money into those beds because otherwise these

people would have nowhere to go. It's like they start a fire and then they want to get credit for putting it out. That's what their argument always is: "Oh, we're putting money into this." Well,

they needed to because there were 18,000 patients, 18,000 people, who had to get into long-term-care beds.

Again, cutting minimum hours of standards for nursing care means that there is no accountability mechanism, so they don't have to answer as to why these hours

are not being provided. Because when you continuously ration the dollars to the point that people cannot give the number of hours that are required for care -- I have had a number of patients and a

number of families come into my office distressed about the quantity of care that their loved ones receive. Why? It's not the caregivers' fault, because they do the best they can. It's the fact

that the resources just aren't there to provide the care for these people who need more care.

If people were in hospital, in the chronic care beds, the quantity of care that they would have received, and the hands-on care, of course, would be

substantially more. But you see, we are now in a time, because of this government's ideology, that it's all about saving money: "Where can we save money? Does it mean that we can provide one hour

less care for people a day? Yes, we'll do that, because after all, these people are elderly." There's the sense that it is only the very well-to-do that seem to benefit from the policies that this

government has ongoingly provided to this province.

I applaud my colleague for this resolution. I hope that the government members have the conscience and the social conscience to vote for this resolution

because this resolution is needed and it's just in good conscience that the government members should vote for this resolution.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): I'm kind of surprised that a government member wouldn't stand up, because it's normally their

rotation. But let me first start of all start off by telling you that over the last three or four months, as critic for long-term care for my party, I've had the opportunity to go into many, many

long-term-care homes. I've always been impressed with the people that work at these places. Our hats should go off to them for the tremendous amount of work that they do. They're not the problem;

the problem is the tremendous underfunding, and that's what it's all about. We in this province traditionally have not paid enough attention, we have not put enough resources into making sure that

those people that need all the nursing help that they can get during the last years of their lives get the needs that they're entitled to. That's the real problem.

What's better evidence of that is the fact that the government's own study, the PricewaterhouseCoopers study that they funded of 10 similar jurisdictions to

Ontario -- they looked at states in the United States, they looked at other province, they looked at countries our size -- by that I mean Ontario's size -- in Europe. And what did they find out?

I'll quote to you from the report: "In general, there is a greater gap between needed service and service provided in Ontario long-term-care facilities than in other jurisdictions for both nursing

and other therapy services." We rank dead last -- lower than Mississippi, lower than Louisiana -- in the amount of care and in the amount of support we give our nursing homes so they can properly

look after the elderly people there, who have contributed so much to this province.

That's really what this is all about. Even with the government's new investment on the operating side, for which I applaud them, we will still rank dead last.

The decision we have to make in this province is, with the generally high standard of living we have, where we're rated one of the best countries in the world and we are the best province in the

best country in the world, do we really think, in terms of the way we take care of our seniors, that it's good enough to rank dead last when it comes to nursing services and personal care services

we provide for our seniors in the homes? That's what it's all about. Let us collectively set out a vision whereby we say that within the next five or 10 years we want to rank among the best

jurisdictions in providing for our elderly in this province. That's what it's all about.

Yes, you're putting some money into new beds, and they are needed to some extent; there's a question as to what extent. But then what did the government do?

When they got 50,000 petitions from individuals, people who were saying, "You've got to invest more money into nursing and personal care services," they took their own report and twisted it around

and basically wanted to put a 15% increase on the people who live there by saying, "Well, you want us to invest more. Here it is. We're going to charge you more." Talk about all the cynical moves

one can think of. That's what happened. Now, the government quickly backed away from that after awhile and said, "OK. Well, maybe we'll make a 15% increase over the next three years."

It's all about accountability. I don't want to stand here for a moment and say that the people who provide the daily nursing services and the daily personal

care services in the homes aren't doing the best they can, but it's with greater acuity, the fact, according to this report, that there's a 39% higher acuity with our seniors. In other words, they

need much greater care than they did five, six, seven years ago. In those days, people were more mobile. They're older now and they need more help in the homes.

What it all boils down to, and what this resolution basically speaks to, is, let us give these people some minimum level

of help. Let's make sure that the standards aren't below at least one bath a week. Let us try to raise the amount of nursing and personal care we give to our elderly. I think we owe them that.

That's what this is about. The change in regulations, which is all wonderful language saying, "We will hold the operators responsible; we will hold the personal care staff responsible," doesn't do

anything. The people who have contributed so much in this province deserve better from us, and the best way we can do it is by making sure they get the best kind of personal care and nursing

services possible. This resolution is one step in that direction.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): I appreciate the opportunity to be able to make a few comments on the resolution brought forward

by the member from Thunder Bay-Atikokan regarding standards for bathing and nursing in Ontario's long-term-care facilities.

Having just listened to the member from Kingston and the Islands, if I was scoring that on theatrics, I'd give him a 9 out of 10. If I was scoring it on

content and change of direction, he'd get a 1 or a 2 out of 10.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Galt: Oh, I'd give him a little more than a zero. I'd give him a mark or two, because they keep changing direction. You never know

where they're going to be next.

I'm very, very proud to be part of a government that has invested record amounts of money in our province's long-term-care sector and one that has improved

long-term-care services throughout Ontario like never, never before. We've worked hard, with a clear vision on how to meet the needs of our growing and aging population. We've come a long, long way

since we were first elected in 1995.

This stands in stark contrast to the party of the members opposite, which took virtually no action to meet Ontario's long-term-care needs when they were in

office. From 1985 to 1995, zeroing in on that period, for 10 years not one single, solitary long-term-care bed was created in Ontario. What did they do? They cut many of the acute care beds,

leaving wings of hospitals empty, not having the intestinal fortitude to actually close a wing, but cutting many acute care beds. Not one long-term-care bed was created in Ontario during that

period.

Now I see them standing up, holier than thou, saying what they would do if they came to office. They're like a moving target: hard to hit. You never know where

they'll be tomorrow; you only know right at the moment where they are, but it's constantly changing. When they were in government, they had the opportunity to govern, but what did they do? They

called an election in less than three years, thinking they could jump ahead of a disastrous economy, which they had indeed created.

I just listened to the member from Kingston and the Islands talk about "the best possible care." That's the direction in which we're going. He referred to

"lower than Mississippi," but he didn't refer to how that was measured. What was the measure? He did not go into that in any detail at all. He knows that if it was measured in any other way,

Ontario would not be in that position.

I did like his comments about liking to be one of the best. I think that's indeed a great idea. But then he went on to talk about accountability. Our

government has brought in more bills, more activities, more regulations on accountability, whether it's education or health. What has the official opposition been doing? What has the member from

Kingston and the Islands been doing? They have voted against every bill we've brought in having to do with accountability. They're now talking about accountability, and I think that is just

absolutely marvellous. I don't know what position they'll take tomorrow on accountability; they'll probably vote against it. But it was so refreshing to sit on this side of the House and hear

somebody in the Liberal Party talking about accountability. It just warmed the cockles of my heart to hear them talk about accountability. It's just beautiful. I hope they keep talking about it,

and I hope they do more than talk about it; I hope they'll actually vote, when we bring forward bills about accountability, and I hope they'll actually support them.

The Acting Speaker: Response?

Mrs McLeod: I do thank my colleagues from Nickel Belt, Hamilton Mountain, Sarnia-Lambton and Kingston and the Islands for their support on

this resolution.

For the record, to the member from Northumberland, when the Liberals were in government, 50% of the people who were in long-term-care facilities needed

residential care, not long-term care, and that's why we invested and created the integrated homemaker program and put half a billion dollars into setting up that homemaker program, the very same

home care program that this government has completely eroded.

To the members from Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford and Simcoe North, I can only wish that you would throw away the briefing notes the minister has given you, get out

into the facilities in your ridings and see what's actually going on. You used all the words the minister uses: "Standards don't work; they don't serve the best interests of the residents. We need

to meet individual needs. We're going to have personal care plans." All of that would be wonderful. It's what we would all like. It is not what your government is funding. You are not funding

minimum, basic levels of care. When you're challenged on that, you remove the regulations that would in some way have held you accountable.

Minimum standards are not adequate quality of care. I would never argue that for one moment. I would hope that a government that truly cared would go far

beyond the minimum in providing enough resources to long-term-care facilities that we really could go beyond minimums, that we could really deal with personal care needs and personal care plans.

That's what we should have. It's not what we have now. Minimum standards are at least a way of holding a government that does not care to a very basic minimum standard.

To this government's shame, not only have they withdrawn the minimum standards, but when a political lobby reached such

intensity that they were forced to address in some minimal way the care needs of residents in long-term-care facilities, they had the sheer gall to say, "Yes, we'll do something, but we're going to

make the seniors pay for it out of their own pockets." For shame.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item number 67. I will place the question to decide this matter at

12 noon.

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

Mr Ruprecht moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 189,

An Act to remove barriers to the practice of occupations, professions and trades in Ontario for persons with appropriate qualifications obtained

outside Ontario / Projet de loi 189, Loi visant à éliminer les obstacles à l'exercice de professions et de métiers en Ontario par quiconque a obtenu ailleurs les

qualités professionnelles appropriées.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Davenport has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): I am pleased to introduce this private member's bill to this Legislature and to recommend its passage to every

member. Here is why: our parents and grandparents came to Canada to find a better life. Because they were hard-working, they succeeded. Essentially, we all know that they had access to education,

and later on, access to professions. But today this is not the case.

Many physicians, engineers, nurses, veterinarians and on and on are getting extra points outside Canada from our immigration department to come to this country

because they have a profession, they speak the language and they're very hard-working individuals. Once they arrive on our shores, the reality is different. The doors to professional occupations,

the doors to get a great life in this country -- to be prepared, to work hard and make a go of things and start anew in a different place, probably with a different language, is tough -- are being

shut in their faces.

We all know the problems. Every one of you in the government knows the problems as well. Every one of us has been approached by people who have a great

education and great possibilities to participate in this country's economic well-being and progress, but the doors are being shut.

Even Premier Harris recognized the problem. In 1995, he said, "We're going to act on access to trades and professions very swiftly."

Then I asked the question to Marilyn Mushinski, who is right here -- and I'm very happy -- because she was the former Minister of Citizenship. She even said,

"Right now the system, according to the report that came out, has not been adequate." That's right from the Minister of Citizenship's mouth.

Then we move from Ms Mushinski over to Isabel Bassett. Isabel Bassett was also a fine Minister of Citizenship. Guess what Ms Bassett said? "The ministry

commissioned a study by Price Waterhouse; in fact, the final report was ... submitted April 6, 1998. It concludes that the existing services do not have credibility and wide acceptance among

employers."

She knows the problem. The Premier knows the problem. Every Minister of Citizenship knows the problem. Now of course the new Minister of Training, Colleges and

Universities knows the problem. So what are we going to do about this? The new Minister of Citizenship knows the problem as well because he too is being approached. What is he going to do about

this? We have a responsibility to those who have come to this country and who want to participate in the economic well-being.

The specific problem is simply this -- and I will quote from various reports. Here is a report by the Ministry of Citizenship itself. It says, "We find

barriers to be systemic, generally applicable to most occupations and rooted in the practices of self-governing bodies.... Few professions are free of discriminatory practices."

Second, the federal government in a new report, Not Just Numbers: A Canadian Framework for Future Immigration, March 1998, says, "Many" licensing bodies "have

used their role as protectors of the health and safety of consumers as a guise" -- guess what? -- "to protect the interests of their members through exclusionary entrance requirements."

Finally, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal came to this conclusion: "The government has given them" -- the licensing bodies -- "the power and they are using

it to exclude." I can go on and on. This practice is "widespread and generalized evidence of practices, which are discriminatory." This is from Peter Cumming, the Ontario Court judge, law professor

at Osgoode Hall.

It is clear: we need to act. You, as members of the government, have a special responsibility to vote for this bill today. You did me great pride three years

ago. You said yes to the private member's resolution I proposed three years ago. This House voted unanimously except, of course, one person who has carriage of this bill, and that person was the

very Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities who was supposed to know better. Did she show up to vote for it? No. Is she going to come today and vote for it? I would only hope so. Let this

message go out loud and clear to her and to the government: I want you to come here. I want you to show your face. I want you to vote for it, because that would mean that this bill will get quick

passage and there will be enough money set aside for it to be introduced to some body, either government or private, to check things out and to produce results.

We know the problem. What is the solution? The solution is the following, and I will propose it:

"

(1) Individuals should have the opportunity to seek licensure or certification in professions and trades for which they have been trained." That's almost

obvious.

"

(2) Full information on the licensing/certification standards and appeal processes of licensing and occupational bodies should be available and

accessible.

"

(3) Any competency assessment or licensure/

certification requirements should be based on criteria relevant to performing adequately in the profession or trade.

"

(4) Candidates should be provided with written reasons for denial of an application or appeal for certification or licensure in a trade or profession." In

other words, we want this process to be as transparent as possible.

"

(5) Individuals should have access to training opportunities when upgrade training would allow Ontario competency standards to be reached."

Are we asking the impossible? Certainly not. Any society that prides itself on getting people from countries -- Europe and, in fact, even from Third World

countries. It's an exchange. It's a brain drain on their country because they would like to have a new future and a better way to create a new life in Canada. Yet what do they find? They find the

doors are being closed.

We have various agencies that came up with solutions and recommendations. Today is the day when we are put to the test, and the test is very simple: do we

really want people from outside of our province -- whether it's Manitoba, Quebec or British Columbia, and whether it is through Third World countries or outside the United States or outside our

shores -- to really come here and then end up as taxi drivers, when they are physicians, lawyers, nurses, engineers?

We have so many of them. In fact, we now have the government saying, "Let's do something quickly," because of the response and the very huge demand that is now

being placed on the government to act. So the Minister of Health is finally saying, "Do you know what we're going to do? We're going to fast-track the system because we need 1,585 doctors in

Ontario." That's the need. Many of our residents can't get to a doctor. Many of our residents, especially outside of Toronto in the smaller towns and smaller centres of Ontario, have no doctors at

all, and they have to make do.

We need 1,585 doctors. Do you know what the International Association of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario is telling us? They are saying, "We have over 2,000

doctors right here in Ontario waiting to get into the system, and there is no space." What an option we have: we need so many doctors, they're already here and yet there is no way for them to be

fast-tracked. The Minister of Health is going to stand up and say, "We're going to fast-track them." Yes, but do you know how many? Seven hundred and nine recently applied to the fast-track system.

Do you know how many were accepted? Forty-four. If we continue this, obviously the shortage of doctors will increase. There are 3,000 doctors who very quickly will reach age 65. The demand will be

even greater.

Finally, Skills for Change, an organization looking into this matter, has made some very good recommendations. I can't read them all now, but I simply say to

this government, look at this bill, support this bill, because the need is great and we need your help.

Mr Garfield Dunlop (Simcoe North): It's a pleasure today to speak to Bill 189,

An Act to remove barriers to the practice of occupations,

professions and trades in Ontario for persons with appropriate qualifications obtained outside Ontario. I'm pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill 189. I think it is fair to say that the

strength of our economy owes a great deal to the skills, dedication and talents of people who have chosen Ontario as a place to live, work and raise a family. Of course that falls back many

generations. Prior to Confederation, people emigrated, particularly from Great Britain, to make a life in Ontario. Right up to today, people are arriving, creating jobs, finding employment and

helping to build the strongest province in our Confederation and of course the engine that drives the Canadian economy.

We know that Ontario is the prime destination for new Canadians and that about 60% of all immigrants to Canada choose our province. This is in part because of

the opportunities and infrastructure available to them. We can look at any sector, from construction to manufacturing to services, and Ontario has benefited from the contributions that different

cultures have brought here.

A few months ago, the Conference Board of Canada released a national report called Brain Gain: The Economic Benefits of Recognizing Learning and Learning

Credentials in Canada. The study points out that an improved system for recognizing the learning of immigrants would offset the brain drain and benefit our economy.

The provincial government helped sponsor this study. Its results reflect our experiences in Ontario. Our government has always recognized the importance of

helping the foreign-trained quickly enter our economy and put their skills and knowledge to work here in our province.

I know, for example, one of our government's initiatives allows internationally trained journeypersons to write the certificate of qualification exam provided

they have the experience and the required number of hours of training.

Our government has also developed a range of innovative tools to assist internationally trained tradespersons access their occupations. These include a

skills-based test for automotive service technicians as an alternative to the written certificate of qualification test and projects that include occupation-specific language instruction.

In conjunction with a general guide for internationally trained tradespeople, we have published fact sheets for five trades: automotive service technician,

hairstylist, industrial electrician, industrial millwright, construction and maintenance electrician. An additional three fact sheets are being pilot-tested for refrigeration and air conditioning

mechanics, tool and die makers and general machinists. Of course we know that in all those areas we have a shortage, not only in our province but right across our country and indeed right across

the continent.

Our government remains committed to helping skilled newcomers enter the labour force quickly and contribute to our strong economy. We continue to attract the

world's best and brightest to Ontario by helping internationally trained professionals and tradespeople qualify for employment and gain access faster.

Our government has improved access to education and training opportunities for immigrants. We have posted fact sheets on the Internet so that potential

immigrants will be aware of occupational and professional regulations in our province long before they actually arrive here. We continue to work with community partners, occupational regulatory

bodies, employers, educational institutions and community agencies to reduce barriers so that immigrants can find suitable jobs.

The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, Mrs Mushinski, has talked to me about the important contribution her

ministry makes, and this bill would limit opportunities for new Ontarians to attain similar achievements as their predecessors. Other provinces are looking to Ontario to see how they can help

immigrants in their towns and cities, and I thank the Minister of Citizenship, the Honourable Carl DeFaria, for his strong work in his ministry in helping provide some of this work.

Our government has taken a leadership role and it has continued to lead the way in creating opportunities for new Canadians. I think that's shown very clearly

second language, based on program enrolment. For 2001-02, school boards received more than $42 million for this program.

The newcomer settlement program of the Ministry of Citizenship provides nearly $4 million to 88 community agencies for settlement services for new immigrants,

as well. The Ministry of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation has programs to help immigrant entrepreneurs and investors start businesses and create even more jobs here in our province. This

government's approach has been inclusive, to engage the community, employers, workers, occupational and professional regulatory bodies, educators and trainers, all to help create solutions that

work better for our province.

While we are consulting, listening and helping to find solutions with the support and input of the community, Bill 189 says the government has all the answers.

While I agree with the intent of the bill, and will vote today to support this bill, I agree with my colleagues on this side of the House that further discussion at committee is very necessary.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Mr Ruprecht's bill this morning and look forward to further debate here.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): Let me, in my short time, hurriedly express my great appreciation to my colleague Tony Ruprecht

for again bringing forward legislation that I had put forward and he had put forward at one time on the same matter. It becomes rather frustrating that this government will talk about it but do

nothing. We've had so many ministers who have tried to do something and nothing has been done.

I heard the member over there state that we are moving toward many things like ESL programs. I want to brief him a little better on this. In addition to what

we have here with foreign-trained professionals who are well trained and well skilled, who come to our country and our province, this is really a global phenomenon. Many countries today are

competing to attract world talent and skills. In fact, just recently the august magazine the Economist -- you're quite familiar with it -- in their September 5, 2002, edition, had an intriguing

study titled "Onward Bound" and asked, "Do developing countries gain or lose when their brightest talents go abroad?" It highlighted the pain that certain nations undergo when their pool of talent

migrates to nations such as Canada.

I'm not here to talk about the pain that developing countries suffer when they lose -- the brain drain. What we're talking about is the brain gain. They come

here and we need to recognize and understand their contributions. Those contributions can be seen. Who can address those contributions? The regulatory bodies, as my colleague talks about in his

bill. They need to recognize social and economic responsibilities by expediting the accreditation process and opening up the professional bodies -- we know how tight and restricted they are -- and

he expresses that in his bill. Those regulatory bodies can advocate on behalf of the potential professional programs, such as ESL. The member talked about the ESL programs. They are a great and

dire need, because some of these individuals really need that ESL program to assist them in that process. That would help them to support the system, and also by the government.

The member stated that it's governments who have all these wonderful things that they alone can deliver. No, we're talking about other organizations.

Government, of course, needs to recognize their responsibilities, not only through positive, constructive, well-funded programs, but also to be a clearing house of information, a leader in

institutional building and to be involved in advising potential immigrant applicants with honest expectations of the systems in Ontario and Canada; to play a more effective role in immigration

policy, because when people do arrive here, they are not giving that kind of support to access and play a role in their potential.

The private sector, the businesses that benefit most from this professional talent, also need to take a leadership role and become part of the solution with

standardized acceptance of accreditation and recognition of foreign degrees and experience, and a willingness to remove visible and latent barriers that exist. By embracing such objectives and

working together, all three groups will realize the benefits and potential benefits of foreign-trained professionals.

There's an economic benefit, of course: The under-utilized skills benefit economic growth and fill the current and potential skills shortages. The current cost

of non-recognition of immigrant credentials, which is estimated at $2 billion, would be addressed. These are people working who are being under-utilized, people who are professionally skilled. The

province, the government itself, is not playing a very active role in that.

The social benefits are extremely important. It builds strong family values; it establishes a sound foundation and demonstrates an example for the children; it

brings pride and respectability to the family. No fathers or mothers who are quite professionally skilled are at home, very under-utilized. They're encouraging their children that they, themselves,

should be seeking education. Some of them would wonder, "What for, Mom? What for, Dad? You are not being utilized with the wonderful skills that you have." It's the government's responsibility. The

social benefits are being undermined here. It allows the family to refocus the strong benefits of education and skills.

I'd hope that this government will endorse and embrace this policy, this legislation, and vote for it.

Mr Michael Prue (Beaches-East York): This nation has prided itself, probably since the time of Clifford Sifton, as being a nation of

immigrants. In fact, Canada has welcomed per capita probably more people from other countries than any other nation on earth.

The big immigration years are not the ones we're seeing now. In fact, the big immigration years were during the population and settling of the west with the

hundreds of thousands of people who were recruited in the Ukraine, from northern and eastern Europe, to populate the provinces, what were then the Northwest Territories. But we in Canada have not

kept up with that noble tradition. Even though we continue to this day to take some 200,000 immigrants in Canada per year, those numbers do not reflect anywhere near the numbers that were taken

when Canada's population was much smaller.

The number of immigrants coming into Canada has never come close to the 1% that most social observers say can safely and quickly be absorbed into the larger

Canadian population. In fact, we should be doing more to help immigrants come to this country than we have done. I say that as a person who worked in the immigration department myself for some 21

years. In those 21 years, I saw people come from all over the world to make Canada their home: people who often came with very little more than a gleam in their eye and a hope for their children;

people who prospered; people who were able to make significant contributions.

There have been many changes, though, even in my lifetime, even within the lifetime of people in this room. And how the immigration system has changed. Not

only has it changed with respect to where the people are coming from -- they are no longer primarily coming from Europe and the United States, the two previous source countries going back to the

1960s and 1970s, but they are now literally coming from every one of the 180 nations of this world. They are coming here speaking many languages; they are coming here with many creeds and

religions.

Those immigration patterns have changed in other ways too. They've changed in the way that Canada recruits people. Now we have what is called a point system

grid that allows people to come to this country. In the past, is was easy for people who could be sponsored or nominated by relatives to come here with virtually no problem, provided they had a

blood relative. But today the primary sources of immigration are those who can apply and make the required number of points under the systems of either Canada or Quebec. The federal reliance on the

family class has shifted remarkably in the last number of years. There is now a whole new emphasis on skills and abilities. One has to have the skills and abilities and the number of points in

order to simply pass and be allowed forward. But the government of Ontario has not shifted with that whole new emphasis on skills and abilities. We act as a government in this province no different

from the governments in the 1950s and 1960s who simply saw an incoming mass of people who were sponsored by relatives, the relatives who would look after them, find them jobs in the construction

trade or on the farms or wherever they were destined. That has not changed.

Quite literally, the immigrants who are coming to this country, particularly to this province, are frustrated, because their skills and abilities for which

they were chosen on the new grid systems are not being recognized. Literally as well, although you see the numbers of some 200,000 to 225,000 immigrating to this country every year, you do not see

those who are emigrating. You do not see the ones who have given up in frustration and have gone back to their former countries, or who have gone on to a third country, like the United States or

Great Britain, where their skills and abilities are being recognized. We talk about taking the best and the brightest. We do not use them. Literally tens of thousands of people leave in frustration

after months and sometimes years of being unrecognized. We are all the poorer for it.

We are going to support this bill, but we support it not as an end but as a stop-gap measure. It allows for accreditation of immigrants; it allows for written

reasons if those persons are refused accreditation; it allows for accrediting agencies to ensure that training will be given to new immigrants and people so that they can be allowed to compete in

the Canadian market; and it allows an appeal process.

The major failure of this bill, if there is a failure, I think is twofold. The first is that it puts back on to the shoulders of the new Ontarian, the new

immigrant to this country, that they must go to the courts to seek redress. That is an expensive process for anyone. That is an expensive process to someone who is established here, but it is

doubly and almost impossibly expensive to someone who has come here, sometimes without the necessary monies -- not everyone comes to this country rich -- to then have to go out and hire and a

lawyer. It must be shameful, if the person was a lawyer before, having to go out and hire another lawyer to go to court because they are not properly accredited, to spend all of that money and

time, particularly to sometimes wait a year or two years in a backlogged court system, to get redress. We do not think that putting people through the court system, as this bill suggests, is a good

thing. Something else needs to be done.

That takes me to the second, and that is a bill that was before this House back in 1999 by Tony Silipo, who was then a member of this House. He was suggesting

a credentials assessment agency that could handle this kind of grievance rather than sending it through the courts. We think this bill would have been better with a credentials assessment agency.

If the bill is passed today and is sent to committee, that is precisely the kind of amendment we would attempt to put to strengthen the bill in the short term.

But in the long term this government, the government of this province, has to do far more. The government has to be a player, and we are not a player, in this

worldwide movement of people. We talk about needing doctors, we talk about needing engineers, we talk about needing nurse practitioners, but Ontario does nothing to get them.

As far back as 1867, Mr Speaker, the province of Ontario has had authority to do something about this. With your permission, I would just like to read

something that, with the new Constitution and the Charter of Rights, people have forgotten about, and that is the British North America Act, which is still extant and which gives the provinces all

the authority they need to do exactly what should be done.

Section 95 deals with agriculture and immigration, and it reads as follows:

"In each province the Legislature may make laws in relation to agriculture in the province, and to immigration into the province; and it is hereby declared

that the Parliament of Canada may from time to time make laws in relation to agriculture in all or any of the provinces, and to immigration into all or any of the provinces; and any law of the

Legislature of a province relative to agriculture or to immigration shall have effect in and for the province as long and as far only as it is not repugnant to any act of the Parliament of

Canada."

What that means is that Ontario can do something similar to what Quebec has done. They have developed their own grid system. They have their own immigration

officers who are abroad and who are in the province of Quebec to assist new immigrants, to choose new immigrants, to assess new immigrants, to assess credentials. I would suggest that we go no

further than to our sister province of Quebec to see a province that actually recruits and recognizes people they choose and bring in.

We do not do that. Ontario should be there. Granted, it may be a little bit expensive, but Ontario would have a golden opportunity to go out into the field and

choose people we need. We could choose the 1,500 doctors we need. We could choose the nurse practitioners and the engineers. We could choose the people who are in demand in this province. And we

could recognize their credentials before they arrive here, not when they arrive here, not a year after they arrive here, not when they've given up in frustration and gone home, but while they are

waiting to get their papers, their immigrant visa, to come to Canada.

Surely that makes much more sense, to say, "Ontario wants you and when you come with that doctor's certificate you will be recognized," or, "When you come with

your certificate you will be required to do an additional year in school, and do you understand that will be the requirement?" People will then be able to make a rational choice whether they want

to come to Ontario or to Quebec or to British Columbia. But certainly in Ontario, which takes more than half of all the immigrants to this country, we should be the leaders; we should be choosing

the people and we should be helping those people to understand what it is to immigrate to this province.

It takes most immigrants about a year in the process from the day they apply for an immigrant visa until that visa is given to them. In some parts of the

world, unfortunately, it may take two or three, in some it is less than a year, but a year is a fairly standard average. In that year, while medicals are being done, while stage B is being done,

which is criminality and terrorists, while we're looking at all that stuff and all those tests are being done, this is an opportunity for the government of Ontario. If we do what is allowed in the

Constitution of this country, it is an opportunity for us to assess the credentials of those very same people who are coming here. It is an opportunity for us to say, "Yes, your credentials are

valid," or, "You will be required to do some additional study, which you can start while you're there." The time is not going to be wasted for these very valuable new citizens.

We have to give them that reasonable expectation. It is absolutely false and wrong on our part as a government to invite people into this country and then not

recognize them and force them either into jobs they don't want -- to uproot them from countries and they come with false expectations. It is our responsibility. It is our responsibility to be

realistic, and part of that goes to this government's responsibility to help to choose the immigrants.

Of all the provinces and territories in Canada, it is only Ontario that has not signed the immigration accord, and that is why we get less money for things

like helping new immigrants. We get less money than the province of Quebec per capita, because they have signed the accord and because they have a grid system. We get less money than Manitoba on a

per capita basis, less money than Prince Edward Island on a per capita basis.

We need to be players. It is not enough simply to pass this bill. It is up to the government or any new government after the next election to seize the

opportunity for our citizens. We need to help those citizens, but we also need to help Ontario. It is incumbent upon us, all members of this House, to do that which will help the economy of this

province. The economy of this province is reliant upon new people coming into Ontario. As this province ages, as the people get older, as the baby boomers work their way through the system, as I am

doing now here today, as we work our way through the system, increasingly we will require immigration to this province to maintain the standards that we have set. There are not enough children to

even replace the boomers today, and we are going to increasingly have to rely on people from other countries who see this country and this province for the truly magnificent opportunity it is. We

will need them. They will need us. We need to work together.

It is an honour to stand here today and to speak about this bill. We in the New Democratic Party will be supporting this bill here in the Legislature today,

but we put all of you and ourselves as well on notice that more needs to be done. We need to be a player, we need to be a part, we need to help, and we are intent on doing that so that the people

who are here in this gallery today -- and I see many upstairs in here -- will know that their credentials are recognized, that we welcome them as new Canadians, that we welcome them into the fabric

of this society, that they have an important role to play with us and for us, and that this bill will be a part of it and in the future we'll do much more.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: We'd just like to remind those in the galleries that we really appreciate your being here with us this morning, but we

cannot have any participation, and that includes applause and other such displays of -- how should we say it?

Interjection: Emotion.

The Acting Speaker: Emotion -- yes, that's a good one.

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I'm particularly pleased to have this opportunity to join this debate on Bill 189, not just because

as an immigrant or a member of the Scarborough community for the last 35 years, but also as a member of this government, I believe that ensuring Ontario has a highly skilled workforce that's needed

to attract jobs and investment is an absolute top priority for our government.

We know, for example, that access to jobs for internationally trained immigrants is a key to a strong economy. I don't think there's any question that this

province has gone from being one of the worst economies seven years ago to now, seven years later, being the first economy and the best economy. We absolutely understand that a highly skilled

workforce that is diverse contributes greatly to that.

We are working to ensure recognition of prior education, skills and training to help skilled newcomers enter the labour force quickly and contribute to the

economy. An important part of this goal is to ensure that Ontario attracts the world's best and brightest. We want the world to see our province as the prime destination point for people looking

for opportunity. Certainly that was one of the reasons why I immigrated to this great land over 35 years ago.

Our goal is to build partnerships to make Ontario the best place to live, work and raise a family, as you've already heard from my colleague Mr Dunlop. The

government cannot accomplish this goal alone; we know that. It's important that we work together and gather the best advice and input from external agencies -- some of whose representatives I know

are here today -- and organizations that have first-hand knowledge of their industries. I would suggest that in my own riding of Scarborough Centre we have those industries, Berg Chilling, for

example, which truly understand that their workforce must represent and reflect the community they serve.

Our approach to achieving this goal is to continue to develop long-term partnerships that will promote the recognition of the qualifications of internationally

trained professionals and tradespeople and ensure their participation in our economy as quickly as possible. However, we must also maintain high standards of quality and safety -- this should not

be understated -- promoted by occupational regulatory bodies that Ontarians have come to expect and deserve.

There's no easy solution to this situation. No one group or organization can have all the answers to help people who have learned in different educational

systems or trained under different regulatory regimes match their skills to Ontario needs. There can be no one-size-fits-all solution. We also recognize that no one organization can do it

alone.

That's why we have built strong partnerships, based on respect and understanding, with occupational regulatory bodies, educational institutions, employers,

community agencies serving immigrants, other government agencies and other governments as well. This approach has resulted in significant achievements to help the internationally trained quickly

put their skills and training to work in Ontario.

Our government has allocated $15.5 million to support innovative bridge training projects to help the internationally trained learn what they need to know to

be licensed to work in industries that are facing strategic skills shortages. We help internationally trained professionals apply their skills and knowledge in Ontario as quickly as possible. We

know that this approach is working. Bridge training has already been launched for nurses and pharmacists in Ontario.

I would like to go on, but I know I have a couple of other colleagues who wish to address this. So I'll stop now, other

than to say that in principle we support Mr Ruprecht's bill. But we need to get more new Ontarians into the economy, into jobs for which they have international training, and we need a more fulsome

discussion in order to achieve that.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): It gives me a great deal of pleasure to participate in this debate. I want to begin by

congratulating my colleague Tony Ruprecht for the initiative he has taken in introducing this bill. You should know that this is hardly a one-off from Mr Ruprecht. Earlier, he had introduced a

resolution which received all-party support.

I take it from the government members' comments just a few moments ago that there is support for this bill, and I am very, very pleased to hear that.

Fundamentally, what we're talking about here is something that goes to the core of certainly what we choose to stand for as Liberals: opportunity. In fact,

there are three aspects of opportunity here. First of all, there is the opportunity for individuals who have been trained in other parts of the world to come here and to work at their highest level

of training. We think that is a very worthwhile pursuit on the part of our province and our collective within this Legislature. We are facing -- and this has been out there for quite some time now

-- some serious labour shortages in a variety of sectors. There are some 900,000 Ontarians today who can't get access, for example, to a family doctor.

We have a shared sense of responsibility here to ensure that all those new Canadians coming here -- who have been trained, by the way, at the expense of

taxpayers living in other jurisdictions. We are so focused sometimes on the brain drain that we do so at the expense of our perspective in terms of looking at the brain gain followed by the brain

waste. We've got all kinds of people who have come here from different parts of the world who received training at the expense of taxpayers in other jurisdictions. This is a gift, and we're not

capitalizing on this. We're not leveraging this tremendous asset.

With respect to our responsibility when it comes to opportunity for the individuals involved, it's important that they be able to work at their highest level

and get that sense of satisfaction that comes when you put your head down on the pillow at night, knowing that you're making a contribution to your economy, you're a productive member of society

and you're able to raise your family. I think that's important for new Canadians to be able to do.

With respect to opportunity for Ontarians, and families in particular, I just made reference to the fact that there are so many Ontarians, so many families who

can't get a family doctor. We are depriving them of the opportunity to get a family doctor or some other kind of skilled worker and professional. We owe it to Ontario families to ensure that these

people, our new Canadians, are being admitted to our trades and professions at the earliest possible opportunity.

The third aspect of opportunity here that is often overlooked is that this represents a wonderful opportunity to further strengthen our economy. In the

knowledge economy, the most valuable commodity is the skilled worker. We have skilled workers arriving on our shores and we are not doing everything that we should be doing to capitalize on that

potential economic productivity. So what we're talking about here is a win-win-win. It's a win for the new Canadians, to ensure that they can work at their highest capacity; it's a win for Ontario

families, who can access the services that would be offered by these new Canadians; and it's a win for our economy, because these skills add significantly to our level of productivity.

We've had kind of an unwritten rule, and it's time to move beyond this. The unwritten rule was: "Come to Canada. It is a land of opportunity and you will enjoy

success here solely on the basis of hard work." But what we really said between the lines was: "The kids are going to find opportunity and you, the adults, are going to have to sit this one out."

Well, in a just-in-time world we can't afford to do that any more. We need everybody at their best right away.

I have a son in first-year biology. He's thinking of becoming a doctor. Wonderful. I hope he makes it. But we're going to have to wait some 12 to 14 years for

him. We can't wait 12 or 14 years for young people who are in first-year university today. On the other hand, we can get some of our skilled professionals -- if I can stick with medicine, for

instance -- up to Ontario standards in, I don't know, some six to 18 months. So again, it's important that we recognize that things have changed. We owe it not only to our new Canadians but we owe

it to ourselves to bring them up to speed as quickly as we can.

I urge government members to support this bill. I get the sense that they're about to do that. I want to conclude once again by thanking my caucus colleague

Tony Ruprecht for his initiative and foresight in this matter.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I am very pleased to be able to speak on Bill 189 with respect to the practice of occupations,

professions and trades in Ontario. Certainly people who are qualified to be in these professions should be there. That goes without saying. Certainly I think this government has done a lot of work

in this area in terms of creating more opportunities, having an economy in place that provides these opportunities.

That's what Ontario is about. It's the engine of this country in terms of getting those jobs out there. That's why there are opportunities. Let's recognize

what's been done to create these opportunities. The bottom line is, we have to get people in those positions.

In 2001, almost 11,000 newcomers said they intended to work in the engineering profession. Our government has assumed a leadership role and for the first time

in Canada is supporting a bridge training project, a project that has been designed for internationally trained engineers that will provide paid work experience, a key prerequisite for a

professional licensing. Once implemented, this program will help about 150 internationally trained engineers each year. There are more programs and more consultation going on with respect to this

issue.

I'm going to yield my time right now to the Minister of Citizenship. It's such an important issue and I think he's done a great job in this area. I fully

support the bill, but we have to make sure it fits the needs of this province.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): As my leader, Dalton McGuinty, did, I also wanted to compliment my colleague Tony Ruprecht, who's

been absolutely relentless on this issue.

I just say that our economy, as my leader pointed out, depends on our ability to attract people to move from other countries to Ontario. Two years ago, the

Ministry of Finance did a study that not many people are aware of that showed in three different "scenarios," as they called them, that without immigration our population in Ontario declines. We

won't need to build any more houses because we'll have enough houses. Without immigration --

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: Mr Guzzo may choose to criticize in front of these people, but I'm just saying that the Ministry of Finance study shows that

without immigration our population will decline and our economy will suffer dramatically. We need to have immigrants coming to this province and we need to continue to have skilled immigrants

wanting to move to Ontario.

I remember meeting with the Speaker of the Michigan state legislature, who said their economic office role used to be to attract business to come to Michigan.

Three years ago, they changed the role from attracting business to attracting workers to come to Michigan. That's the single biggest inhibitor of economic growth in the state of Michigan. I said to

the Speaker, "We're very fortunate here in Ontario. We're able to attract talented people from around the world to come to Ontario."

as a second language so people feel at home and welcome here. Believe me, if we don't do that, our economy will suffer dramatically. But this particular one of making sure people who have acquired

their skills and talents in other countries are able to use them here in Ontario is a cornerstone.

Eleven years ago, a major study was done on this, pointing out all the barriers, and virtually nothing's happened in 11 years. I sat with a person from

Kitchener who has a self-help group involving 51 foreign-trained physicians who cannot practise in Kitchener. The member will know Kitchener has a doctor shortage, and 51 foreign-trained physicians

live in Kitchener and cannot practise. So 11 years after this huge study was done showing all of the barriers, we still find very little action has taken place, and it's wrong. We're making a huge

mistake.

I often talk to the consular corps here, consul generals from around the world, and they will tell you that talented people are hesitating to come to Canada

and Ontario because when they get here -- and they know their friends have come here -- they're not able to practise the experience and talent they've got because we have these, in many cases,

artificial barriers.

We can talk all we want about the tiny steps we've taken, but the proof is in what's happened to all of these people who still can't practise, whether it be

doctors -- 51 foreign-trained physicians in Kitchener alone. We just absolutely have to take substantial steps. I argue it on the basis of economics, as my leader did. I happen to be our finance

critic, so that's the area my leader asked me to comment on. Our economy depends fundamentally on our ability to continue to attract people from around the world to want to come to Canada and

Ontario.

Without this step, believe me, other countries are now aggressively searching out talented people to move there. I talked to the Consul General of India who

tells me that computer people in India are being attracted to California in large numbers. We have to make sure those people think, believe and know that Ontario is a place where they are at home

and welcome. I compliment my relentless friend Dr Tony Ruprecht who has fought this issue for years and years, and I support his bill.

Hon Carl DeFaria (Minister of Citizenship, minister responsible for seniors): I have about a minute to speak on this. I want to welcome my

friends who are here in the gallery, people I have worked with in the diverse communities of Ontario for many years. I want to tell you today that even though Bill 189 is too late and too flawed, I

will be supporting this bill in principle because our government in fact has been acting on this issue.

The reason the bill is too late is that the Liberal government was here in 1985-87 and did nothing about this issue. The NDP government was here in 1990-95 and

did nothing about this issue. There were foreign-trained professionals in Ontario in 1987 and in 1990-95, and those people did nothing while in government. It's flawed because

section 2 would, for

example, force the Ontario government to allow a lawyer who is licensed in Timbuktu to practise in Ontario automatically. Even though the legal system may be excellent in Timbuktu, it may not be

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Response.

Mr Ruprecht: I would like to thank my colleagues for their support, and I also want to thank the government benches for their support. But I'm

astounded, and do you know why? We've heard these promises before. We've had the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities, we've had every Minister of Citizenship from Ms Mushinski to Isabel

Bassett, and now this minister comes up and says to us, "This bill is too late. Oh my God, this bill is too late." Where have you been, Minister? This is not too late.

What are you going to say to Dr Golubka, who is here right now. He's been here three years. Is this bill too late for him? He has practised in the Ukraine for

15 years. Is this bill too late? What about Dr Martinez, a veterinarian? He came from Israel. He practised there and in Europe. Is this bill too late for him? How about Ms Biese, who is here as a

physiotherapist from Germany? She's been here for three years and can't practise. Is this bill too late for her? How about Ifad Karim, an engineer with 18 years' experience, in Canada six years and

unable to practise. Is this bill too late for him?

It's too late for you if you don't get up and do something about it. So you know what I would recommend? If you are unable to do anything, move aside and let a

McGuinty government take over and do something about it. That's what you should be doing. It's too late for you, my friend.

It's quite obvious what is happening here. You can see already that they want to support this bill but want to hide their faces at the same time and do nothing

about it. They wish this bill would die, but this bill is not going to die; it's never going to die. Do you know why? Because more immigrants are coming; more immigrants are pushing the door down.

You're holding the door shut and I'm asking you, open the door now, and if you can't do it, move aside and let a McGuinty government take over so we will do what we promised to do. In fact, our

leader has said that if, in one year after we take over, this isn't done there will be hell to pay. We made that promise, we'll keep that promise and we're asking you to step aside.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate.

LONG-TERM CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): I will now deal with ballot item 67. Mrs McLeod has moved private member's notice of motion 18.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

We will vote after dealing with ballot item number 68.

REMOVAL OF OCCUPATIONAL

BARRIERS ACT, 2002 /

LOI DE 2002 SUR L'ÉLIMINATION

DES OBSTACLES PROFESSIONNELS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Ruprecht has moved second reading of Bill 189.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Applause.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: All these congratulatory comments of course are accepted, but at the same time

I'd like to move that we place this bill before the public accounts committee.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Ruprecht has asked that this bill be referred to the public accounts committee. Agreed? Agreed.

LONG-TERM CARE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): We'll now deal with ballot item number 67. Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Acting Speaker: Would all those in favour please stand and remain standing until your name is called?

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Hastings, John

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

McLeod, Lyn

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Sorbara, Greg

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until your name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hardeman, Ernie

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Spina, Joseph

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 44; the nays are 42.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

All matters relating to private members' public business now being complete, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Today I am very pleased to produce a series that was created by the Windsor Star, our local newspaper. It

is a series about mental health. What I'll be doing with this series, which they kindly reproduced because of the significant demand, is distribute it to every member in this House. Moreover, we'll

be sending a copy of this series to every agency that deals with mental health issues in Ontario. The series was produced by Veronique Mandal, assisted by Marty Beneteau. It is a tremendous record

of the issues in mental health that individuals and families must deal with.

I just want to give you a little bit of information about it. It was a six-month investigation. It dealt with several

issues in the mental health area including: "Fortresses of Fear" -- as they were described; "the Killing of Percy Demers" -- a wonderful doctor who died in our area; "Whose Life is it Anyway?";

"The Insanity Defence"; "The Doctor is Out"; "Mapping the Brain"; and, finally, "Hope for the Future". There were seven parts to this. If people would just take the time to read, it would be a

tremendous education for all of us, even those who may not follow this issue every day. It will be helpful to governments of all levels to understand the significance of this disease creates and

the impact it has on our families in this province.

Thank you for the opportunity. Please, members in this House, look forward to receiving your copy of this. Please call us. Visit our Web page, if you can't get

a series or a copy. Please contact pupatello.on.ca or daltonmcguinty.com to access any of us, and we'll certainly see that we get you the series.

JERMAIN AND KEVIN EBANKS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough Centre): I rise today to speak of the deep sense of personal sadness I felt when attending the funeral of

Jermain Ebanks and Kevin Ebanks in my riding of Scarborough Centre this past Tuesday. This is the kind of event that an MPP wishes she did not ever have to attend, but I wanted to be there to show

my solidarity with the Ebanks family and the larger community. We are all shocked at the terrible news of the violent deaths of two young members of the Scarborough community. Jermain was only 17;

his brother Kevin was 21. Both had their lives ahead of them. Both as an MPP and as a mother, I want to reiterate publicly my personal condolences to Mr and Mrs Ebanks. I recognize that words can

never express the sorrow we all feel at this enormous loss, but we must bear in mind that despite this tragedy we live, for the most part, in a caring and loving community. A genuine sense of

community and solidarity was present at the funeral. People attended to pay their respects, support the family and call for an end to violence in our city.

At this point I understand that the culprits have yet to be apprehended. I would like to speak to the larger community and ask that anyone with information

come forward to the authorities.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Mario Sergio (York West): I want to address my remarks directly to the Premier, because everybody saw it coming except the government. The

storm, unfortunately, did not miss us. Skyrocketing hydro bills are affecting everyone: seniors, farmers, small, medium and large businesses, tenants -- many tenants are being hit twice, very

hard.

Let me give you some correspondence that I have received from seniors in my particular area. These are seniors who are

living on one pension, in a small house. Their last bill was $378, up from $199. They want to know from me, they want to know from you, Premier, from your government, how they are going to manage

this exorbitant bill on a monthly basis. They are not the only ones. There are so many others who come to us with the same situation. We have businesses. I have a couple, a husband and wife, who

have a small business. They have a small restaurant. From $800 to $2,300 -- they want to know from me, how many more spaghetti plates they have to sell to make up the increase from this government.

So they are asking for a solution, some action, and they want action now.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): A small business, Dominic's Resto-Bar, down in the very north end of Thorold, is a well-established,

successful and very popular restaurant with patrons from across the Niagara region. In fact, they employ 45 staff. But Heather Fasullo, who owns Dominic's Resto-Bar tells me that her hydro bill for

the last two months was $6,400, up from $2,400 last year -- a $4,000 increase. She explains to me with great regret that the only way she can contain that cost is by laying off staff. She can't

raise the prices of food; the market simply isn't there. In fact, if staff layoffs won't suffice, she's even contemplating shutting down that business.

Dominic's Resto-Bar and other small businesses like it don't need a rebate that will help them for but one month. What about the other 11 months of the year?

They don't need a freeze on rates that are already sky-high and unaffordable. Dominic's Resto-Bar and other small businesses like it, like individual residential payers across Niagara and this

province, need a restoration of regulated public hydro, the very sort of policy that New Democrats have been fighting for in their opposition to the Tory-Liberal agenda of privatizing and

deregulating hydro with its sky-high hydro rates.

VETERANS

Mr AL McDonald (Nipissing): Today I rise before the House to pay respect to all the brave men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in an

effort to secure our independence. They lived, they loved and they lost.

I am standing here today to say thank you to all the veterans who are with us today and to the soldiers who were lost in the wars of years gone by. We have not

forgotten. Today I wish to reflect on and remember the efforts of those who fought for our freedom.

I look around the House today, and I see many a red poppy on the suits of the MPPs of this great province of Ontario. I can only imagine what the author of

Flanders Fields, Mr John McCrae, must have seen when he decided to write that poem.

As the son of a lieutenant colonel, he saw first-hand the brutality that war brought upon those fighting. He, himself, lost many a good friend and fellow

soldier to war. Mr McCrae never wanted this terrible hardship to be forgotten. Canadians have participated in major wars. Let us not forget our valiant efforts in battle at Vimy Ridge and

Dieppe.

Furthermore, Canadian women played a vital role during the Second World War, with over 45,000 contributing directly to the war effort.

My dad served in the military for 25 years, and my grandfather served in World War II as a motorcycle dispatcher. Thank you to all who risked their lives so we

might live in a country of freedom and opportunity. I am proud to be a Canadian.

HYDRO RATES

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): If there was any doubt in Premier Eves's mind as to whether soaring hydro costs are hurting

people in my riding, let me clear up that confusion today. Hydro bills, which are double what they were this time last year, are leaving many people, particularly those on fixed incomes, with

increasingly desperate choices to make.

Perhaps the saddest story came from a widowed constituent who told my office that with her rent and her hydro bill she had nothing left to buy food for the

rest of the month. This is unacceptable. The government must step in.

Then we have the impact this is having on our vital public services. In the first six months of this fiscal year, Thunder Bay Regional Hospital has already

paid an amount equal to their total bill last year. Will Mr Eves pay for those increased costs or will hospital services have to suffer?

The bill for the Thunder Bay Catholic school board has almost doubled. Lakehead University's projections are that their bill will increase by $600,000. What

about the many small businesses in my riding struggling to stay open under these increased costs?

In the municipality of Greenstone, the costs for their daycare went up by 44% for September. Roy Sinclair, the CAO of Greenstone, told me earlier this week

that their new hydro bill had just arrived and, frankly, he was too scared to open it.

Premier, your energy policy is an unmitigated disaster. The people of Ontario, including my constituents, are now paying for the mess you've gotten us into.

Use the record profits from OPG for a rebate now and eliminate the GST on your debt retirement charge -- we should never have been paying it.

I encourage all my constituents to sign the petition we are presently circulating, a petition which is available in all municipal offices throughout my riding.

Premier Eves and this government cannot be allowed to wait any longer to provide relief to those desperately in need of help. It is our job to make sure he gets that message.

TAKE OUR KIDS TO WORK DAY

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): Yesterday students from my riding and from ridings all across the province took

part in the Learning

Partnership's Take Our Kids To Work Day job-shadowing experience.

I had the wonderful opportunity of visiting with 20 grade 9 students from Kernahan Park high school yesterday who participated in a tour of the new provincial

casino site currently under construction in Niagara Falls. Students were taken around the perimeter of the casino site and were informed of the many construction skilled trades opportunities that

were created with the announcement of the new casino. It is an $800-million project, equivalent to the construction of three Air Canada Centres.

Although, for safety reasons, students were not permitted to visit the site directly, on the top floor of the Hilton hotel overlooking the construction site,

students were provided with an overview of the different aspects of construction underway.

When speaking to these students yesterday, I stressed how important and valuable construction trade skills and skills in the tourism industry are to today's

labour market, especially in Niagara. There are many exciting careers to be experienced in skilled trades, and I believe yesterday's event provided students with some options to consider for their

plans for the future.

Many thanks to their teacher Larry Downes from Kernahan Park high school, as well as Barry Reynolds, general superintendent for PCL, the builders of the new

casino, and Judy Reid from the business education council for their involvement in yesterday's excellent and worthwhile event.

MINISTER OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): The Minister of Northern Development and Mines has committed another blunder. This time he has insulted all

northerners by calling them fat. Let me quote from the Manitoulin Recorder: "Mr Wilson said that after all the dinners and functions he had attended in the past seven months he was also beginning

to look like a northerner as well. `I have gained 20 pounds,'