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

March 29, 2007

38th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2007-Mar-29 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 29 March 2007 Jeudi 29 mars 2007

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HANDGUN AMMUNITION

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

HANDGUN AMMUNITION

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

JACK MARKS

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

AWARDS IN BEACHES–EAST YORK

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

ONTARIO BUDGET

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

ONTARIO BUDGET

WEARING OF RIBBONS

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT

(REPLACEMENT WORKERS), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

(TRAVAILLEURS SUPPLÉANTS)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AMENDMENT ACT

(PRODUCT STEWARDSHIP), 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

(GÉRANCE DES PRODUITS)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

VISITORS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

DEFIBRILLATION EQUIPMENT /

DÉFIBRILLATEURS CARDIAQUES

LOCAL HEALTH INTEGRATION NETWORKS

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

CRYSTAL METH

ONTARIO LOTTERY

AND GAMING CORP.

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LABORATORY SERVICES

LAKERIDGE HEALTH

ADULT EDUCATION

STEVENSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

SMITHS FALLS ECONOMY

LONG-TERM CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

CORMORANTS

LONG-TERM CARE

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LONG-TERM CARE HOMES ACT, 2007 /

LOI DE 2007 SUR LES FOYERS DE SOINS DE LONGUE DURÉE

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HANDGUN AMMUNITION

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): I am pleased to move that, in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services should request the chief firearms officer to conduct a study to identify ways of better regulating ammunition which includes consideration of additional mechanisms to further restrict and/or ban the sale and possession of ammunition for handguns and to share relevant findings with federal and provincial/territorial partners.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Duguid has moved private member's notice of motion number 49. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Duguid, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Duguid: Private members' business is one of those few times in this Legislature when MPPs can consider bills and resolutions in a non-partisan way. While I know it doesn't always work that way during this time, I've placed before the Ontario Legislature today a resolution that I hope is considered in a non-partisan way, because it does have the potential—and I say "potential"—to make our communities safer. This resolution simply asks the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to request the provincial chief firearms officer to study and consider potential alternatives to restrict the sale and/or possession of handgun ammunition.

My intention, through this resolution, is to allow us to explore this issue in a more informed and comprehensive way. It simply opens the door to more informed dialogue. I expect that, if passed, this resolution will provide the Ontario government, other governments across Canada, the public and this Legislature with well-researched alternatives that could provide more tools to our police to keep our communities safe and make it more difficult for criminals to get their hands on ammunition.

If we can find a way here in Ontario to further restrict, or even prohibit, the unauthorized possession of handgun ammunition, firearm-related fatalities and injuries could be reduced and our communities made safer as a result. This is not just my view; it's a view shared by many in the law enforcement community. I had the opportunity to speak with our Toronto police chief, Bill Blair, on the weekend about this resolution, and I can tell you, he strongly supports it.

While there are a number of issues I'd like the chief firearms officer to consider, I want to first outline two key reasons to support this resolution. First, I expect most Ontarians would agree that with the exception of police or peace officers, there's really no valid reason for anybody on the streets to have in their possession handgun ammunition unless they're planning on using it in a criminal way or a harmful way.

Mr. Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): Or you're Norm Gardner.

Mr. Duguid: That's a good one—and I said that because I want that in the minutes.

Here's why finding a way to make unauthorized possession of ammunition illegal can help our police in making our community safer.

Consider this: A police officer confronts a street gang. One member is carrying an illegal handgun. They can bust him. The other member is carrying ammunition, perhaps for that gun or maybe he ditched his gun when he saw the police coming, somewhere in the bushes. Unless that gang member has committed another crime, he not only gets to go home scot-free; he gets to bring his bullets with him to use another day. That's just not right. It doesn't make sense. In fact, I'd suggest that's almost insane, and I think most people in the public would think that's the case.

Secondly, some in the law enforcement community have expressed concerns about the need for improved record-keeping and monitoring of ammunition purchases. I can't say whether that's because of insufficient regulations for retailers or insufficient compliance by those retailers with the current regulations. That's something I would hope the chief firearms officer could determine. Either way, it seems logical that police should know who's buying ammunition, where they're buying it and how much they're buying.

Let me be forthright about this resolution. I don't contend that this is the answer to all our problems with regard to public safety. Restricting access to firearms ammunition, in and of itself, will not prevent criminals from obtaining handgun ammunition illegally through smuggling or the black market—just as restricting access to firearms doesn't prevent criminals from obtaining smuggled or stolen handguns. It could, however, make handgun ammunition less available to criminals, less convenient for criminals to obtain, and I think that's a good thing.

In my view, outside of use in a registered firing range or at a target competition, there's no need for anyone to have handgun ammunition in their possession. To the best of my knowledge, hunters use long guns, not handguns, for hunting. I had the opportunity yesterday to chat with a friend of mine who's a representative of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They wanted to clarify my intent with regard to this resolution, and I understand why. Let me take this opportunity to clearly state that this resolution is not meant, in any way, to impact hunters with long guns.

Let me also confirm that target shooters using handguns would not be prevented from using them in shooting ranges or in competitions.

Here are the issues I'd like the chief firearms officer to consider:

(1) Making it illegal for a person who is not authorized to possess or transport a firearm to be in possession of ammunition. This could be specifically for handgun ammunition or it could be for all ammunition.

(2) Another option is restricting possession and use of firearm ammunition to firing ranges and target-shooting competitions.

I've looked into this. Originally, I was thinking of bringing it forward as a private member's resolution, but I found there were a number of complications involved here, and I can get into those. There are a number of complications, so I want the chief firearms officer to take a look at that and see if these complications can be worked out and, if not, this may be something that may be a little bit difficult to bring forward.

(3) Restricting the sale of handgun ammunition to firing ranges. Again, there are complications to doing this, but it's something that I'd like the chief firearms office to at least have a look at and see if there is a viable way to get around some of those complications.

(4) One of the questions that the chief firearms officer would have to deal with is who should be exempt from these regulations—police officers, security officers—and what do you do with sporting target shooters and things like that. That's something that would have to be considered as well. We don't want to impact people who are making a livelihood with the use of ammunition. Whether it's handgun ammunition or long-gun ammunition, we don't want to impact those people at all, unless they're making that livelihood in a criminal way, and that's really what we're trying to get at.

(5) How do you get around the fact that some ammunition can be used in both long guns and handguns? When I first got into this a number of months ago, I didn't realize that, but there are some calibres of bullets out there that can be used interchangeably between handguns and long guns. I don't know all the details of that, but I certainly think that's something that has to be taken into consideration by the chief firearms officer.

(6) Another question is: What do you do, if anything, about people who make their own ammunition? Apparently, there are a lot of people out there who do that. That's something the chief firearms officer may have to consider as well.

(7) Are there any further considerations that could benefit our police that should be studied, such as the ability to maintain a databank of shell ballistics information for handguns, something that some in the policing area have suggested may be helpful in terms of tracing back where guns have come from in shootings, and perhaps even opening up a second crime scene for them if they're stolen guns from private gun collectors? It may even be able to open up a second crime scene to assist them in their investigations of shootings. It's something that has to be investigated.

There are probably some complexities to that as well. There may be costs to that as well, and I don't know what they would be. But it's something we might want to have a look at to see if it's something that's practical.

(8) Are there ways to improve the current regime of recordkeeping by retailers of who purchases ammunition, and how valuable could this information be to the police? As I said, our own police chief in Toronto and others in the policing area as well have suggested that this is something the province should be taking a look at.

I considered bringing this forward as a bill instead of a resolution. I even went so far as to draft one. It sounded simple at first, but I came across a number of complications, as I mentioned earlier, and because of those issues, it convinced me instead to request the chief firearms officer of the province to use his expertise and experience, which is much greater than my own and that of probably most of us in this Legislature, to take a look at these ideas and give us more expert consideration.

This past year, we've seen a dramatic decrease in firearms-related fatalities and injuries, and that's great. This followed a year that saw a dramatic increase in firearms-related crimes. Working with our police services, the Ontario government has invested significantly, and I think wisely, in our efforts to tackle the serious problem of guns and gangs. We've made significant progress through strong enforcement, effective policing and investing in prevention.

The McGuinty government's actions have helped make our neighbourhoods safer and helped reduce gun and gang activity on our streets. While I'm sure government members are proud of those efforts, we also recognize that there's still much more to do. Our efforts to combat guns and gangs must be ongoing. We must vigilantly continue to try to remain one step ahead.

By passing this resolution calling on the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services to request the chief firearms officer to consider and report on alternatives to restrict the possession and/or sale of handgun ammunition, we may be able to identify further tools and policies that can help make our streets safer and reduce firearms fatalities, injuries and crimes even more. I don't pretend to be an expert on handguns or long guns, but I think that by allowing our chief firearms officer to have a look at this, we can indeed make our communities safer.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Robert W. Runciman (Leeds—Grenville): I have very little time to participate in this debate. We could speak extensively about it, there's no question, not necessarily in terms of the import of this particular resolution, but the effort on the part of the McGuinty government to paint themselves in the eyes of the public as the great defenders of public safety.

The member from Scarborough Centre, whom I respect, I know is a good person who has worked diligently on behalf of his party and his government. I suppose it has to be extremely frustrating to someone like him and, I'm sure, quite a number of others in his caucus when they see someone newly elected in a by-election, with no political experience, have a new ministry created for him and be appointed, without political experience, to that ministry.

Mr. Kormos: What about an incompetent colleague who maintains his ministry?

Mr. Runciman: Well, that's another issue.

I think it's most disturbing. If you work so hard and so diligently on behalf of your party, there should be some recognition for that at the end of the day, but in fact that recognition is not there, and it's unlikely to arrive at any point in the near future.

What this member has been relegated to—and perhaps his seatmate and others—is carrying water for cabinet ministers and trying to sell the message. Clearly, anyone who is a careful observer of the history of the Liberal Party of Ontario—or of Canada, for that matter—knows that that positioning flies in the face of history. I just want to recite a couple of instances with respect to this.

If you go back to the summer of 2005, that was called the summer of the gun in Toronto. I'm sure you recall all the shootings and the killings in Toronto. The Liberal Attorney General, Michael Bryant, was later accused of being missing in action. He was nowhere to be seen during that rash of shootings. Then it was revealed, I believe by the National Post, that there was a plan before the cabinet, signed off by the Attorney General, Mr. Bryant, and the Minister of Community Safety, Mr.

Kwinter; they had both signed off and endorsed a plan that was before cabinet that would have virtually gutted the justice system in the province of Ontario—$339 million, signed off by the two justice ministers in the McGuinty Liberal government.

Some of the things that would have done: It would have had fewer offenders charged—there would be a real emphasis on pre-charge diversion, not just for young offenders but for adult offenders as well—more people released on bail, early release of prison inmates. They wanted to close about 2,000 cells across the province, the closing of jail beds. I think that provided us with a real insight into the true beliefs of Liberal Party members.

Of course, with the summer of the gun and the political firestorm that that created in the absence of the government, they had to throw that real inclination of a Liberal to have something that is less than supportive of public safety out the window. Of course, we've seen another example of that over the past few months as well with respect to the Attorney General. He's a great one for trying to find a camera and trying to suggest to the public, "Boy, am I tough on those bad guys." Of course, we know what he tried to do in terms of pre-charge diversion.

I have to say a couple of things with regard to young offenders. I think about 50% of the young offender beds in the province are now empty because of pre-charge diversion. This saves money, perhaps, but does it have any real impact in terms of reducing youth crime? I would suggest not.

One of the first things this Liberal government did when they took office was to close Camp Turnaround for young offenders, a strict-discipline facility that had been created by the former Progressive Conservative government. It had dramatically reduced recidivism rates for young offenders. For political reasons and no other good cause, they've abandoned the strict-discipline approach to dealing with problematic young offenders and closed down a very successful pilot program, Camp Turnaround, just south of Barrie, Ontario.

The Attorney General, with respect to the Karla Homolka situation—boy, was that a show. The Attorney General was out in front of the cameras at every opportunity saying, "I'm going to stop Karla Homolka from getting out of prison, number one," and all of this sort of thing. Of course, we know that there was an appeal of the case with the original effort to exercise a provision of the Criminal Code to ensure that she could be monitored in terms of her movements. That was appealed.

Where was the Attorney General in terms of that appeal? Where were representatives of the crown in terms of that appeal? Missing in action; they weren't there. Did they really care about Karla Homolka coming back into Ontario, other than the publicly saleable message it sent that the Attorney General likes to deliver?

Of course we've seen it recently at the federal level with Stéphane Dion, who is all of a sudden flip-flopping because it could mean the fall of the federal government and we could have a federal election and the Liberals are at the bottom of the polls. So now all of a sudden the federal Liberals are taking up the message that they're tough on crime too. Nobody believes this stuff; nobody believes it.

If anybody has been reading the newspapers and watching television over the years, they know that Liberals have a very different perspective on how to deal with criminal justice issues and with people who are very serious offenders, a very different attitude, certainly not one we would characterize as being tough on crime—quite the opposite.

I think it's regrettable that the member for Scarborough Centre has pursued this line to try to continue to sell what is essentially a phony message. He could have used his time for much more constructive initiatives. He's a bright guy. He supported John Tory when he ran for mayor, and that was a wise initiative on his part. He probably would be sitting over here today other than the fact that Toronto is a very difficult challenge for Progressive Conservatives. But John Tory is changing that; he's going to change that, so you may want to give it some thought.

The reality is, I think there is a strong possibility that after the October election, the member for Scarborough Centre will be sitting over here. I'm optimistic about his chances to be sitting over here following the next provincial election. I'm sure he will be an effective representative of his party from the opposition benches.

Mr. Kormos: We don't have a great deal of time. I am going to share the opportunity to address this resolution with my colleagues Paul Ferreira for York South—Weston and Cheri DiNovo for Parkdale—High Park.

I have no doubt that the author of this resolution has the same concern about the handguns that proliferate amongst especially young people, not only here in Toronto but across this province. And I have no doubt that he, along with every other member of this Legislature, wants to do everything we can to address the violence and the tragedy of maiming and loss of life. As far as statistics are concerned, to cite statistics indicating that there's a lower incidence of gun shooting in the last 12 months than there was 12 months before is of cold comfort to the mother of the kid who's shot dead.

To tell that person, "Well, statistically, your odds against being shot were a little better than they were last year" is of cold comfort—no comfort whatsoever.

I find it remarkable that here we go again. This is private members' public business, but you have a member who wants to play the crime/fear card. God bless. I say, there's every good reason to be afraid of crime, regardless of what the stats are. I don't care how rare homicides are—they aren't—but I don't care how rare they become. To become the victim of a homicide is still a pretty scary prospect. But to play the crime/fear card and then offer up what is a non-solution seems to me to be, at the very least, disingenuous.

What, we've got to pass a resolution telling the minister to ask the firearms authorities to give him advice about how to best control illegal acquisition of ammunition? How stupid. It's the stupidest damn thing I've seen come across here in a long time. Talk about the Minister of Infrastructure Renewal being a bump on a log. What does this say about the Minister of Community Safety? Is he another bump on a log that he needs direction from the chamber to do his job? Lord thundering; this is incredible. It's also silly. It ranks, quite frankly, with the Liberal firearms registry as the so-called panacea for illegal gun crimes.

Before I came here I was a criminal defence lawyer. I acted for a whole lot of people who used guns in the commission of crimes: bank robbers, drug dealers, murderers. Not one of them, I tell you, had displayed the courtesy to register their firearm with the authorities before using it to rob a bank or to shoot up another drug dealer. Not one of them had the courtesy to get a firearms acquisition certificate. Well, of course they didn't. They're criminals.

I'm even further shocked when I read in the latest issue of Ontario Out of Doors, which features a glossy photo of the Minister of Natural Resources, an

article talking about how information from the gun registry is finding its way into the public domain such that lawful owners of registered firearms are having their postal codes published on websites. The suggestion is that it would be the rare 15-year-old who can't hack further into the system to get actual addresses.

I understand that there is concern about handguns that doesn't apply to long-barrelled firearms. I have no qualms. Look, down where I come from, people hunt, people are farmers who have to deal with various types of predators and rodents. I know people in my community, people in my family, who are sportspeople, who are Nimrods, who target-shoot, and I know them all to be incredibly cautious people, incredibly law-abiding people.

The problem is—look, it's just like the Percodan that's being sold in the corner tavern, the high-potency painkiller. Almost inevitably it was prescribed by a doctor, and somebody who acquired it lawfully is putting it out into the unlawful drug distribution system. Inevitably, ammunition that's used by criminals—because let's understand what you've got to do now, Mr. Duguid. You know what you've got to do now. There are registries. One of the remarkable things and one of the things I'm proud of about Canadians is that we've always had some of the toughest gun laws in the world, short of totalitarian regimes, which of course forbid them.

You need a firearms acquisition certificate. Now the standards are even higher. You need possession-only licences. You go through some pretty rigorous training; I'm familiar with the training program that people have to go through to acquire a firearm. When you buy ammunition, you've got to produce one of those licences, have your name and address and other ID recorded with the identification of the ammunition that you're purchasing. That's not a bad thing. That's a good thing, and gunsmiths and gun dealers and sporting stores I talk to agree that it's a good thing.

You made a number of recommendations. Why didn't you ask the Minister of Community Safety to start policing gun shows? Because you know, don't you, that gun shows are the one place where you can circumvent the traditional standards for buying ammunition. If there's any hole in the system, Mr. Duguid, it's at those gun shows. Quite frankly, the legitimate retailers, who work hard to regulate the sale of ammunition and who work hard to ensure that only people who are entitled to purchase it can purchase it, are resentful of the laxness of any standards at gun shows. So let's be a little more specific. Let's talk about ensuring that gun-show vendors of ammunition have to utilize—

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: Am I wrong on this, Mr. Ouellette? You'll have an opportunity to speak to it. Let's make sure that they have the same standards as other retailers.

But at the end of day it's all about this: The reason the author of this resolution had some problems looking at other avenues is because of what's called the Constitution. We don't have jurisdiction provincially to enact criminal law. That's the problem. It's called the Constitution, and its predecessor, the British North America Act—these little legal complications that legislators have to concern themselves with.

The fact is that the handguns that are being used out there to kill innocent people and to wreak havoc in our communities are stolen or smuggled into this province, into the country—end of story. I beg you, sir, to identify one incident of shooting in this city over the course over the last four years and seven months in which some hood on the street was using a firearm that was registered to him in the course of using it. I'm not aware of any. If you are, enlighten us. I look forward to it. We got a real problem.

Mr. Duguid: That has nothing to do with what's in front of us.

Mr. Kormos: Oh, hell's bells it has nothing to do with what's in front of us. It has everything to do with what's in front of us. The fact is that bullets are tiny little things, and stolen bullets, smuggled bullets and bullets purchased by lawful purchasers but then sent out into the illegal marketing of bullets, just like Percodan acquired by lawful prescription then entering the drug underworld, are going to be there. The fact is that it's a lot easier to secrete a bullet than it is a handgun. You understand what I'm saying?

The fact is that the crisis that we have is in handguns, illegal handguns, illegal firearms. I believe that. I believe that law-abiding gun owners are eager to make sure that they have the proper training and have the firearms acquisition certificates and the possession licences, as apparently they are now called. I believe they're prepared to—and if they're not, they're going to have imposed on them some pretty harsh criminal penalties for unsafe storage of firearms, amongst other things.

I think there's a real problem—I've got to tell you, I think there's a real problem which the author of this resolution doesn't address—with the rare person who has these mega-collections. You've read about some of them. That's scary stuff. You've got people with darned arsenals in unsecured apartments in highrises. We saw an incident of it a while ago. I think that's totally unacceptable. We have no reason to be tolerant of that type of acquirer of firearms who doesn't engage in the type of security you need.

The fact is that if there has been a break and enter and people have stolen those firearms, there hasn't been an adequate level of security, and I think there should be high levels of culpability on the part of that person.

But this resolution does nothing—nothing—to enhance the efforts of policing, because at the end of the day, it's all about the number of cops you've got out there on the street. At the end the day, it's all about being able to deal with the underground activity. Look, people who smuggle and traffic in illegal guns don't put billboards up. It's the very nature of criminal activity. They have no interest in television ads or in big newspaper advertisements saying, "Meet me here to buy your guns." The policing of that type of illegal and organized activity is very labour-intensive.

All the laws in the world amount to squat if you don't have cops out there enforcing them. The fact is that the level of funding of policing in this province is so low that police services across this province, big-city and small-town like where I come from, are hard-pressed to even deliver core policing services, never mind embark on specialized and intensive activities like infiltrating and doing surveillance and the investigative work involved in uncovering gun smuggling rings or illegal gun trafficking rings.

The other interesting observation that has to be made is that, because of this government's restriction of anti-crime funding—or anti-gang funding, rather—to the city of Toronto, what it has done is driven that criminal activity out into the suburbs and beyond. So you see, Niagara region, that whole corridor, the whole biker corridor, if you will, along the 401, through London to all of those communities where the activity has been pushed out into, doesn't have that intensive funding to allow for the anti-gang activity.

This resolution, I'm sure, will pass. I'm not going to be a party to it. I'm not going to lend my name to it because I think it's fluff, it's spin, it's typical Liberal sucking and blowing, that simultaneous sucking and blowing that Liberals are wont to do. As I've said so many times, Mr. Ferreira, the nice thing about being a Liberal is that you don't always have to be a Liberal. You can campaign like a New Democrat; govern like a Tory.

When it comes to law and order, you can try to jump on the bandwagon and show that, oh, you're tough and you're serious about people's homes getting broken into, about drug dealers shooting people on the streets. But if the best you can do, if the best you can come up with, is to tell the minister to ask, to plead with his firearms officer, "Please, do you have any ideas that could maybe help us control the sale of ammunition?"—

Interjection.

Mr. Kormos: If that's the best you can do, what are you gunning for, Mr. Duguid?

Ms. DiNovo: He's gunning for his job.

Mr. Kormos: Mr. Duguid is gunning for his job, as Ms. DiNovo wittily interjects.

Well, the resolution will pass, but I won't be here when it does.

Mr. Bas Balkissoon (Scarborough—Rouge River): I'm pleased to rise today to join this debate and speak in favour of the handgun ammunition resolution brought forth by my colleague Mr. Brad Duguid, the member from Scarborough Centre.

As the parliamentary assistant for community safety to the Honourable Monte Kwinter, Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services, let me say that I fully support this resolution to conduct the study outlined. On behalf the the Honourable Minister Monte Kwinter, let me also add his full support to this resolution as his ministry continues to pursue opportunities and ways in which to make Ontario a safer place to live, work and play.

As you know, this government is serious about crime and safety. We are committed to playing an active role in fighting and preventing crime to keep our neighbourhoods safe. When innocent citizens die from stray bullets, public concerns become our concerns. When a young man plays around with his dad's loaded handgun, public concerns become our concerns because Ontario safety affects all of us here today.

As a government official, I feel it is our job to support and ensure that the programs and initiatives helping to protect Ontario's families and children are implemented, continued and supported. This is why our government has invested $51 million in anti-gun-and-gangs initiatives to give police and prosecutors the tools and resources they need to rid our streets and our communities of guns and gangs.

Through our Safer Communities-1,000 Officer partnership program, we've helped police hire an additional 1,000 officers to patrol our streets and make our communities safe. We are hiring 12 new victims' services staff that will provide support to victims of gun crimes in addition to the 12 new probation and parole officers to work with the guns and gangs task force. These initiatives have meant over 250 additional officers to the Toronto Police Service, which has had a direct impact in my own riding. In the past, the Malvern community in my riding has been identified as an area with high gun-related activities.

But through this government's plan to bring the crime rate down, we are seeing a difference in Scarborough—Rouge River.

The government has been tough on crime, but at the same time we've been just as aggressive with the causes of crime and the programs we've brought in for young people in our communities. Crime prevention is working in my community, and I believe crime prevention is working across Ontario. This is why I applaud my colleague Mr. Duguid for his hard work in putting forward this resolution to continue to identify ways of better regulating gun ammunition. I'm excited to say that this resolution could well bring this government one step closer, in our fight against crime, to eliminating gun violence in our streets.

It will also allow us to continue to protect Ontarians and keep our communities safe, because we don't just want to combat crime; we want to stop it before it happens.

You will remember that this government also called upon the federal government last year to amend the Criminal Code, to impose mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes, to impose a reverse onus on bail for all gun crimes. All of these little things added together are what the communities we represent are asking us to do so that we can bring safety into our communities. I believe that this resolution will help us to get one step closer. It hopefully will bring back the statistics and those things that we can use to improve our legislation, to improve our programs in our communities, to help make them safer and hopefully represent our communities as we were expected to do.

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this resolution. I know that all members of this House, from all parties, who share a genuine concern on this public safety issue are wanting to speak today. This is an extremely important issue, and I applaud the member from Scarborough Centre, like all members who wish to make the communities safer, so long as that is the actual intent. The member from Niagara Centre certainly emphasized a lot of key things in directing something that should already be taking place.

It's also important that we take the time to discuss strategies to deal with this important public safety initiative as opposed to just knee-jerk reactions to public safety based on the media story of the day. We've seen this kind of policy and ideology from the McGuinty government in the past. I can think of predominantly two examples. Of course, one is the infamous pit bull ban. I met with veterinarians who said that they had people come in whose pit bulls aren't spayed or neutered and who have no intention of complying.

I see individuals on a regular basis going down the street and they don't have their dogs muzzled, and I've never seen a house that shows a sign that specifically depicts a pit bull living there. That's just one example, even though the overwhelming evidence specifically stated not to go in that direction.

Another is the suggested proposal by Dalton McGuinty and the Attorney General to completely ban the sale of legal handguns from the province because of the media hype surrounding the issue at that time.

But I must say that the intent of the resolution is somewhat noble—although, after hearing the debate, it's clear to me that the member needs a lot more understanding and probably should get a briefing on some of the details about the impacts and what is already available out there—and that's to prevent firearm-related fatalities and injuries in our communities to make sure our streets and neighbourhoods are far safer for our residents.

My father was a chief of police, my grandfather on my mother's side was a chief constable in his community, and I'm probably one of the only ones in this Legislature who actually has been shot at with intent. From that, I can give some of the background information that most people wouldn't even know.

When I spoke with parole officers and asked them, "Why is it that individuals were using guns in related crime activities?" the parole officers told me that they spoke to the individuals coming in to see them, and they specifically stated, "Why wouldn't I use a gun? Because most of the time, or virtually all of the time, the weapons offence is thrown out. So why wouldn't I use a gun as opposed to that?" If the target was there in the misuse, the criminal misuse of firearms, then it wouldn't be affecting law-abiding citizens.

Although the member states that his resolution is not another Liberal firearm registry boondoggle and it's intended not to impact legitimate target shooters, the member of this House in his own correspondence certainly acknowledged some of the problems with proceeding with this type of resolution.

Camp Samac in Oshawa has a rifle range indoors, and Boy Scouts use that on a regular basis. Guess what? They're shooting .22 long rifles. Well, the .22 long rifle is another cartridge that is used in the .22 handgun. It's the same thing. It would certainly cause problems when you're dealing with that issue.

When you talk about the registration—and I certainly hope the member deals with the issues—they obviously haven't checked with the federal legislation to find out. Have they even looked at the form to comply with, where they actually check in to find out—I can give you some of the details for the form. It's a seven-page form. It's not like a passport that's only—what?—four pages. This is a federal firearms registry, and nobody—not law-abiding gun owners—is opposed to that. They support those things. But when you look at certain things that they're asking for—about conjugal partners in the past two years and you have to get them to sign off. You have to sign off details. It specifically says:

"During the past five (5) years, do you know if you have been reported to the police or social services for violence, threatened or attempted violence, or other conflict, in your home or elsewhere?

"During the past two (2) years, have you experienced a divorce, a separation, a breakdown of a significant relationship, job loss or bankruptcy?"

Those are the sorts of forms that you have to fill out before you're allowed to go out and actually purchase ammunition. If the members had taken the time to read all those details, they certainly would know some of that.

When you talk about other groups that would be affected—I mentioned the Boy Scouts, and that's just one small group. What about the Air Cadets, who regularly participate in shooting activities, or the Navy Cadets or the Army Cadets as well? They actively participate in shooting .22s, long rifles—yes, there are long rifles. However, that same ammunition is used as would be used, for example, in the ridings of the minister from Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, the minister from Sudbury, the minister from Timiskaming—Cochrane, the minister from Kingston and the Islands.

Another one would be a .44. A Ruger .44 is another rifle that is commonly used as a deer gun throughout Ontario. In all those ministers' ridings, I would say there are probably at least a number of individuals who use that. The same ammunition is utilized in a .44 handgun. What are you going to do in situations like that?

I think the member from Niagara Centre said it succinctly when he spoke about the details and the intent. This is going to be another boondoggle.

Some ammunition—as we've mentioned, the .22 is a perfect example—is going to cause all sorts of problems. The member also mentions record-keeping of ammunition, which has been in place since 1994. If you look at the legislation from 1994, it's very clear and specific on the process which takes place. Quite frankly, there was a lot of concern about this because the way records were being kept in all the locations that sold ammunition was causing concern because it was accessible by other individuals.

Many times they would come in, write it on, fill out all the information—the details of where you live, type of ammunition—and that was publicly accessible, which caused more problems than good. The only difficulty with that is that all the legislation that was passed at that time and the resolution here are superseded by the federal legislation, which gives specific guidelines for storage of ammunition and other details.

When you talk about other aspects of this, about eliminating bank robberies, this could equate to exactly that. We could eliminate all bank robberies. The best way to do that would be to get rid of all banks. It's just not going to happen. It's the same sort of thing. The member from Niagara Centre just went on with details about the fact that the individuals he defended had never registered a firearm.

I appreciate the time for debate. We look forward to hearing other individuals debate as well.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri (Etobicoke North): First of all, I would like to commend my colleague Mr. Duguid from Scarborough Centre for bringing forth this resolution. As you'll know, it's with reference to the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. It really is hopefully another step in the right direction towards controlling handgun crime, the homicide rate and violence on the streets of Toronto.

Just before making some remarks about this particular bill, I would like to first of all recognize the words of our honourable colleague from the third party, from Niagara Centre. He's quite correct: When you confront the family of a victim whose life has been snuffed out by a handgun crime, on an individual basis of course it a tragedy that no reparation can make whole again. But there is also, beyond that, the statistical or population-wide attempt to reduce handgun crimes to the extent that people do feel safer.

As the member for Etobicoke North, who perhaps was subjected to more than my proportion of handgun violence, especially in that summer of the gun, the summer of 2005, I recall that one of the jobs I did not sign up for, that I did not anticipate having to fulfill, was attending the funerals of four young men, all of whom were black, who happened to be from my riding and were either involved in shootings within my riding or nearby—one of whom, by the way, Mr.

Amon Beckles, a young man 18 years old, actually was attacked, shot and murdered on the steps of a church in my riding while attending the funeral of one of his friends who had been murdered two weeks before. You can imagine that as the MPP, as a doctor, as a father and as a son, when I confronted that kind of tragedy and waste of human life, when I saw this resolution brought forth by my colleague Mr. Duguid, I could do nothing but support him and wish him well in its implementation.

The member from Niagara Centre also made a very interesting analogy. He said, "What if this was all about Percodan?"—which, by the way, is a prescription narcotic that is sold for recreational and entertainment purposes on the streets of Toronto. "What if this resolution had to do with Percodan?" I can tell you as a doctor that these types of resolutions, safeguards and regulations in fact do exist with things like narcotic prescriptions. They need to and they have to. Probably going forward, we would only serve the people of Ontario better if we were to actually strengthen these types of resolutions.

Some of the specifics of this: As you know, at any present time these days, an adult with a firearms acquisition certificate and proper ID can go into any gun shop and sporting goods store and purchase as much handgun ammunition as they wish. Record-keeping is modest at best. This is part and parcel of the directive that would be given to the chief firearms officer.

I was very privileged just last night to host the Honourable George Smitherman, Deputy Premier and Minister of Health, at a budget conference. But along with him as well was the Honourable Monte Kwinter, our Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. At least half of the questions that were directed to all of us had to do with violence and guns and gangs and their intersection.

Any attempt we can make in the direction of getting some of these arms, this weaponry, the fuel, if you will, for these handguns off the streets and allow them only for legitimate causes—for example, law enforcement officers—is absolutely worthy of support. That is something that's incorporated within this particular resolution.

This affects the sale of handgun ammunition from retail outlets. It brings a little bit more scrutiny and a little bit more record-keeping, with further directives and studies to be undertaken by the various officials involved. I would say that not only is this necessary—because one of the things that I regret, as I see the urbanization of our cities—as somebody who was actually originally born in Chicago, what I have been witnessing, and I hope I'm wrong, is the slow and steady Americanization of a lot of our cities.

Whereas Toronto and other cities are still, to this day, I think, thought of as relatively safe, pleasant, beautiful places to raise your kids, there are unfortunately pockets, regions, areas, districts that seem to be ushering in that era of the United States of Ontario, specifically with reference to guns and gang violence and "Are we going to put metal detectors in our schools?" That's the kind of world and community we do not want to see in Ontario, and I think it is resolutions such as my colleague Mr. Duguid is bringing forward today that will help move us in that particular direction.

After that summer of the gun, I was pleased to host the Premier of our province, the Honourable Dalton McGuinty, who came to that very church, to those very steps that I spoke about, at which Mr. Beckles, that young gentleman, 18 years old, whose life was snuffed out—at that very church, the Seventh Day Adventist church in Etobicoke North, he came to offer a program, a $3-million commitment to engage with some of the faith communities to help youth at risk to seek other opportunities, other venues of expression than joining gangs and perpetrating gun violence.

This, along with the resolution today and, at other times, a number of our other initiatives, including expanded policing services and so on, is really part and parcel of our overall guns and gangs strategy.

With that, I would simply say that this resolution deserves the support of every member and this member from Etobicoke North in particular. I would commend Mr. Duguid on bringing forward a resolution that is so thoughtful, well-crafted and, I would say, really embodies a lot of our aspirations.

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): I am delighted to join in the debate and support my good friend the member from Scarborough Centre.

I want to say to the people at home who are watching that Brad's a great member, and I'll tell you why: because he reaches out to all sides on this debate. He's particularly effective within our caucus. I come from a very rural riding, the richest agricultural riding in the country. This is an issue that I've had to learn about—the plague of gun violence—just as my good friend Mr. Duguid and my friends Mr. Qaadri and Mr. Balkissoon have learned about the challenge of crystal meth in my own riding.

It's that ability to talk about the law-and-order issues we're facing in our respective ridings and how we must work together to snuff them out so they don't spread across this great province. I am particularly pleased to hear from my good friend Mr. Duguid that he talked to the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters so he could bring some clarity to his resolution and to his intent. I know they warmly received the fact that he did chat with them.

There are some challenges here. He started with a bill and realized that we need to go to the experts to work on this. I commend him. I believe that the question is right to go to the chief firearms officer. I think that's a prudent thing to do.

The question we're going to be faced with in this House is: Will we support our friend Mr. Duguid? Will this be a partisan issue or a non-partisan issue? We're going to find out very shortly whether or not we support this. If we can't support a colleague who is trying to represent his community and trying to ensure that people walking around with ammunition for handguns used to commit a crime—that is the reality today, and if we don't agree that that should stop—it'll be interesting to see that vote, and we look forward to it.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Duguid, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Duguid: I'd like to thank the members for Leeds—Grenville, Niagara Centre, Scarborough—Rouge River, Oshawa, Etobicoke North and Perth—Middlesex for participating in this debate and providing input here today.

A number of things have been said for and against today—most in favour, I guess. When you bring forward a resolution or bill to this House and the opposition really doesn't raise anything that specifically applies to what you've got before them, you know it must be a pretty supportable piece of legislation or resolution, so I'm pleased at how the debate has gone today.

There was one interesting suggestion that came from the member from Niagara Centre that I want to get on record, simply because if the minister does in fact ask the chief firearms officer to do this, if this resolution does pass, perhaps the area of gun shows is something that could well be within the breadth of this resolution, something that could be looked at.

I want to also state that I was really surprised that the member from Niagara Centre would come out—he seemed so specifically against gun control. That surprised me. I thought the NDP were in favour of gun control. He specifically criticized gun control, and that really surprised me.

Interjections.

Mr. Duguid: Maybe his colleagues are trying to clarify what he said, and maybe later on he can. But I listened carefully to what he said, and he clearly appeared to be against gun control.

This resolution does two simple things. It allows the chief firearms officer to bring forward a report that I think will be very important to the minister. These two things can allow a couple of things to happen: number one, to ensure that it will be illegal from here on forward for people to walk on the streets without authorization with bullets and ammunition—

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Duguid: I ran out of time.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Paul Ferreira (York South—Weston): I move that, in the opinion of this House, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario call on the government of Ontario to move expeditiously to establish and implement a comprehensive landlord licensing program, to ensure minimum standards for rental accommodation throughout Ontario, with the following features:

The program would be fully integrated with existing municipal property standards bylaws and

part XIV ("Maintenance Standards" of the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006);

Administration and enforcement would be the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and could be assigned to individual municipalities by agreement;

Landlords would be required to obtain a licence for each residential complex containing more than 10 residential units;

Annual licence fees would be paid into special funds dedicated to supporting program administration and enforcement;

Residential complexes would be regularly inspected and work orders would be issued to ensure compliance with minimum standards;

Repeated failure to comply with work orders would be dealt with by a rent escrow system, whereby tenants in the affected residential complex would pay part of their rent into a special account, administered by the landlord licensing program and used to ensure that repairs are carried out;

Serious infractions would result in prosecution and substantial fines could be imposed on conviction; and

That the government of Ontario report back to the Legislature on the implementation of this program during the spring 2007 sitting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): Mr. Ferreira has moved private member's notice of motion number 52. Pursuant to standing order 96, Mr. Ferreira, you have up to 10 minutes.

Mr. Ferreira: I am honoured to rise this morning for my inaugural private members' hour in this place.

I am particularly pleased that my resolution calling for the implementation of a landlord licensing program across the province would have far-reaching positive implications for a tremendous number of Ontario tenants, including thousands in my home constituency of York South—Weston. As in many other ridings across our province, more than half the residents in my riding are tenants. They played a very instrumental role in sending me here to this place. Thus, I am delighted, as my party's housing critic, to be able to initiate the debate on this item and to speak out for Ontario's tenants and their interests.

Landlord licensing is not a radical or new concept. It is practised successfully in other jurisdictions, and I will refer to one of those later in my comments this morning. A province-wide system of licensing landlords would bring into force minimum standards for the upkeep and maintenance of private rental properties. Whether it's here in downtown Toronto or in Windsor or in Ottawa or in Thunder Bay, the standards and enforcement would be the same. Tenants across the province would receive a uniform level of protection under the law.

Why is legislating tenant protection so important? Over the past number of years, through my own community work and activism I have witnessed at first hand hundreds, in fact probably thousands, of rental units that are poorly maintained and where tenants are forced to live in deplorable conditions.

Yesterday, I spent some time in my riding visiting some of these apartments. What I saw wasn't pretty at all. Indeed, I think that members on all sides of this House would be appalled by the conditions that some tenants are forced to live in: cockroach and mice infestations; obvious signs of sickness-inducing moulds; a lack of basic safety devices, including window screens and fire alarm detectors. And this doesn't come cheap: a one-bedroom apartment for $750 a month, a two-bedroom for $900 and up. That's what the money gets you.

On my tour yesterday, I was accompanied by a member of our press gallery here. She wrote about what she witnessed, and for the benefit of those members who may have missed the article, I want to read out the first couple of paragraphs because they paint a rather vivid picture of the poor living conditions faced each and every day by tenants in this province. I quote from her story:

"The cockroaches are everywhere. In Nakisha Charles' one-bedroom apartment, they swarm her infant son's baby bottle even in the fridge.

"Several floors higher, Yvonne Brown fights her own futile battle with the roaches who spill out of every cupboard and fall from the shower curtain rod.

"At night, Brown's 12-year-old daughter shouts out, 'Mommy, there's roaches in my bed.'

"Even worse than the infesting bugs are the broken smoke alarm, the missing window screens and the mouldy walls and vents in these women's Weston Road apartments.

"'Repeated calls to the landlord have gone unanswered,' the renters said."

That last line warrants repeating: "'Repeated calls to the landlord have gone unanswered.'"

Due to lax and shoddy enforcements of the existing hodgepodge of rules that we have, bad, unscrupulous landlords are able to get away with poor maintenance and deficient repairs. Tenants faithfully pay their rent every month, hoping that repairs will soon be made. In many cases they are not or they are done in such a sloppy, haphazard way that in fact the conditions become worse.

Why do tenants put up with this? As I'm sure all my colleagues here know, housing options for someone on a fixed or modest income are few; they're very limited. The wait for affordable housing in this province can last for 10, 12, 15 years I've heard of in some cases. Tenants are forced to take what they can afford, and greedy landlords take advantage of that reality and prey on them.

I know what some of my colleagues will say here this morning. They will say that there are good, indeed very good, responsible landlords across Ontario. I wholeheartedly agree and I applaud these honest landlords who take great pride in the upkeep of their buildings and complexes. However, I would argue that a province-wide landlord licensing program would give these model landlords a competitive advantage.

I envision, similar to what we currently have in the city of Toronto with restaurants and the like, certificates or posters prominently displayed in apartment lobbies showing the state of a particular building based on their licensing inspections. A tenant looking for accommodation would be able to make an informed choice, knowing that one landlord has properly maintained their property while another has not. In my estimation, that kind of transparency would provide great incentive for landlords across the province.

Tenants being able to withhold rent from landlords would provide yet another powerful incentive. My resolution calls for, as part of a comprehensive system of licensing landlords, the creation of holding accounts where tenants could deposit their rent monies until such time that repairs are adequately made. Earlier in my comments, I mentioned that landlord licensing exists in other jurisdictions. This holding or escrow account system is a feature used successfully in these other jurisdictions.

For example, in the city of Los Angeles, where landlord licensing is presently in effect, an integral part of their model is something called a "rent escrow account program," or REAP, as they refer to it.

REAP provides, and I quote from the Los Angeles city code, "a just, equitable and practical method to be cumulative to and in addition to any other remedy available at law." It goes on, "to encourage compliance by landlords with respect to the maintenance and repair of residential buildings, structures, premises and portions of those buildings, structures, premises...."

The Los Angeles model also features rent reductions for tenants and a framework for substantial punitive fines for landlords that do not comply.

Some of my friends here this morning will, I'm certain, say that Los Angeles is a municipal example and that landlord licensing would be best left up to individual municipalities across the province. I may hear that. Unfortunately for tenants, municipalities, in the present funding context, have a difficult time enough delivering essential services. As we know, some of the largest municipalities in this province are cash-strapped and do not have the resources to properly do the job.

I would argue that tenants, wherever they should happen to live in our great province, deserve the same kind of protection and enforcement, which is why the Ministry of Housing needs to step in and assume this responsibility. I would sincerely hope that my colleagues from the government side agree with me on this.

Back in 2003, the last time that we all had a chance to face the people, I heard many of them on the government side campaign on the need to increase tenant protection across the province, especially in the wake of the eight years that we had previously, where we saw the playing field tilted to a great degree toward the interest of landlords, especially the larger ones.

Implementing a landlord licensing program would provided much-needed increased tenant protection and assist the government in living up to their promise to do just that, and I'm glad to be able to offer my assistance in having them do that. As for my colleagues here to my right in the official opposition caucus, I have been heartened during my short two-week stint here to hear some of them distance themselves from that record of those eight years.

Mr. Rosario Marchese (Trinity—Spadina): Amen.

Mr. Ferreira: Amen indeed. Support for this resolution would further that cleansing, purifying process, that conversion they're going through. I hope that tenants in their ridings in particular can count on their support so that we can move forward with this initiative.

At the end of the day, landlord licensing would be of benefit to scores of Ontarians who are presently marginalized and whose interests are too often neglected. When I came to this place, I came to be a voice for these Ontarians. This resolution is a modest one, but it is one that would begin to make a profound mark on improving the quality of life for those who need the improvement the most. I urge my colleagues to support my call for landlord licensing and I look forward to their insightful comments this morning.

In closing, I want to acknowledge the presence of tenant activists who have come to observe the debate this morning. Most of them belong to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, as they're known, an organization which I hope the members of this House had an opportunity to meet with yesterday during their first annual—I hope there will be many more—lobby day. I appreciate the kind assistance provided to me by the good folks at ACORN, which is a very tough nut to crack, on this resolution and other issues. ACORN has 6,000 members across the province and it is growing. To ACORN organizers and

chapter leaders, thank you for your work and your vibrant spirit of community activism. It is indeed making a positive difference.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): I want to start by welcoming the new member for York South—Weston to the House here today—or two weeks ago, as he mentioned—as a colleague. Already the member has shown that he will be an active participant in the Legislature and that he cares about his constituents. I also want to congratulate him on his first private member's resolution, which is a very apt resolution. I know that he has many tenants in his riding and that his intentions with this resolution are good.

I'm sure that on the campaign trail the member heard many stories about bad landlords. We all have heard those stories from tenants who have their problems—landlords who have refused to do proper repairs, landlords who have refused to provide the basic services, landlords who have rented apartments that weren't safe. In my riding this year we had an elderly couple whose daughter had to help to ensure that their apartment was warm enough in the winter, and this just isn't acceptable.

I understand that the intent of this resolution is to protect tenants from bad landlords, and no one could disagree with those intentions. Ontario tenants should have safe, comfortable places to live and have the security of knowing their home will be properly maintained. However, in my opinion, the reality is that landlord licensing will not accomplish this goal. It will not protect tenants from bad landlords. It will only punish the good landlords, drive unsafe apartments further underground and increase the cost of housing.

The landlords who are renting unsafe apartments, the ones that don't even meet the fire codes, are going to be the same landlords who try to avoid the registration or the licensing process. Anyone who knowingly rents an apartment that is unsafe or below standard is not going to rush out and get their apartment inspected.

There are tenants out there who have good landlords. Unfortunately, they are the ones we don't hear from. No one ever says, "I'm going to write my MPP and tell him how great my landlord is." We don't hear about the majority of landlords, the ones who fix problems right away or those who go above and beyond for their tenants. But those tenants are the ones who would suffer the most from landlord licensing. Those tenants don't need legislation to license their landlords. They won't get any extra value for it.

But they, like all others, will have to pay for it because their landlords will have to pay to be licensed too, and that cost will be passed on to the tenants. This is the other problem with licensing landlords: The cost of licensing, both the fee and the time and the paperwork, would, of course, be passed on to the tenants. If a store owner is selling loaves of bread and the price that he pays his supplier goes up, wouldn't you expect him to increase the cost of bread in his store? Landlords are not going to lose money or earn less on their buildings because the government decides to license them.

Their mortgages aren't going to go down just because the government adds another cost. They are going to be forced to raise the rent to cover the cost of licensing and the cost of doing the paperwork for the licence.

This resolution seeks to set up a licensing system to ensure minimum standards of maintenance and ensure enforcement of those standards. We need to remember that property standards are not a new idea. Municipalities already have the ability to set property standards and to enforce them. In fact, most municipalities do have property standards bylaws, and it is an area of municipal jurisdiction, a fact that the member acknowledges in the resolution by suggesting that administration and enforcement could be assigned to individual municipalities by agreement.

Currently, the municipalities have the authority to administer and enforce property standards, so this resolution seeks to create a new bureaucracy that will get us back to the situation that we presently have. The only thing that will change under the system proposed by this resolution is that there will now be a list of apartments, and landlords will pay to be on it. In fact, the city of Toronto, among its many new powers, already has the ability to license landlords and apartments.

I want to point out that during the hearings on the City of Toronto Act, we questioned Premier Dalton McGuinty's government on all the new revenue-increasing powers that they were giving to the city of Toronto, and the Liberal members on the committee assured us that they were just there to show how much they trusted municipalities. When the Dalton McGuinty Liberals amended the Taxpayer Protection Act to allow municipalities the ability to have new taxing powers, the Liberals assured us they would not be abused.

When the Dalton McGuinty Liberals opened the door in the City of Toronto Act to new taxing powers and new fees, Dalton McGuinty assured us they wouldn't be abused. Well, the city of Toronto has already started musing about all the possible taxes and fees and licences that they could introduce: a new land transfer tax, a new tax on alcohol, a new tax on movies and sporting events, a new tax on parking, a road tax, and many others.

One of the other new powers that the city of Toronto is musing about is the ability to license landlords, and again, that's what this resolution deals with. I've heard from one landlord who has a number of units here in the city of Toronto. On many of the apartments he has not raised the rents for five to 10 years. He says that he has been happy to reward good, responsible tenants with below-average rents. However, with the city of Toronto talking about licensing landlords and charging landlords, he is concerned that he will be forced to increase those rates.

The president of the Greater Toronto Apartment Association warns, "If landlords' costs jump, rent hikes will follow." He also pointed out that only about 10% of the city's 300,000 high-rise units are in bad shape and said that licensing landlords would be like "using a baseball bat to kill a mosquito."

For the lower-end apartments, they have mused about a $400-per-year licensing charge. That is an extra $33 a month that will be passed on to the renter, plus the cost of staff time to fill out the paperwork. That will not be a positive for the average tenant in the province of Ontario.

As I said, the municipal property standards regime has the ability to do everything that the member, in his resolution, is putting forward here.

The member, in his presentation, mentioned that he hoped my tenants in Oxford or tenants in the rest of the province could in fact benefit from this resolution. I have never had one request, in my years in provincial politics, from a tenant or a landlord that was in support of licensing apartments, that someone had to have a licence to live in a home. In my mind, it's just unacceptable.

There's a balance between protecting tenants and not making it so difficult for landlords that they want to get out of the rental accommodation business. Landlord licensing will mean more red tape and higher costs for landlords, which decreases the incentive for people to get into the rental business.

As a result of changes that the Conservative government made, we have actually seen rental units being built in Ontario. The vacancy rate in Ontario is now well above the historical average. It's working. In fact, the rent control system we created is working so well that Dalton McGuinty actually broke his campaign promise to scrap the part of the Tenant Protection Act that he had promised to scrap because it was working so well.

What we need for Ontario tenants is more and better enforcement. I would agree with the member, in his resolution, that more needs to be done to enforce the property standards bylaws in all municipalities. We want to make sure that we are protecting tenants and cracking down on the bad landlords and the unsafe apartments without punishing the good landlords and good tenants. The question we need to ask is not whether landlords should be licensed, but whether the McGuinty government is doing enough to protect the tenants of Ontario from bad landlords. I think that is an area that warrants more investigation and discussion.

Unfortunately, I can't support this resolution because licensing landlords isn't the way to make up for the fact that the McGuinty government is failing to protect tenants.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo (Parkdale—High Park): It's my honour to speak to this courageous resolution. It's abolutely what we need. It's absolutely what the tenants of this province need.

I just wanted to provide the backdrop for this resolution, which is, of course, the inaction of the McGuinty Liberals on the tenant front.

What are we looking at when we're looking at the situation in Ontario? First of all, housing was my critic area until I was delighted to hand it to my colleague Paul Ferreira after his election, and I can tell you that there are 67,000 households in the GTA waiting for affordable housing. There are 122,000 in Ontario waiting for affordable housing.

This is a government that promised 20,000 units in 2003, and through the Freedom of Information Act, I can tell you that we have the answer to how many real affordable units they provided: 285. By "affordable," I mean in the $300- to $500-a month range, which is 30% of ODSP, OW, or minimum-wage earners. Of course, they'll tell you that they've provided around 2,000, which is still pathetic—it's still 10% of what they promised—but those are in fact only affordable for people making between $30,000 and $70,000. This is from the housing minister, Mr. Gerretsen, himself.

I'm happy to provide any Liberal backbenchers with that information should they so request. So that's the backdrop to this. There is virtually no affordable housing, so what happens is that we have private landlords filling the gap that the government should be filling.

In Parkdale—High Park, we have about 10,000 so-called affordable units owned privately and we have a great deal of problem with them. I'd like to thank ACORN again. I know ACORN has been thanked for their presence here, but they are one of the outstanding tenants' rights organizations. We have others in Parkdale. We have the Parkdale Tenants, and I'm going to speak a little bit about them in a moment. We have the West Lodge Tenants' Association. These are phenomenal tenant associations that do the bulk of the work in bringing to heel these absentee and slum landlords.

Right now, I can tell you from my own riding that in the absence of inspectors—because of course there's no funding for them from this government—what we have is the fire department doing de facto inspections. They have become the very expensive inspection unit in the absence of real home and apartment inspections.

But also, of course, this government is a slum landlord. And how are they a slum landlord? Well, Toronto Community Housing Corp. depends on this government for money, and they don't get it.

I'm going to quote from a tenant activist and TCHC resident, Kay Bromfield, who says: "For five years we have been waiting for action to address the $300-million backlog in outstanding capital repairs.

"We know that the $127 million for the entire province is insufficient to both create new affordable housing and rehabilitate existing housing. The Liberals said that they would do things differently, but they are perpetuating the same policy of letting the homes of Ontario's poorest people fall apart. The government takes credit when it invests in new housing, but it lets our existing housing fall further and further into disrepair," said Bromfield.

I want to quote from our member from Scarborough here—Mr. Duguid, parliamentary assistant for housing: He called the repair crisis "a ticking time bomb that would some day blow up."

George Smitherman, the deputy Liberal leader, stayed overnight in a TCHC unit. He urged the previous government to get back into the housing business and preserve our housing stock.

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): And we've done it.

Ms. DiNovo: Oh, of course—with $127 million instead of the $300 million, just for repairs. And, by the way, might I remind this House that the $392 million that was spoken about in the budget is federal money? Federal money, fought for by the New Democratic Party at the federal level and given to this province, that it sits on and does not spend.

Just on with that, here's what the tenants say for TCHC:

Question: "Why are there so many unaddressed capital repairs?"

Answer: "The province downloaded the responsibility for community housing to the city but refused to fund capital reserves, despite the fact that many government officials, including Liberals, said they should." So that's the answer there.

There's a wonderful program, by the way, in Parkdale—High Park. It's called the Lord of the Slums tour. Every year they do this; last year they did it. At the height of the Lord of the Slums tour, they present what is called the Golden Cockroach award for worst landlord. I just want to say, as a form of kudos to this phenomenal organization and to the members of ACORN here, a little bit about the Golden Cockroach award

"The Golden Cockroach is a tastefully decorated trophy much coveted by slum landlords and art exhibits.

"The stainless steel curves sweeping upwards towards the sky symbolize the ever-increasing rents which know no limit and the efforts by slumlords to charge sky-high rents.

"Finally, at its pinnacle, there is the Golden Cockroach itself, clad in all its gold and splendour, thus subtly denoting the filth and health hazards which these landlords aspire to create for their tenants. The gold also symbolizes the huge profits which slum landlords are making at the expense of their tenants.

"After painstaking research and exhaustive canvassing by the Parkdale Tenants Association in many Parkdale buildings, we are very disturbed at what we have seen. Families with children are forced to live with cockroaches, mice, broken appliances, no hot water, holes in the ceiling—it goes on. Rents have gone out of the control and maintenance seems nonexistent. This is inexcusable."

Inexcusable it is indeed, and it does go on.

We're talking, again, about the poorest among us. We could also speak—although I want to leave some more time for my colleague Mr. Ferreira to speak more about this wonderful initiative and this resolution to talk about the environmental impact of some of these buildings as well. You know, many of the tenants pay their own utilities and yet there is absolutely no incentive, and this government has given them none, for landlords to retrofit those apartments. Those tenants are using appliances that are out of date, they're energy-inefficient.

Mr. Ferreira: If they work at all.

Ms. DiNovo: Many of them are heating their homes with baseboard electric heating. Again, this government says it's concerned about the environment. Why is it not concerned about the environment of our poorest tenants? Why is it not doing anything to set up something to retrofit some of these buildings that are in such bad disrepair in an environmental sense?

Finally, of course, I absolutely and wholeheartedly support this resolution and wish that this government actually had the courage to enact it. But sadly, just as in the housing portfolio, what we heard were grand words when they were on this side of the aisle and now we see grand inaction when they're on that side.

Mr. Duguid: I want to begin by commending the member for York South—Weston for bringing forward this resolution. I think any resolution that gives us an opportunity to talk about tenants and the needs of tenants and how we've worked very hard to address the needs of tenants is something that we certainly welcome.

His intentions with this resolution are good. I don't say this to be condescending in any way or to be negative in any way. I won't be able to support this resolution. I will be speaking in opposition to it because we've already given municipalities the powers, under the new City of Toronto Act and the new Municipal Act, to license landlords. This is something that municipalities and, in particular, the member's own city of Toronto asked us to do as we were undergoing discussions about what should be in the new City of Toronto Act and the new Municipal Act.

Municipalities wanted these powers because they wanted to utilize the revenues they could get from licensing landlords to invest in more inspectors to get to the very problems that the members here today have brought forward as concerns, concerns that members on all sides of the House certainly share.

But to give them those powers last year—and I know the member wasn't here during that time so he may not be familiar with the new City of Toronto Act or the Municipal Act changes because he wasn't here. I don't hold anything against him for that, but his colleagues, I would have hoped, would have brought him up to speed on this.

The new City of Toronto Act and the new Municipal Act give the cities these powers. The cities asked for these powers. Does he really think that it would be appropriate for us to say, "Okay, municipalities, here are some new powers for you to go out, if you want to, license landlords, get some revenues from that to invest in building inspectors and apartment inspectors," and just as they get those powers, just as they're undergoing a process now in the city of Toronto to consult with tenants as to how best to implement this idea, just as they're getting poised to act on it, we all of a sudden say, "Forget it.

We're going to step in and we're going to take over those powers. We're going to do that instead. We're going to take those revenues from landlords, and we'll do whatever we want with them in a way to try to improve"—the intentions are good, in a way—"housing and the conditions of housing for tenants"? But you can't do that to municipalities. You can't give them powers on one hand and then come in and just take them away a year later.

Mr. Ferreira: Show us the money.

Mr. Duguid: He's asking us to say, "Show us the money." These new powers give municipalities the ability to license to get the money. What the NDP are suggesting with this motion is to not give municipalities access to that, that the province steps in and takes it instead.

The days of Queen's Park dictating to the municipalities are over. We have confidence in the ability and the creativity of municipalities to deal with these things. The city of Toronto is well on the way to dealing with this. The member, as a resident from the city of Toronto, should have known it, should have talked to them, because I can tell you, if we passed this motion I would be getting a phone call in my office, probably within minutes, saying, "What the heck are you guys doing? You've just given us powers and now you're going to take them away?" It doesn't make sense.

I want to comment on something that the member for Parkdale—High Park said. She insists in this private members' business to get partisan with these things, so I've got to respond to it.

To suggest for a second that this government is not building affordable housing is absolutely false. Some 6,700 units across this province are now in construction, occupied or in planning—6,700 units. You know what? That's three and a half times more units than the NDP built in five years, and we've done it in three and a half years. That program will build 15,000 units ultimately, with 5,000 housing allowances. In addition, with this budget that we've just passed, we will get up to 35,000 housing units for tenants who are looking to try to get into some of those vacant units across the province.

Some 35,000 families across this province are going to get units because of the hard work of this government, because of the budget that has just come out. That's progress.

Do we still have more to do? You're darned right we do. Are we going to do it? You're darned right we are, because we care about tenants, we care about the vulnerable in our society and we're acting on it more than the NDP ever did when they were in office and certainly more than the Tories ever did.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Ms. Laurie Scott (Haliburton—Victoria—Brock): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to one of the new members of the Legislature, from York South—Weston, and congratulate him on his election, his campaign and entering the Legislature.

The motion here today calls on the government of Ontario "to move expeditiously to establish and implement a comprehensive landlord licensing program, to ensure minimum standards for rental accommodation throughout Ontario." There has been some very vigorous debate in the Legislature on the history of the parties and what they've done on affordable housing, which is certainly a problem, and to protect our tenants. We are all here, of course, to try to protect the tenants as best we can, and there are certainly some different ideas of how to accomplish that.

Interjection.

Ms. Scott: Yes, we could always have more new units in the riding of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock. Thank you very much. The member from Peterborough is commenting.

I'd like to add some thoughts with respect to the landlord licensing program proposed in the resolution before us. When I consider the many comments, letters and e-mails I receive from the hardworking residents of Haliburton—Victoria—Brock, one of the most common themes is the cost of property ownership. I have to agree with the member from Oxford: I've never had any calls since I've been in about comprehensive landlord licensing programs.

There are many costs included in property ownership, such as the mortgage principal, interest, maintenance, repairs, electricity, heat, property taxes. We've certainly heard all those serious issues surrounding the Municipal Property Assessment Corp. and the skyrocketing prices and assessments involved in that.

So adding yet another fee on top of the costs that are already incurred by a lot of landlords and property investors and that they are already on the hook for—mandating licensing, mandating repairs and mandating inspections on top of the already high level of regulatory responsibilities which landlords face is something I'm quite leery about because of the end result to those tenants and what they will have to pay.

Let's not forget that landlords and investors in rental housing are providing Ontario residents with a place to live. On top of that, the landlord licensing scheme is going to require administration and management. So establishing another layer of bureaucracy to implement a program that can, for the most part, be handled by the existing avenues such as the Landlord and Tenant Act as well as local municipal regulations, is not something I'm comfortable with and I don't think will achieve the end result that the member from York South—Weston wants to accomplish.

We don't want to see landlords and investors being used as some sort of cash cow to feed an added administration. I can assure you, based on the property owners and investors in rental housing in my riding, those who make their livelihood in property investment and management, they don't want that to be based on a licence that has the potential to arbitrarily shut down any or all of this income due to regulatory burdens. They don't want to be shut down.

I know the member for York South—Weston's intentions are honourable with respect to this resolution. I fully agree that the safety and security of our residents is paramount. There are definitely cases where the quality and safety of residents hasn't been given the proper consideration by a landlord, and those landlords should be dealt with. That should not occur.

That leads me to my next point. A landlord licensing program such as proposed in this resolution potentially would have inspections and follow-up inspections for non-compliant landlords who are not living up to their expectations. The problem is that landlords who are doing their best to manage and maintain their properties are going to be charged the same licensing fees as those who don't. So throwing the bad eggs in with the good is not an incentive program that I can support.

Finally, as I think my colleague from Oxford has already stated, landlord licences and related inspection and administrative costs are going to be passed on to tenants so investors can protect and maintain their return on investment or management of losses. We're fooling ourselves if we think otherwise. Regulating the rental market will impact the level of rents, the quality of rentals and the willingness of landlords to invest in the market. So that's going to add to an already existing crisis that we see the Dalton McGuinty government has failed to address on affordable housing in this province.

There has been a little bit of mention of affordable housing in the Legislature this morning and the promise that the Dalton McGuinty government made of 20,000 units of affordable housing. As of March 1, we can say that the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing lists 7,407 units towards that target—their own ministry—although the Liberals have included over 4,000 in that number that are only in the planning stage or under construction. The member for Parkdale—High Park says that in reality, in the FOI, there are only 285 units. So, good for her on those questions. Saying anything to get elected and not coming through with the end product is not what we as Ontarians want to see.

I commend the member for York South—Weston for his intention with this resolution this morning but feel there are better avenues to protect tenants.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr. Ferreira: I'm glad to rise to rebut some of the comments and remarks made by some of my colleagues on both sides of the House. First of all, to the members for Oxford and Haliburton—Victoria—Brock from the official opposition, I thank them for their interjections but I want to respond to a couple of their critiques. First of all, the licensing would be compulsory. It would be mandatory. So you wouldn't have an increase or a prevalence of underground housing, as I believe the member for Oxford referred to, because licensing under this scheme would have to take place.

Unless you can somehow hide a rental building with 10 or more units under a rock somewhere, which perhaps happens in Woodstock, I don't think we would see that underground housing mushroom and grow the way he fears.

He and his colleague talked about passing those fees on to these poor tenants and how the tenants would be whacked with increased fees every month or every year. I want to just quote some figures here. In terms of the schemes that presently exist, we are talking about fees per unit per year ranging between $20 and $50. I'll do a little bit of math on that. That works out to anywhere from $2 to $4 per month.

When I speak to tenants across the city of Toronto and elsewhere in this province and tell them that an investment of $2 or $4 per month on your rent, if it does get passed down, means that you are going to live in a clean, safe, decent, well-repaired, well-maintained place, they say to me, "Paul, that sounds like an insurance policy to me, and I would gladly sign on to pay that extra $2 or $4 or $5 as the case may be." Those are the kind of dollars that we're talking about. So these fears of trickling down costs to unsuspecting tenants are false and phony arguments.

My colleague who sits beside me here, the member for Parkdale—High Park, who has certainly made quite an impression on this House in her short time here—I very much look forward to being as effective as she has been in raising the issues that matter to Ontarians—mentioned the sorry record of this government when it comes to housing issues, and she's bang on. Their record is absolutely sorry.

I'm sorry that the—well, the member for Scarborough Centre rose to speak and he—

Mr. Kormos: "Sorry" doesn't cut it.

Mr. Ferreira: No, it doesn't. He argued that indeed they've done a lot. In fact, the record shows otherwise. During the three and a half years under this government, eviction attempts have skyrocketed in this province. More and more tenants are facing eviction because of the lax, slanted rules that this government has perpetuated over the past three and a half years. And when the member from Scarborough Centre was asked about these alarming stats, his answer was, and I quote, "We're continuing to monitor that closely." This speaks to the heart of the matter with this government. They monitor.

They sit back, they watch and they monitor. Well, the people of Ontario want action. They want action not just on housing issues; they want action on many other issues. But as we've seen during question period this week, there's lots of monitoring and sitting back and watching but very little action, and the unfortunate

part is that those who suffer the most are the most vulnerable residents of the province of Ontario.

I dare say, based on the actions and the words and the indication that these members from the government here this morning are prepared to vote against this motion, that perhaps we can borrow that Golden Cockroach Award and present it to this government here in this House as a symbol of their neglect—their wanton neglect—of housing in this province. They have shortchanged tenants. They promise us the moon, but at the end of the day the delivery is weak, is poor, and for that they're going to get a failing grade in October, I dare suggest.

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): It's a pleasure for me to have the opportunity to speak on the motion this morning from the member from York South—Weston, and I certainly want to congratulate him on his election in the recent by-election. He follows a distinguished number of people that have represented that riding: Mr. Cordiano, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Rae and of course one of the most distinguished parliamentarians that ever served in this place, the honourable Donald C. MacDonald, who had a very long career. In fact, for those who are interested in history, it was Mr.

MacDonald, in the mid-1960s of course, who led the attack when the then Attorney General of the day, Fred Cass, had brought forward the legislation—it was during the era when they were talking about organized crime in Ontario and they were going to arrest people without the opportunity to have legal representation. There were three people that essentially led the charge that time: Mr. MacDonald and two rebels who were on the Tory back benches, Alan Eagleson and Allan Lawrence.

Of course, those two gentleman went on to a certain degree of notoriety in their respective careers during that time when that legislation was debated. So I just wanted to digress this morning and welcome the member here.

I can't talk about the specifics of Toronto but I can talk about my hometown, the city of Peterborough. Over my municipal career, we've always had a very effective standards and enforcement agency. It was under the leadership of Jeff Chalmers, Bob Waldron and Dean Findlay. What we did was that we constantly reviewed our property standards act in the city of Peterborough to make sure that it was updated. We gave the powers to those inspectors at the municipal level who could respond to complaints that tenants would bring forward about conditions in rental properties in the city of Peterborough.

And it works very effectively for inspectors to go in to identify those problems and to work with landlords to make the necessary adjustments. It continues to work extremely well. For most municipalities across the province of Ontario, that is their experience with very effective property standards legislation that always needs to be updated consistently to make sure it reflects the kind of problems that landlords and tenants may have.

What we developed the new Residential Tenancies Act of 2006, there were at least 10 consultation round tables across the province of Ontario, and there are at least four provisions in that act for better maintaining buildings. The new legislation directly addresses poor maintenance by increasing the remedies and compensation available to tenants whose landlords fail to maintain their properties. There will also be an incentive for landlords to conduct regular repairs and maintenance.

If a building has serious maintenance issues or serious outstanding work orders, the following new remedies are available to tenants:

(1) A tenant can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to stop all rent increases, including annual rent increases and above-guideline increases, until all serious maintenance issues are resolved; (2) if there are serious outstanding work orders or serious maintenance issues, the board may refuse some or all of an above-guideline increase application until these issues have been resolved; and (3) in special circumstances, the board member may allow tenants to pay some or all of the rent to the board, instead of to the landlord, until the serious maintenance issues are resolved.

The RTA also includes new rules that ensure all tenants pay some or all of the rent. Landlords can inspect their rental units for maintenance problems after providing a tenant with 24 hours' written notice to do so. This could allow landlords to prevent serious maintenance issues from developing further.

Maximum penalties for offences that are committed under the RTA have also been doubled, from $10,000 to $25,000 for individuals and from $50,000 to $100,000 for corporations.

The Residential Tenancies Act of 2006 has certainly provided some new provisions for tenants to make sure that those landowners—from my perspective, it's a minimum to make sure these landlords are forced to make repairs and improve their maintenance levels in rental accommodation across the province of Ontario.

Talking about investment, just the other day I had the pleasure to announce $4 million that will be going to the Peterborough Housing Authority under the great leadership of Darlene Cook for new housing or to spend money to rehabilitate existing housing that needs some repairs. In fact, during the course of this government, we got over 250 new units of housing in Peterborough, two great projects: the River Ridge project that was developed after the flood that hit Peterborough, July 15, 2004, and the Woollen Mill project that just came on stream a short time ago.

I appreciate the member from York South—Weston bringing this motion forward this morning, but it will not have my support.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): First of all, I'd like to congratulate the member from York South—Weston for this interesting and well-intentioned bill, and also on his election to this House. At the same time, welcome to members of ACORN, a tenant advocacy group, who are here today to watch these proceedings.

I might say at the outset to all of the viewers today that this is private members' hour, which means that normally party discipline does not apply and we can vote with our conscience. I will therefore be supporting this private member's bill.

Applause.

Mr. Ruprecht: Thank you.

But there are some concerns, and I hope you will address them. For instance, the member from Scarborough Centre raised some interesting points, and I hope the member from York South—Weston will address them in his final two minutes. Here we are giving the city of Toronto—in this case, we're from Toronto—extra, additional powers to regulate that industry.

Having said that, the reason I'm supporting this specific member's resolution is because any time we can do something to improve the problems with absentee landlords, that should be supported. At least I want to remind the member—that it gets on the table and gets to a discussion is important. That is why I'm supporting this legislation. But I'm reminding him at the same time that he has to answer, or he should consider answering, some of the questions that are being asked of him today in a fair manner.

I represented, as you know, the riding of Parkdale before, and I've seen the horrors first-hand, the worst buildings, the West Lodge buildings that my friend from Parkdale—High Park mentioned earlier. While we will be campaigning this year, there is no doubt we will be running into these kinds of buildings that necessarily need some help.

The government, as you know—and I think you've been a bit unfair in criticizing it too much—has already instituted some ways to help tenants in terms of repairs and in terms of absentee landlords. But before I get to that, I just want to remind you to answer the question of our colleague from Scarborough Centre, and that is, we're providing the city of Toronto with extra powers in terms of licensing and in terms of acting on this issue. You didn't address that yet. You did not answer how we should proceed with that power.

My friend from Peterborough indicated that we did pass the Municipal Act, 2001, and the Residential Tenancies Act, 2006. I would only hope that you will also tell us, if you can, to be fair, why it would be that the NDP would oppose that legislation that was passed, which gives more powers to the tenants in terms of overcoming some of the repair and maintenance problems. My colleague indicated that the tenant now can apply to the Landlord and Tenant Board to stop all rent increases, including annual rent increases. If there are outstanding work orders or serious maintenance issues, the board may refuse them as well.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Ruprecht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the member will be able to answer some of these questions.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr. Ferreira, you have up to two minutes to respond.

Mr. Ferreira: I'm glad to hear that the member opposite from Davenport has expressed his support for the resolution today. I'm certainly heartened and encouraged by that. I want to thank him for his comments, and also his colleague from Peterborough for his interjection during this most recent round.

It's one thing to give municipalities—and the city of Toronto specifically—powers, but it's quite another to give them the cash, to give them the money, to give them the funds to actually exercise those powers. That's where this government, quite frankly, has been deficient. They haven't delivered those monies. That's why, in my city of Toronto today—in fact, this very day—there are consultations happening down at Toronto city hall to talk about the budget that the city put forward earlier this week that is showing a substantial deficit that will be borne by the taxpayers and the residents of Toronto. That's where, I say to the member from Davenport, this government has not delivered.

The members from the government side talk grandly about what they have done over the past three and a half years, but the fact is that tenants today are no better off than they were in 2003. Again, eviction attempts are at the highest they've ever been in this province. In fact, tenants are facing greater pressure on them from their unscrupulous landlords and from the system itself to try and fend off eviction attempts. That is the record of this government. When the government is asked, "What are you going to do about this?" again, they don't answer. They sit back and they say they will monitor it. This government's record on housing and protecting tenants is atrocious.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

HANDGUN AMMUNITION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We will deal first with ballot item number 73, standing in the name of Mr. Duguid.

Mr. Duguid has moved private member's notice of motion number 49. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bruce Crozier): We shall now deal with ballot item number 74, standing in the name of Mr. Ferreira.

Mr. Ferreira has moved private member's notice of motion number 52. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1200 to 1205.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour, please stand until recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed, please stand and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

The Clerk of the Assembly (Ms. Deborah Deller): The ayes are 8; the nays are 23.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been dealt with, I do now leave the chair. The House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1207 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Norman W. Sterling (Lanark—Carleton): One of the most important assets of a politician is his reputation. I rise today to correct something the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal said yesterday. He was wrong yesterday, he is wrong today and he will be wrong forever.

The minister yesterday said that in 2002, the Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corp. was part of my ministerial responsibility. I told him to check his facts, but he refuses to listen or correct his statement. You would think that a minister responsible for the Ontario lottery corporation, the commercial end of the operation, would understand that when I was the Minister of Consumer and Business Services in 2002, I was responsible for the regulatory end, the body called the Alcohol and Gaming Commission. Those two ministries are purposely set apart because of the conflict in nature of the two roles.

The Ombudsman in his report on the lottery scandal specifically states that the Alcohol and Gaming Commission has no oversight over the lottery side of OLGC.

Instead of the minister's accepting the responsibility for his personal neglect in this corruption and resigning, he continues to run for cover and try to deflect blame on anyone he can. If he cannot understand the difference between the minister responsible for the regulations and the oversight and the minister responsible for running the lotteries, then he should not be a minister.

JACK MARKS

Mr. Brad Duguid (Scarborough Centre): On Saturday, March 3, the family and friends and the people of Toronto said goodbye to former Toronto Chief of Police Jack Marks at a police funeral held in Scarborough's historic St. Andrew's church. Jack Marks served as chief of the Toronto Police Service from 1984 to 1989. This old-school, no-nonsense cop rose from a constable in 1951 through the ranks to lead the Toronto Police Service through a tumultuous time. His leadership was personified by a staunch commitment to ethics, duty and honour.

In the words of OPP Commissioner Julian Fantino, "He was truly the salt of the earth, uncomplicated, genuine and yet profoundly thoughtful and conscientious, especially about all things police."

I had a personal encounter with Jack Marks when I got the honour to drive him home following a police function many years ago. He was passionate about the city of Toronto. He was knowledgeable and committed to policing and community safety, even in his retirement. I recall being amazed at how this strong, tough leader in the field was actually quite open, caring and generous.

Jack Marks has been credited with modernizing the Toronto Police Service, promoting racial harmony and pioneering community policing. It's safe to say that Toronto is a safer city and the Toronto Police Service is a better police service because of the leadership of Jack Marks.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Ontario Legislature from all sides of the House, I express profound condolences to his wife, Joyce, his daughter, Karen, his son John, and his son and my personal friend, Scott, and the entire Marks family.

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mrs. Joyce Savoline (Burlington): I rise in the House today to enlighten the Minister of Public Infrastructure Renewal as to what the people of Ontario are saying about his involvement in the lottery scandal. Perhaps the minister doesn't realize just how outraged the people of Ontario are that he is still sitting at the cabinet table and not taking responsibility for his ministry.

I have received e-mails from my constituents and will read from just two. From Mr. Dave Rogers: "In regards to Mr. Caplan, the minister responsible for the Ontario Lottery Corp., I urge you to seek his resignation. He denies involvement in the daily affairs of the organization, but cannot deny responsibility for its actions. If he is not accountable, what good is he in his role, or any other" role, "for that matter?

"Mr. Caplan is not acting responsibly and in the interests of Ontarians if he does not step down."

From Mr. John Jacobs: "You can let Mr. Tory and the Honourable Mr. Caplan know that I am one of many Ontarians that is outraged by what has happened at the OLG and fully support Mr. Tory's demand for a better explanation of what Mr. Caplan knew. Mr. Brown should have been fired a long time ago, and without the generous severance package."

This is just a sampling of the many e-mails that I have received in my office. It's time for this minister to do the right thing and resign.

AWARDS IN BEACHES—EAST YORK

Mr. Michael Prue (Beaches—East York): I rise today to talk about two wonderful events that have taken place in my riding in the past week. Both of them involved wonderful women who have made great contributions to our community.

The first, the annual Agnes McPhail Award, is given out to people who live in the former borough of East York every year on March 24, which is Agnes McPhail's birthday, and this year's winner was none other than our own Lorna Krawchuk. Lorna Krawchuk is known to all East Yorkers as a former councillor with the borough of East York. As well as that, she has a long history and tradition of helping people in East York: years of service at St. Cuthbert's Anglican Church, years of service with the Girl Guides of Canada, at the local food bank and with the Leaside Property Owners' Association.

She was a very worthy recipient of the award, which is a monetary one. It amounted to some $2,600 this year and she gave all of it to the Flemingdon Park food bank, so I commend her for that.

The second awards took place last night at the Beaches. The Beaches Women of Distinction Awards took place at the Balmy Beach Club. Thirty-seven women were honoured in the inaugural award. Perhaps the House would like to know that two of those were former MPPs who represented the riding: Marion Bryden and Frances Lankin.

My congratulations to all of the winners, to the people who put on these two awards and to the volunteers who made it happen.

PARKINSON'S DISEASE

Mr. Lou Rinaldi (Northumberland): It's my pleasure to rise today on behalf of my colleague the MPP for Brant, Dave Levac, to welcome representatives from Parkinson Society Canada who are at Queen's Park today helping to raise awareness for the need for an increased understanding of this terrible disease and the need to push for a cure and a better quality of life for those affected.

Parkinson's is a debilitating disease that often strikes people during their most productive years, when they are raising a family, building their career, caring for aging parents or making a significant contribution to society.

Over 40,000 Ontarians are currently living with Parkinson's. One such person is Dave's own brother, Norm Levac, who was diagnosed with Parkinson's when he was just 45 years old. Norm fights bravely as this disease slowly steals his physical being. But, as one of the few lucky people in the province, Norm underwent DBS surgery, which has helped him maintain a better quality of life while he fights the disease. DBS, or deep brain stimulation, involves electrodes being implanted into the brain. These are connected to a small electrical device called a pulse generator that can be externally programmed.

DBS can greatly reduce the reliance on drugs, and involuntary tremors. Movement disorder specialists also greatly improve the quality of life for those living with Parkinson's. Much progress has been made, but more work needs to be done.

I would like to acknowledge Carolyn Conners, David Lipson and Joyce Gordon, among many others, at Parkinson Society Canada for their tireless dedication to this important cause, and to welcome them to Queen's Park.

MINISTER OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE RENEWAL

Mr. Ted Arnott (Waterloo—Wellington): Listening to the McGuinty Liberal government's weak defence of their actions in the lottery scandal, people are again questioning whether or not they can believe what they're hearing.

The average person buying a lottery ticket knows that the odds of winning are long, but implicitly believes in the integrity of the game. Who on earth would buy a ticket if they believed they were going to be cheated out of a potential win? No one.

This is yet another example of the government's problems today, because as the Ombudsman's report points out, the province of Ontario has become addicted to gambling revenues, and now Dalton McGuinty is nervous that this scandal is going to cut into his government's bottom line.

Another question follows: How many people in Ontario, like Bob Edmonds, have bought lottery tickets in good faith and have been cheated out of their winnings? The Ombudsman estimates that millions of dollars have been paid out in dishonest claims. That would mean thousands of Ontarians have been robbed of money that was rightfully theirs. No wonder Dalton McGuinty is afraid that people are going to stop buying lottery tickets.

I have been concerned for a long time that gambling in Ontario is out of control and we are not doing enough to help people with gambling addictions. That's why I introduced a private member's bill calling for a public inquiry into the social impact of gambling in Ontario almost three years ago. Yesterday, I heard the minister responsible for lotteries, still in office at the moment, hanging on by the skin of his teeth, say that he's given all his files over to the OPP. Surely this means that the activities of his office are being investigated by the police, and, as such, he must resign.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John Milloy (Kitchener Centre): This morning, I was pleased to welcome the Minister of Community and Social Services and her parliamentary assistant, the member from London North Centre, to my riding to discuss with community representatives some of the measures in the recent budget to fight poverty.

I'm extremely proud of our government's push to build opportunities for all Ontarians to succeed. Through measures like the Ontario child benefit, we are making a significant investment in children from low-income families. We're giving them a chance to fulfill their potential, a chance at a brighter future. The OCB is a $2.1-billion program that will benefit nearly 1.3 million children annually. In addition, Ontario Works and ODSP rates are being increased by $83 million to provide benefits to more than 420,000 families with more than 196,000 children.

The budget also contained good news for many community organizations in my area, including $1 million for the Catholic Family Counselling Centre's capital campaign—this organization has shown leadership in developing an internationally recognized program to end family violence—$350,000 for Christian Horizons to provide services for individuals with developmental disabilities, and $250,000 to Reaching Our Outdoor Friends, or ROOF, a local group working with homeless and at-risk youth to help rebuild their community centre, which was tragically lost in a fire.

I'd like to thank the minister, the member for London North Centre, and the important community groups who came to the meeting this morning for all their work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged in Waterloo region.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Mr. Jeff Leal (Peterborough): I rise in the House today to talk about the Premier's visit to my riding of Peterborough and the incredible $1.3-million investment that the McGuinty government has made to the Five Counties Children's Centre to help improve services for children and youth with special needs. Children make up about 20% of the population but they are 100% of our future, and I'm incredibly grateful for the Five Counties Children's Centre. It is here to give a great start in life to those many children.

The McGuinty government is dedicated to creating more opportunities for Ontario's children and their families and giving them access to the resources that will provide a better quality of life. The most recent budget includes an extra $30 million for services to children with special needs, alongside an additional $4 million to support all children's treatment centres. This is on top of the $10 million that already exists from the 2006 budget to provide services to almost 5,000 children and youth with special needs across this great province.

Diane Pick, CEO of the Five Counties Children's Centre, says of the McGuinty government's investment: "Five Counties Children's Centre appreciates that the government values the importance of accessible treatment space for our families and a quality work environment for our staff."

The McGuinty Liberals are committed to making Ontario stronger through increased access to opportunities. With this investment, we're doing just that, and the people of Peterborough are incredibly grateful for this new investment in our kids.

ONTARIO BUDGET

Mr. John Wilkinson (Perth—Middlesex): I'd like to take a moment to share with my constituents of Perth—Middlesex and all Ontarians what this year's provincial budget will do for them.

This budget is part of our plan to make improvements in their lives. We want to be there for the families and the seniors who rely on properly functioning hospitals. We want to be there for children and parents who expect and deserve smaller classes, more teachers, and schools that aren't crumbling. We want an infrastructure suited to the 21st-century economy, with research and innovation that will create and sustain jobs well into the future. We have a plan and a vision for Ontario that will create prosperity and opportunity for all.

Rather than cut the cord on our most vulnerable, as the Tories did, we have chosen to provide additional programs and funding to parents. A single parent with two children will now have an additional $4,515 in their pocket compared to 2003.

Businesses back home in my riding have told me how happy they are that the government is creating fairness in the business education tax by implementing a new tax ceiling. This will mean an average tax reduction for Stratford area businesses of 35%, making them far more competitive.

Don't take our word for it. Even the leader of the official opposition, Mr. Tory himself, said that there isn't a thing he would reverse. He said, "I can't think of one thing I would reverse."

He talks a good game, but leadership requires vision, and a good vision for Ontario is what our Premier has delivered with this budget. My constituents will watch closely the budget votes and see whether or not he supports all of our wonderful initiatives in my riding.

WEARING OF RIBBONS

Mrs. Christine Elliott (Whitby—Ajax): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to welcome Joanne and Paul Taylor of Oshawa, who are seated in the gallery today: co-founders of the Black Ribbon campaign, which is a cause that, while underscoring the importance of mental health programs, also seeks to dispel the stigma and dark cloud associated with mental illness. In recognition of the importance of this initiative, I seek unanimous consent for all members of this Legislature to wear the black ribbons provided in their respective lobbies.

The Speaker (Hon. Michael A. Brown): Unanimous consent has been asked to wear the black ribbon. Agreed? Agreed.

VISITORS

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to acknowledge an itinerant teacher with the Toronto District School Board, Kelly Pollack, in the gallery, and to thank her for all the work she does with our blind students in the city.

Mr. Norm Miller (Parry Sound—Muskoka): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I'd like to welcome Mr. Ryan Tripp from my hometown of Bracebridge, who is down here today with the Parkinson Society. He's sitting in the east members' gallery and has been here holding meetings with the Parkinson Society today.

Mr. Mario G. Racco (Thornhill): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: If I can recognize my younger brother's attendance in the House—Gerardo Racco.

Hon. George Smitherman (Deputy Premier, Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I hope that all members might join with me in welcoming the other visitors from the Parkinson Society, along with Mr. Tripp: Cathy Graham; Joyce Gordon, the CEO; and Dr. Hardacre.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE

ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn (Oakville): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

The C