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

November 17, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-Nov-17 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Monday 17 November 2008 Lundi 17 novembre 2008

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

MANUFACTURING JOBS

MANUFACTURING JOBS

FUNDRAISING

POVERTY

LONG-TERM CARE

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

HOME CARE

WORKPLACE SAFETY

TAXATION

HATE CRIMES

LANGUAGE TRAINING

SCHOOL SAFETY

CORNWALL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

YOUTH VIOLENCE

CRIME PREVENTION

WATER QUALITY

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

STROUD EARLY YEARS CENTRE

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

SHAW FESTIVAL

GO TRANSIT

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HOSPICES

PENSION PLANS

AUTISM TREATMENT

CHILD CARE

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

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

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

The House met at 1030.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord's Prayer, followed by a Hindu prayer.

Prayers.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I would like to welcome Heather Nicolson-Morrison, Mike Pohanka, and Brian and Monika Warren. Thank you for coming to the House today. These are members of the Ontario Home Respiratory Services Association.

They are hosting a luncheon here at Queen's Park to raise awareness about chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, with this year's theme being Breathless not Helpless. Welcome to Queen's Park. They're in the east gallery.

Mr. Robert Bailey: It's my pleasure today to introduce to the House my granddaughter Janessa Marie Labadie. She's up in the gallery there with her grandmother Elizabeth Bailey.

Mr. Joe Dickson: I'm pleased to introduce Kurtis McAleer, a very young, motivated political student who's here as our guest. He is here in the west gallery, and he's from Ajax-Pickering.

Hon. John Milloy: I'd like to welcome the members of the Ontario Undergraduate Student Alliance and the College Student Alliance to Queen's Park today.

They are here for the next three days to meet with members from all sides of the House on behalf of the students they represent. I know everyone will join me in welcoming them to Queen's Park this week.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): We have with us today in the Speaker's gallery a delegation from the Council of State Governments, Midwestern Legislative Conference, legislative exchange program.

They are Representative Laura Brod from Minnesota, Representative Scott Reske from Indiana, and Ilene Grossman, the assistant director of the MLC. Please join me in warmly welcoming our guests today. Welcome to Queen's Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Tim Hudak: A question to the Premier: Premier, during your two-week trip overseas this month, Ontario has become, for the first time in history, a have-not province receiving equalization payments. In other words, Dalton McGuinty's Ontario is now on the welfare rolls of Confederation.

What will make Ontario's economic challenges even greater in the future is the loss in Ontario of auto manufacturing and auto parts jobs. To date, you have spent some $1 billion of taxpayers' money, only to see 30,000 auto sector jobs lost, such as GM in Oshawa; Chrysler in Brampton, 1,100 jobs; and Linamar Corp. in Guelph, 500.

Premier, you said the other day that you would not flow any more dollars unless it was in the public interest–a very vague term. We've seen these job losses. What job guarantees will you bring forward? How many more job losses do you define as the public interest?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I could say it's good to be back. I could say that. It is good to be back and I welcome the question. You will know I was on a trade mission to China together with Minister Chan, and I am pleased to report that we signed over $600 million in new contracts and that there are some tremendous opportunities to be found in China and in other parts of the world.

We are working very closely at this point in time, myself and Minister Bryant, together with the federal government—Prime Minister Harper in particular, Minister Clement and Minister Flaherty—and Minister Duncan to see what we can do. In the United States of America, the federal government has come to the table. They are coming to the table, more so now, to provide support for the auto sector, and we are convinced that we can make common cause with the federal government and provide the necessary support. We look forward to talking more about that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: The Premier has used the term "in the public interest." He has not talked about how many job losses he will tolerate. He is not talking about job guarantees.

To date, Premier, you have spent nearly $1 billion in taxpayers' money to the manufacturers. That works out to about $219 per Ontario family. What have Ontario families already struggling to make ends meet in Dalton McGuinty's Ontario seen in return for their $1-billion investment? You promised more jobs. We saw Sterling Trucks in St. Thomas recently throw 1,300 people out of work. In Vaughan, Progressive Moulded shed some 2,000 jobs.

Premier, what taxpayers need to know is, what new approach are you going to take to ensure taxpayer funds will actually result in job creation, not job losses, in the now have-not Dalton McGuinty Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague is correct in highlighting the importance of this industry for all of us, and we have experienced some losses in the automotive sector; there is no doubt about that whatsoever. But just think where we would find ourselves had we not stepped up to the plate in the past.

We had a $500-million auto sector fund. We leveraged that into some $7.5-billion worth of new investments, thousands of new jobs. We didn't receive support in the past. There have been some job losses, nonetheless, and I think it's clear to all concerned, all thoughtful observers, that globally the automotive sector is struggling, but particularly what we call the Detroit Three.

The US government is stepping up with, we think, a package somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 billion to $25 billion. We simply cannot match that on our own here in Ontario, obviously. We are looking for some semblance of proportionality. We will work with the federal government and we will work with the auto sector to speak to jobs—

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, on May 21 of this year, to escape the heat of GM's unfortunate announcement of closing down the Windsor plant and throwing some 1,400 jobs out of our province, you announced that a Fiat plant was practically imminent. Taxpayers are still waiting. On January 22, 2008, you ordered your staff to come up with made-in-Ontario trade barriers against Korean products. Premier, again, taxpayers are still waiting.

Your back-of-the-napkin, haphazard approach to this sector has seen nearly $1 billion in taxpayer funds spent and 30,000 jobs lost. The unfortunate reality, Premier, is that your outdated, tax-and-spend policies and increasing red tape burden have made Ontario one of the highest cost jurisdictions in which to do business.

Premier, what are you going to do to lower the cost of doing business in our province to help our sector be more competitive internationally?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: There are about 12 Ontario communities for which the economic mainstay is automotive. Is my colleague suggesting that somehow we allow those communities to flounder? Is he suggesting that we ignore the 400,000 direct and indirect jobs that are found within the automotive sector, or is he suggesting that we forgo the $28 billion in wealth created by the automotive sector? I think he is not suggesting that.

I think what he's suggesting is that we continue to work closely with the federal government, that we work with the automotive sector, that we work with the CAW, that we work with all the communities that are affected to find some way to put Ontario's auto sector, which is the national auto sector, onto a stronger economic footing. I think that's what he's suggesting. That's the inference I draw from that. With that, I agree completely, and we will continue to work with the federal government in this regard.

AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: My question is for the Premier. Premier, I love Ontario and its people and I know that you do too. But Ontario is now a have-not province and has sunk to a level that even the NDP under Bob Rae didn't achieve.

It wasn't long ago that you were shovelling money out the door as fast as you could, handing out billions of dollars to auto companies in the last few years. You didn't care what models they were producing; you didn't ask for their business plans. We know full well that any job guarantees were ignored. The grants and interest-free loans came with no strings attached.

All of a sudden now, Premier, you're playing hardball; you're playing a tough guy. All of a sudden the Premier can tell auto companies about viability. Maybe he got an MBA when he was in China.

We know that we have already seen nearly 30,000 auto sector job losses since 2005. Why should we trust your wisdom now, Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to speak to the issue of "have-not." I think it was in the book Spin Wars, written by Bill Fox, where was coined the phrase "a convenient fiction." And there's a convenient fiction that says that when you receive equalization, you're somehow in desperate straits.

I think there's an important figure for everybody to keep in mind. This year, in 2008 and 2009, there are only three net contributors to the federation: Ontario, Alberta and BC. Ontario contributes $23.5 billion net to the federation this year; Alberta, $14.3 billion; and BC, $2.7 billion. Again, we are the single largest net contributor to the federation.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Methinks the Premier protesteth too much. The facts are the facts. The fact is that Ontario is now a have-not province, something we have never achieved before, even under the government of Bob Rae.

The warning signs in the auto sector have been around since 2005, Premier, but you did nothing until the problem turned into a crisis, and it's a common theme of your government. We saw it with public finances in the looming recession, and now we see it with economic development and manufacturing. Your five-point plan is a flop. Your retraining scheme is a failure. Red tape is on the rise. Small businesses are overtaxed. The only thriving sector is the bureaucracy. Everything and everyone around the world is adjusting and shifting. The G20 came out with a five-point plan, but you've done nothing.

Premier, as the auto sector and industry change to survive, will you think beyond the short term and fundamentally change your auto policies so that we can ensure a competitive auto industry—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I'm finding it hard, from one question to the next, to figure out where the Conservatives stand with respect to support for the auto sector. On the basis of the first question, I got the sense that we should not touch this with an 83-foot pole. On the basis of the second question, I'm hearing that there may be some grounds for providing additional support to the auto sector.

I want to make it clear as to where we on this side of the House stand on this issue: We are not prepared to forgo 400,000 direct and indirect jobs. We're not prepared to forgo the mainstay for 12 Ontario communities. We're not prepared to forgo some $28 billion in wealth generated on an annual basis by our auto sector.

North Americans will continue long into the future to buy millions and millions of cars. We want to keep making those cars in the province of Ontario. We will find a way, working with the federal government, with our workers and with communities, to support a stronger auto sector long into the future in our province.

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

Applause.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: Thank you for that applause.

If success is measured by results, then the devastation in Oshawa, St. Thomas, Windsor and the rest of southwestern Ontario means that your auto investment strategy has got a big "F" for "failure."

Premier, the auto industry experts agree that the Big Three must restructure to be viable and competitive in the future. In the past, you have shovelled money out the door to them, almost a billion dollars, and the results have been extremely wanting and have got us to where we are today.

Premier, when you restructure your strategies in this sector, will you end your reckless patchwork policy and move toward a plan that fosters innovation, competition, through a broad-based level playing field?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Obviously, we want to work with the sector to ensure that they continue their transformation.

In fairness, I think we should acknowledge that the sector has been going through a very painful period of transformation that has manifested itself in a number of ways, including painful job losses for Ontarians. In the midst of this painful restructuring, they were blindsided by this global economic crisis. It has resulted in some liquidity issues. They're having difficulty maintaining their ongoing operations, maintaining payment to suppliers, continuing to maintain jobs, which are all important to Ontario communities.

We are fully seized with the urgency of this matter, as are the federal government and the Prime Minister. We want to find a way to move forward in a way that's respectful of taxpayer interests, also mindful of the contribution—

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

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: My question, of course, is for the Premier.

While the Premier was off on another of his visit-anywhere-but-Ontario travel junkets, the fact is that thousands more Ontarians lost their jobs. Navistar announced the layoff of 470 workers, including plant workers, office staff and management, at its truck plant in Chatham. Sterling Trucks announced that closing its plant in St. Thomas in 2010 isn't early enough; they want to close it almost immediately, laying off 1,300 more workers. And the list goes on.

My question is this: When will we see a real strategy from the McGuinty government to take on the continuing loss of thousands of good jobs in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague may find it interesting: Something that I learned on my trip to China, when I had a chance to speak with the political leaders there, is that one of the biggest economic concerns was the loss of manufacturing jobs. It's hard for us to imagine, but because of this global economic crisis, the export markets have collapsed in many parts of the world, and that has resulted in many, many manufacturing job losses in China. Today we hear that Japan, the world's second-largest economy, is now in a state of recession. So this is something that is affecting all of us.

Fortunately, we have a solid plan in place. We will continue to invest in innovation, turning good Ontario ideas into jobs for the future. We'll continue to invest in infrastructure. In that sector alone, we have some 100 major construction projects underway right now, and we plan to create over 100,000 jobs by continuing to invest in infrastructure which is badly needed in our province.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: While the Premier may be more concerned about the loss of jobs in China and Japan, I can tell him people in Ontario are mostly concerned about the loss of jobs here.

I've cited just a few figures from the auto sector. The steel sector is laying off as well: US Steel is announcing layoffs in Hamilton. The mining sector, something the McGuinty government has boasted about in the past, is laying off literally hundreds in places like Sudbury and Thunder Bay. General manufacturing: Layoffs are coming there as well.

So I want to ask the Premier again, where is this government's plan? Every time you take another foreign travel junket, thousands more in Ontario lose their jobs and we continue to see no plan from the McGuinty government. Where is the plan for the steel sector, the mining sector, the forest sector, the auto sector? Where is the—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Just to give an example of how important it is to reach out to the international community, last week I was in London with my colleagues there and we celebrated the opening of a new manufacturing plant which was put forward by the investments made by the Hanwha group, which was a very large and successful global Fortune 500 company based in South Korea. It's making its first-ever investment in Canada. We contributed to that investment with a $10-million loan through our advanced manufacturing investment strategy.

They're building a $70-million plant; they're creating 120 new jobs in London in manufacturing—advanced manufacturing. That's just one example of what happens when we reach out to the international community and we're prepared to enter into partnerships with those investors.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: If I look at the loss of thousands of jobs in the St. Thomas and London area, the Premier seems to be saying, "Well, maybe 100 jobs will serve as a replacement for the thousands lost." This is not a successful strategy, Premier. Every time you lose 2,000, to say, "Oh, we found 100"—this is not a successful strategy; I don't care what game you're playing.

Premier, the auto parts sector has said to your government very clearly that they need some short-term financing help. They're prepared to guarantee jobs, but they need some short-term loan financing so that they can continue to make auto parts. Your government refuses to give them an answer. You continue to say, "Oh, the answer is in Washington. The answer is in Ottawa."

When is the McGuinty government going to come forward with its plan instead of looking for someone else to blame, someone else to push responsibility onto? Where is the McGuinty government's plan as thousands lose their jobs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I learn with interest today that my colleague is now saying that we should find a way to provide support to the automotive sector. In the past he said that he would not support that.

We had a meeting, I guess it was a week ago today, in Ottawa, the Premiers and the Prime Minister. One of the things that we came to understand—it was never expressed or articulated outwardly, but the understanding is this: We are at our best in the face of this global economic challenge when we work together. We are going to find a way to address the crisis faced by our automotive sector, suppliers included, but the best way for us to do that is together with the federal government. Those conversations are continuing as we speak.

There is going to be a trip to Washington to acquire all the intelligence that we can there in terms of better understanding what that government is going to do. But I'm convinced that at the end of the day we will find a way, working with the federal government, to provide additional support to Ontario's, indeed Canada's, automotive sector.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Howard Hampton: The Premier wants to refer to the auto parts sector and say somehow that I am opposed to helping out. I'm quite prepared to help out, and I'll tell you, the auto parts sector is prepared to provide job guarantees. I just wonder why the McGuinty government is missing in action on that front. But the Premier again refers to, "Oh, we've got to go to Washington. We have to go to Tokyo. We have to go to Ottawa"; there are too many factors beyond the McGuinty government's control.

I want to ask the Premier: Right here in Ontario, just this past week, the Premier was there for another photo op, announcing wind turbines to much boasting and patting on the back. But where were the wind turbines made? They're made in Denmark. Premier, if Ontario is going to invest in wind energy, why doesn't the McGuinty government have a strategy that says that wind turbines have to be manufactured here in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My colleague has a good point here. I will acknowledge that. We are working hard now to see what we can do. We celebrated a success in Port Alma. There was the opening of a new wind farm, which created 70 jobs in construction and, I think, a couple of dozen jobs now for their maintenance. But what we would like to do, the icing on the cake, obviously, that will complement an aggressive renewables plan, is to ensure that we have a domestic manufacturer of wind turbines, and we are looking at ways to see what we can do to make sure that happens.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Except, Premier, you're about five years late on this. While you say, "Oh, we have to go to Tokyo. We have to go to Washington. We have to go to London. We have to go to Ottawa," this is what Quebec has done: Quebec has invested in wind power. But they've said to those people who want to develop wind power in Quebec, "You have to manufacture in Quebec." Quebec is already out the door: 60% of the total cost of each wind farm in Quebec must be incurred in Quebec, and at least 30% of the cost of the wind turbine manufacturing must be incurred in Quebec.

If the Quebec government can already do this, why is the McGuinty government, as Ontario loses thousands of jobs, only beginning to think about it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Part of the good-news story on this front is that the steel that goes into the fabrication of those turbines in Quebec actually comes from Ontario. But again, I agree with my colleague: There is more that we need to find a way to get done in this regard. In part, it comes back to—I know my colleague doesn't like to hear this, but the fact that this year we're sending $23.5 billion for distribution in the rest of the country does compromise our ability to compete with some of our fellow provinces.

There are some incentives offered in the province of Quebec—while we're talking about incentives—that are very tough for us to match. Again, if we could keep a little bit more of our own wealth, then we would have greater capacity, more financial muscle with which to muster up some of those deals.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: Earlier, the Premier talked about creating a fiction. Here's the fiction the Premier wants to create. Ontarians pay taxes to the federal government just as people in British Columbia do, just as people in Quebec do, just as people in Nova Scotia do. You don't send one penny to Ottawa. Ontarians pay their taxes, just as everybody else does. But I want to get back on the real issue—the loss of jobs in Ontario.

Premier, your government has a proposal before it right now. Multibrid, a German-based turbine manufacturer, has developed a joint proposal with Trillium Power Wind, a local renewable energy developer, to build a massive wind farm on Lake Ontario. Part of their proposal would be to manufacture the turbines in Ontario. This proposal has been around for a while, Premier. Can you tell people who are losing their jobs in Ontario and would benefit from these kinds of manufacturing jobs why your government hasn't moved on it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand that, when it comes to this particular proposal, we are pursuing active conversations with this particular proponent and I feel very positive about it. Again, there are more steps to be taken.

Let me just say this, and I know my colleague has a particular perspective on this: We have created 500,000 net new jobs in Ontario in the course of the past five years. We are ahead by 500,000 jobs. There are 100,000 jobs today in Ontario that we can't fill because many of those demand high levels of skills. To that end, we are investing in 20,000 long-term training opportunities for folks who lose their jobs because of this global economic crisis to help them get the kind of training that will help them get the kinds of jobs that are going begging today in Ontario.

FUNDRAISING

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is also to the Premier. Tomorrow night, the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and the Minister of Labour will be hosting a $350-per-ticket fundraiser for the Liberal Party at the Ontario Sheet Metal Workers Training Centre in Oakville. This particular facility is a recognized training delivery agent for the government of Ontario, which means it receives tax dollars to operate its programs and purchase its equipment. So I ask the Premier, do you think—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: A little payback.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I'd just ask the honourable member from Halton to withdraw the comment he just made.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I withdraw.

Mr. Jim Wilson: I say to the Premier, do you think it's appropriate for your ministers to be having a fundraiser at a government-funded training centre?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think it's important for us to speak to and find ways to better understand issues put forward by all Ontarians, representing all sectors. I know my colleagues have a particular aversion to our reaching out to the labour community, but we think that's an important responsibility that we have on this side of the House. We think we've got to be able to speak with folks in the business sector, with folks in the labour sector, and everybody in between. We are not trying to just build a strong economy, we're also trying to build a strong and caring society. That demands that we reach out and talk to folks in all the sectors, and we're going to keep doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Premier, this training centre is the same thing as a government-funded hospital owned by the local community or a government-funded school owned by the school board. This happens to be a government-funded training centre owned by a union. Surely you wouldn't condone your Minister of Health hosting a fundraiser in the cafeteria of a hospital or the education minister having a fundraiser in a classroom of a high school. So why are you allowing your training and labour ministers to host a political fundraiser at a government-funded skills training centre? Surely you can see that this is a blatant conflict of interest.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I just don't think it's a fair comparison, to somehow compare hospitals and schools to a labour training centre which may or may not receive some funding, in part, from the government of Ontario. I think if we were all held to the standard that none of us can ever hold a fundraiser in any kind of a building which has ever received any government of Ontario support, then there aren't many places left in this province where we could host a fundraiser. Community centres, town halls and the like: Many of those have been beneficiaries of some provincial government funding.

Again, I think it's important for us to be able to meet with Ontarians in all the sectors, the labour sector included.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Minister of Children and Youth Services. Despite government claims of actual past actions of the government on poverty, children in Ontario continue to suffer the pain of extreme deprivation. In today's Toronto Star, we have all read about Pamela Soutar, a Toronto mother of two whose welfare payments are so low and the rent so high that she has to try to scrape by on $74 a month. To put that in perspective, that is 80 cents a day for herself and 80 cents a day for each of her two children.

As minister responsible for poverty, what do you have to say about your past actions to Ms. Soutar, and, if you have done so much as you have claimed in the past, why is she facing such destitution?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Let me assure the member opposite that we acknowledge there is an issue of poverty in this province. If we did not acknowledge that, we would not be doing what we are doing, which is developing a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy. Having said that, we have made important steps forward; most importantly, the Ontario child benefit. When it is fully implemented, it will be over a billion dollars in the hands of low-income families that wasn't there before. This particular woman will benefit and does benefit from the Ontario child benefit.

There is much more to be done. There is much more to be done and we are determined to do it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: It will take three years for those children, who have 80 cents a day on which to eat, to get that money, and you know it.

Pamela Soutar is not alone. Almost half of Ontario renters pay more than 30% of their income on rent. Many have to scrimp on food, they have to scrimp on clothing, on medications and other basic necessities. Today, groups are calling on the McGuinty government to implement a new housing benefit of up to $200 a month to start to address the housing crisis. They say it's needed because the government's rent subsidy program, ROOF in short, is not adequate and it's not working. Will this minister commit herself to include such a benefit in this upcoming poverty reduction plan?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Our government believes that every Ontario family should have a safe place to live, a safe, healthy, affordable place to live. We are taking steps in that direction. Of course, I cannot commit to implementing this proposal in our poverty reduction strategy. The member opposite is well aware that we have a commitment to a long-term affordable housing strategy. I think this is a very interesting addition to the discourse on that topic. It's one we will take very seriously as we really turn our attention to the housing issues in this province.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I have a question to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. A major pressure in northern Ontario's hospitals results from alternative-level-of-care patients taking up hospital beds. These ALC patients do not belong in hospitals. Given the right supports, many could continue to live independently at home; others might belong in long-term care. I know the government has made significant investments in home care and long-term care, but I'm curious to find out what the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care is doing to significantly address northern Ontario's ALC issues in the short term.

The minister recently visited northeastern Ontario and spoke with both LHIN and hospital officials while on the tour. I understand that he learned about an innovative program being implemented in Timmins to relieve ALC pressures. I ask the minister: What is this program and how is it helping?

Hon. David Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question. The local health integration network in the northeast has been working proactively to find solutions to this longstanding problem, and I can tell you, and we all know, that band-aid solutions simply do not work.

The northeast LHIN has adopted and supported a wraparound strategy in Timmins. It's an innovative program—I know the member from Timmins is well familiar with it—designed to provide seniors with the support they need to live independently in their own homes, instead of in long-term care. The strategies provide extra supports, whether it's someone to cook them a meal, to do grocery shopping, or simply to rake leaves.

The wraparound strategy has been a success in Timmins. It has been credited with reducing the number of ALC patients in the Timmins and District Hospital by 40%. I'm proud to say that the wraparound strategy is being expanded by the northeast LHIN, but in addition to that, we are increasing the number of long-term-care beds in the area, and this will—

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

Mr. Michael A. Brown: I'm glad the minister mentioned long-term care as a part of the government's strategy to resolve ALC issues in our hospitals.

Since elected, the government has opened nearly 8,000 new long-term-care beds and plans to open more than 2,000 additional beds over the next three years.

But when I speak of long-term care, I think it's important to speak in terms of quality of life. I know that many long-term-care residents' priorities stretch further than the number of beds our government has provided or the funding that we have secured. Many residents and their loved ones are concerned with living in a long-term-care home that is close to family and friends. They want to have a choice when it comes to the care they receive.

Can the Minister of Health tell the House what the government is doing to improve the quality of life for residents of Ontario's long-term-care homes?

Hon. David Caplan: That's an excellent question, and I want to thank the member again, because we are very concerned about the happiness, the care and the living situation of residents in long-term-care homes. I believe that they deserve to live with dignity, with respect, and as close to their loved ones as they possibly can. That's why the government is making it easier for residents of long-term-care residences to be closer to the home of their choice.

New regulations will enable residents in different homes to switch places, if the move is mutually desired, with first priority given to residents seeking to be reunited with a spouse or a partner, and second priority given to those seeking a home that serves the person's religion, ethnicity or language.

As part of the overarching plan to alleviate ALC pressures, these changes may also encourage hospital patients who are waiting for a long-term-care-home bed to accept a home that is not—

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

HEALTH CARE WORKERS

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is to the Premier. Premier, when I recently took a look at current job listings for the government of Ontario, I was quite surprised to see that more than 40% of those jobs were for advisers, analysts and consultants.

Premier, can you explain to Ontarians why their hard-earned tax dollars should pay for these jobs rather than hiring the 9,000 nurses so desperately needed for people in the province of Ontario in long-term-care hospitals, and for family health teams?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Government Services.

Hon. Ted McMeekin: As the member opposite will know, we from time to time look for resources that will supplement the response that we do with respect to staffing in the health care sector. We are obviously anxious to recruit the very best people we can and to do that in the context of solid policy analysis.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: That's probably one of the most pathetic answers I've ever heard. I'm not sure if anybody was aware of what the question was.

But I want to go back to the Premier. Premier, you've had $27 billion more in revenue, and more than $12 billion of that came from the health tax. Please tell the people in Niagara region why that money won't save their maternity ward, or the people in Hamilton why it won't stop the 500 job cuts in the hospitals.

Why would you rather cut nurses, doctors and services than freeze the hiring of more consultants and analysts?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Ted McMeekin: We're certainly on the front line when it comes to responding to all kinds of issues, from breast cancer right through to our nursing complement across the province, and food inspectors. We advertise from time to time positions that are available within the public service. If the party opposite is serious about job freezes, as they have from time to time spoken about, then the kinds of folks we're going to lose are those who can help us respond significantly and meaningfully to the health care challenges that we have.

In addition to that, we're advertising and looking for people in the meat hygiene area. We're looking for people in the enforcement/technical specialist—waste area. We're looking for a number of health care professionals, and we know this is the right approach and will put us in a better position to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank you. The member from Nickel Belt.

HOME CARE

M me France Gélinas: Ma question est pour le ministre de la Santé et des Soins de longue durée. Today a report entitled Home Care: Change We Need presents the findings of extensive cross-province consultations with Ontarians. I had asked the former minister to consult with Ontarians on home care, but he didn't agree. Today we've heard from Ontarians. They want the government to get rid of competitive bidding in home care. Will the minister do it?

Hon. David Caplan: I think the member is referring to the Ontario Health Coalition, which today released a report. I'm very happy to receive it and to review the recommendations. Our goal on this side of the House is to secure and provide the highest quality of service possible to community care access clients. Continuity of care for patients and stability for health care workers would, of course, be at the heart of any process to choose home care providers.

Our policy throughout has required that all CCACs procure high-quality client services for the best price through our public competitive procurement process that promotes fair dealings and equitable relationships between the providers and client services. We are currently reviewing the CCAC client service procurement process and the ministry's client services procurement policy and procedures for CCACs.

The ministry released interim contract management guidelines for CCACs—

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

M me France Gélinas: Since competitive bidding was introduced a decade ago, the quality of home care has suffered, working conditions have diminished and costs have increased. Ontario is the only province in Canada with a fully competitive bidding system for home care, and even in Ontario, no other part of the health care system uses competitive bidding.

Why won't the minister agree to end competitive bidding, which has decimated home care and is causing real problems throughout the entire health care system?

Hon. David Caplan: First of all, I would disagree wholeheartedly with the premise of the member's question. In fact, we've seen a significant increase in home care funding: $100 million alone in the last budget, which this member voted against. Since 2003-04, home care has increased by $450 million. The member says that this sector has been devastated. I would say to the member opposite that this sector has been supported to the point that it has never seen before under previous governments, whether New Democrat or Conservative.

That speaks very much to the heart of our commitment to Ontarians who require these very vital services. We are going to continue to support CCAC clients and CCACs to be able to deliver the kinds of supports and services that Ontarians would expect.

I mentioned earlier about the guidelines—

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

WORKPLACE SAFETY

Mrs. Liz Sandals: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Last Wednesday marked the third anniversary of the murder of Lori Dupont, a nurse who was stabbed to death while on the job in November 2005.

Lori Dupont was the victim of gender-based violence in the workplace. In the months and years following that tragic incident, the issue of workplace violence has become a topic of keen interest, not only for many of my constituents, but also for concerned workers throughout Ontario as well as various stakeholder groups. Minister, can you tell us what this government has been doing to tackle this serious workplace health and safety issue?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: I'd like to thank the member for her strong advocacy on this very important subject. The murder of Lori Dupont was indeed a tragedy in every sense of the word. As the member may know, a coroner's inquest was held, and some of the recommendations that were handed down by the jury were directed to the Ministry of Labour. We're currently giving those recommendations a very careful review. In the meantime, we have been working hard with our partners to look at ways to help employers and employees prevent and respond to workplace violence.

Just this past summer, my ministry conducted a consultation on workplace violence to seek input on how to deal with this complex issue. We received several submissions containing excellent advice, and we are carefully reviewing those submissions to determine what our next step in this course of action will be.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Liz Sandals: I know that you and your ministry take workplace violence very seriously, as do all of us. Workplace violence is indeed a complicated matter, one that deserves careful study and consideration. In fact, the Liberal women's caucus has also been discussing this issue.

One component of successfully addressing gender-based violence in the workplace is assisting employers, large and small, with prevention planning. I know that even prior to the consultation, your ministry had undertaken several other initiatives in order to address this issue. Can you tell us about those initiatives, Minister?

Hon. Peter Fonseca: The member is quite right: We have indeed been taking action on workplace violence. Ministry inspectors have been trained proactively to check employers' policies and programs that address violence in the workplace, especially in workplaces where the risk of violence is higher, such as health care, social services, retail establishments and others. As well, our inspectors have been trained to conduct investigations of workplace violence complaints and take enforcement action where appropriate.

The ministry has worked with the WSIB health and safety associations to develop materials such as risk audits and sample workplace violence prevention plans for employers. We've also developed a Web page about workplace violence prevention that provides helpful information and resources.

Our government does not tolerate violence in the workplace, and we will continue to do all we can to prevent it.

TAXATION

Mr. Robert Bailey: My question is for the Minister of Finance. Minister, last week St. Clair township, a municipality in my riding, was shocked to learn that MPAC has arbitrarily reduced the assessment of the Lambton generating station by 47% for this year. This means that with a stroke of a pen, 17% of the tax base of St. Clair township has been wiped out. St. Clair township did not see this coming and now will be struggling to meet their 2009 budget. Minister, what assessment assistance will you be offering to St. Clair township to make up for this loss to their tax base?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I'm proud of the fact that the McGuinty government is building two new gas-fired plants in the Sarnia area that will replace the coal-fired generation. They will be cleaner, with a better fuel, and will help our whole region deal with its air pollution problems.

MPAC does not do anything in what I would call a random way. They have a very sophisticated formula for determination of assessments that takes into account business cases. For instance, we've seen in other communities very large reductions in the valuation of some operations. I'll have a look at that particular case, but again, in terms of the multi-million dollar investment we're making in the Sarnia area for new jobs and cleaner energy, we think, unlike the member opposite, that that's the right way to go.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Robert Bailey: I see why this is called question period and not answer period.

In 2008, St. Clair township had a total combined budget of just over $6 million, of which the Lambton generating station accounted for $2.3 million. In 2009, the generating station's portion of the tax levy will slip to $1.13 million, a $1.17-million reduction off of a $6-million budget. This means that the residents of St. Clair township are now looking at an average 17% tax increase just to provide those same services in 2009.

Minister, what actions will you take to see that the residents of St. Clair township don't see a 17% tax increase?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: First of all, again, there are two new energy plants being built in the area and they will contribute to the region's economy.

Secondly, we're uploading Ontario Works benefits: $425 million to municipalities. That member voted against it. We are uploading court security costs, which that member and his party downloaded. That will save the taxpayers of St. Clair township—which that member voted against. This year, $1.1 billion in additional money for infrastructure—that money flowed to every municipality last week. That member and his party voted against it.

I will look into the specifics of this individual case, but I have to reemphasize that our government has been clear: We're building two new major gas-fired plants in the region, which are creating employment, creating jobs and cleaning up the environment. That—

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

HATE CRIMES

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is for the Attorney General. Earlier this month, a couple was attacked outside a school in Oshawa by a man who first verbally abused them for being lesbians, then physically assaulted them. Even more horrifyingly, this incident took place in front of the couple's six-year-old son and a number of other children and parents. It is the responsibility of this government to send a clear message that discrimination and hate will absolutely not be tolerated in Ontario. Will the Attorney General arrange for a public statement of the crown attorney in Durham region on his or her intent to prosecute this matter as a hate crime?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Without commenting on the specific case, I share the member's outrage at any hate-based crime or action. We are all outraged by those actions. We are determined to investigate them, and I know the police investigate them thoroughly, and we prosecute them to the full extent of the law. As my friend knows, there are specific offences in the Criminal Code that deal with specific crimes. For any criminal offence, if hate or sexual orientation has been found to be an aggravating factor, it is taken into consideration and the sentence reflects the hateful approach. We will prosecute any offence that is hate-based to the full extent of the law.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I'm afraid that outrage is not enough. A terrible incident like this indicates that in Ontario today, this government is falling shamefully short in promoting greater public awareness of the realities of violence against women and minorities, particularly vulnerable members of the LBGT community.

What assurances and provisions will the Attorney General make on behalf of this government to ensure that this and any hate crimes against any minorities in Ontario will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law?

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I agree with the colleague's outrage. We all share the outrage over any offence that is motivated by hate or any other similar sentiment. We prosecute them to the full extent of the law. The police investigate them to the full extent of the law. We use the tools in the Criminal Code to make sure that the community's outrage is fully expressed.

Several years ago, as a government, we set up a hate crimes working group, under my colleague Michael Bryant, with a number of recommendations. We brought in grant and funding programs to make sure that there were community-based approaches to building understanding and to addressing the root causes of hate.

We are taking a broad approach to the issues, both on the basis of the community and to ensure that no one who commits an offence motivated by race or hate will get away with it. It is simply not tolerated.

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Mr. Bob Delaney: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Half of all newcomers to Canada make Ontario their home. These newcomers make important social, economic and cultural contributions, and they're a vital part of Ontario's diverse workforce. In western Mississauga, one can literally hear hundreds of different languages, dialects and accents. This cultural and linguistic diversity is a strength and it allows Ontario to compete with anywhere in the world.

Hon. Michael Chan: I want to thank the honourable member for the question.

Now more than ever, it is important that we invest in the skills and the training of Ontarians. That's why I announced close to $60 million to be invested in adult non-credit language training. In fact, for the 2008-09 fiscal year, funding has been increased by more than 8%. This will allow more than 100,000 Ontarians to receive the language training that they need to succeed.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Will the minister tell us what Ontario is doing to break down barriers for newcomers so that they can find employment in the field in which they've been trained or have experience?

I'm pleased to say that, currently, my ministry is conducting a review of the language training programs. This review is designed to ensure that in the future those needing this training will have access to a simpler, better-coordinated system which I am sure will benefit newcomers.

SCHOOL SAFETY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Education. Minister, your parliamentary assistant, Mrs. Sandals, met with a mother whose child was repeatedly abused in the school system under your watch. This mother wants to make sure that no other child has to suffer through that same kind of abuse that her son has, and wants to see mandatory reporting implemented in our schools. When the mother asked your government to implement mandatory reporting, I am told that your PA said your role was primarily fiscal, that that policy creation did not fall under your purview.

Minister, do you stand by your PA's description of your job being primarily fiscal?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows perfectly well that we are intimately involved with policy development in this ministry and it's extremely important to us that we have the right policies in place for the children in this province.

My parliamentary assistant, the member for Guelph, has worked assiduously since she was elected, really, on safe-schools issues. She has led the safe schools action team. She has a working knowledge of safe schools issues in this province and has helped us to put both policies and financial investments into the system that have made the schools in our province much safer. What she's working on now is developing recommendations on issues of gender violence and sexual assault, and looking at where there could be gaps in reporting and making recommendations on how to tighten those reporting gaps.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Minister, after leaving the discussion with your parliamentary assistant, this mother has no confidence that anything is being done at all. The reality is that our children are not safe in their schools on your watch, and your PA does not understand the basic role your ministry plays in our system. After meeting with your PA, this mother, whose motivation is protecting the vulnerable—that's her only motivation—who have been victimized in Ontario schools concluded that you will not act.

Minister, it's time to stop commissioning reports. It's time for action. How many more children must suffer before you finally take action and implement mandatory reporting?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I understand the imperatives of politics that would force the member opposite to frame this issue in this way. I also understand that I had a meeting with the parents who were here, when they were in the House. My parliamentary assistant and members of my staff met with those parents. I also understand the painful realities of parents who have had an issue like this to deal with in their kids' school and with their own children.

What I can say to the member opposite and what I've said to the parents is that we are acting, we have been acting, we have changed the rules, we have put more adults in place, and we will continue to put the resources in place and make the regulatory and legislative changes that need to be made to make our schools the very safest they can be.

I know that the member opposite, when she goes into schools in Burlington, is very aware of how hard the people in those schools work within the framework that the ministry puts in place to keep those schools safe, and that's—

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

CORNWALL COMMUNITY HOSPITAL

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Minister of Health. The Cornwall Community Hospital is undergoing a $60-million redevelopment. Over $20 million has been raised from municipalities and local donors, including members of the building trades. But the hospital didn't establish any requirements for the contractors to hire local workers, meaning that Cornwall area tradespeople won't enjoy employment benefit from the hospital's redevelopment. Why won't the Minister of Health move to ensure that hospitals hire local before looking outside a community for workers?

Hon. David Caplan: This is one project of over 100, I think, the Premier earlier referred to—nothing less than a health care renaissance. We are seeing a revitalization and a reinvestment into our health care infrastructure as we have never seen before.

Interjection.

Hon. David Caplan: The Minister of Energy and Infrastructure mentions Winchester, Cornwall—there are a number of others in eastern Ontario.

It is not the Ministry of Health which determines which contractors do which work. It is done as a competitive-bidding process, as the member will understand. The trades and the sub-trades are determined by the individual contractors. Our job is to ensure that we have the investment and the modernization of our vital health care infrastructure. I know that is something that this member and all members of the House do support. It's long overdue that we got on with this—

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

Mr. Paul Miller: I'll be looking forward to talking to my fellow tradesmen about your answer.

Cornwall area residents expect that the millions of dollars they raised to support their hospital will be recycled into their community. That doesn't happen when contractors hire workers from outside Cornwall. We should employ local workers when rebuilding our hospitals; it only makes sense in today's economy, with job losses.

Will the Minister of Health commit to ensuring that procurement policies are put into place so that local trades benefit first from hospital redevelopment?

Hon. David Caplan: That's precisely what is happening right now in the province of Ontario, where it is local trades and local suppliers who are receiving the first amount of the work. It is unprecedented, the amount of work that we have going on in this province. I'm very proud to be a member of a government which has made this unprecedented level of investment. That's creating, as I say, nothing less than a health care renaissance in the province of Ontario. I thank the member for the question.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The time for question period has ended. There being no deferred vote, this House stands recessed until 1 p.m. this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1135 to 1300.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mrs. Julia Munro: I would like to introduce the students of Mr. Jeff Simpson's grade 11 class from Keswick High School, here today in the assembly.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peter Shurman: Earlier today, I joined a group of York University students who banded together under the appropriate title yorknothostage.com online in protest of the current strike at their university. I attended their rally and I am now here to deliver their message to Premier McGuinty, the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities and to shake this government into action.

That message is simply: It's about time. It's about time that students were not treated as pawns. It's about time that this strike came to an end so that students can get back to their lecture halls. It's about time that this government took a stand and supported the students who are bearing the brunt of this strike. It's not their idea of how to learn about collective bargaining, nor is it mine.

I join them in that message and add my very own: Let's get the striking employees back to work. Let's get an objective bargaining process. Let's lose the unreasonable union demands, and let's get to a fair and responsible agreement so that students can do what they are supposed to be doing right now, which is getting an education.

Attending university is the biggest investment that young adults can make. This government has a responsibility to ensure that their investment is not sabotaged by unreasonable and irresponsible demands that do not put students first.

YOUTH VIOLENCE

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I just want to take this minute and a half to congratulate the Honourable Roy McMurtry and Dr. Alvin Curling for the report that they produced, the Review of the Roots of Youth Violence. It's one heck of a big report, a lot of pages of study. They talk about the roots of youth violence, which is what we talk about as well, because unless you deal with issues of poverty, you're not going to solve many of the issues connected to youth violence. Unless you deal with issues of racism, you're not going to be able to deal with some of the problems of youth violence.

Unless you deal with the problems of social exclusion, you're going to have a difficult time dealing with the problems of youth violence. Unless you deal with the prospects or the inability to get a job, then you feel a sense of hopelessness. These are the issues that they tackle in this big report, and I agree with them; they need to be tackled.

I do not agree with them, however, when they talk about race-based statistics, because I don't believe we need to do that. I believe we have enough information gathered over the last 30 or 40 years that clearly speaks to us and informs us about how to tackle the issues of poverty. In my mind, the Premier obviously latched onto that as a way of not dealing with this problem, but my view is, we know enough. Don't bury this report. Deal with it. Take some action.

CRIME PREVENTION

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: As you know, Ontario recently celebrated Crime Prevention Week, and I'm pleased to share with members of this Legislature the work that is being done by a great group in my riding of Ottawa Centre.

Since 2005, Crime Prevention Ottawa has been working diligently to develop a community-wide strategic plan to reduce crime and enhance community safety in Ottawa. Crime Prevention Ottawa has worked collaboratively in partnership with organizations such as the Ottawa Police Service, United Way Ottawa, the Children's Aid Society of Ottawa and Ottawa's four school boards.

I'm extremely proud of the work undertaken by Crime Prevention Ottawa in my riding. They play an important role in our community by educating residents on how to report incidents of crime, conducting valuable research on the causes of crime and taking the lead on crime prevention initiatives such as Together for Vanier, Ottawa Youth Justice Services Network and Ottawa Youth Gang Prevention Initiative.

During Crime Prevention Week, Crime Prevention Ottawa hosted a speaker series entitled Invest in our Children and Youth: Prevent Crime, where the chief of Ottawa police, Vern White, and a youth panel came together to discuss how building safe communities for tomorrow requires investments in our children, youth and families.

I want to commend all the members of Crime Prevention Ottawa, including Nancy Worsfold, executive director, and Michael Justinich, business analyst, for their hard work and their dedication to crime prevention in Ottawa Centre. Their efforts have helped to create a safer and more prosperous Ottawa for everyone. Thank you.

WATER QUALITY

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: I'm pleased to rise to talk today about an event that's occurring not only in my riding but across the province. It's called "Walk for Water."

First Nation leader Danny Beaton and the chief organizer of the event, Stephen Ogden, have left the township of Tiny and are walking over the next seven days to Queen's Park, along with a number of politicians and community people who are interested in the issue of the site 41 landfill. That landfill has got its final approvals and may have received its final water taking permit to construct a facility. However, there are still a number of concerns following the Walkerton inquiry and the 30-year history of this particular landfill approval process.

We still have a lot of people in the riding who are very concerned about it, including Dr. William Shotyk, from the University of Heidelberg, who has sampled water from this particular site, and the conclusions are that it's amongst the best water on the planet.

I want to thank everyone who has participated. I took part myself for four hours the other morning. I want to thank the media attention to it as well. We are hoping that, in the end, we can convince the Minister of the Environment not to issue the water taking permit and to protect the clean water that exists below the site in the township of Tiny.

HABITAT FOR HUMANITY

Mr. Kuldip Kular: On November 5, I had the great honour to join in welcoming two Brampton families to a home just refurbished by the Brampton

chapter of Habitat for Humanity. Transforming the historic George Elliott House into a home for modern families was no easy task, nor was moving the building from the original location to its current one. When a community gathers around a single cause, however, work becomes easier. The impossible is made possible. This single project is deserving of recognition.

Habitat for Humanity is active throughout Brampton, Ontario, Canada and the world. It is estimated that every 21 minutes, this organization builds a new home. For their part, the Brampton

chapter plans to complete 10 homes by 2010. This is an ambitious and virtuous goal. As an international, non-profit, faith-based organization, Habitat for Humanity is in the business of building homes and also of building stronger communities by promoting home ownership as a means to breaking the cycle of poverty.

I wish to thank the volunteers, sponsors and partners, especially those in my own community of Bramalea—Gore—Malton, for their hard work and loyalty to their cause and for helping to make Brampton a better place to live.

STROUD EARLY YEARS CENTRE

Mrs. Julia Munro: Less than two weeks from today, the Early Years Centre in Stroud will be shut down. Last Friday I joined with parents and children from the centre, as they demonstrated to keep the centre open. It will close because the McGuinty Liberal government will not give it the funding it needs to stay open. This is not some sort of optional service for parents and children in Innisfil. This is a vital and necessary service.

Early childhood development is the key to the health and well-being of every child. Centres like the one in Stroud teach skills and give advice to new parents. Parents can access health and developmental services to those infants in need. If they cannot go to the centre in Stroud, where do you expect them to go?

Innisfil is also a community that your Places to Grow plan has declared a high-growth area. It is full of young families, many of them new arrivals with few ties to the area. To families in Innisfil, the Early Years Centre is vital. Do the right thing. Give it the money to keep it open.

HOCKEY FRANCHISE

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: I rise in the House today to express my support for a relocation or an expansion of a second NHL team to the Hamilton and greater Toronto area and to invite other people to support my petition.

The Hamilton and greater Toronto area, no doubt, has the best and the biggest market in the entire world for hockey. Currently, the Toronto Maple Leafs have the highest ticket revenue per game amongst all teams in the NHL. The Toronto Maple Leafs, however, have not won the Stanley Cup for over 40 years.

If you look throughout North America, you've got two or more hockey teams that are present in cities like Los Angeles and New York. Many local fans and families talk of either not being able to access tickets or not being able to afford tickets to professional hockey in Toronto. A second NHL team would be great for the local economy and for our province. We would anticipate revenue for approximately another 40-plus home games throughout a season. Some reports in the newspaper have stated that the value of a second NHL club would range between $400 million and $600 million—and just think of the rivalry when both Toronto teams play each other.

I invite everyone, including all Leafs fans like myself, to support the petition and help advocate for a second NHL franchise for the Hamilton and greater Toronto area.

SHAW FESTIVAL

Mr. Kim Craitor: Earlier this year, the government provided the famous Shaw Festival in Niagara-on-the-Lake with a $170,000 marketing assistance grant to supplement the marketing of their 2008 season.

This morning, the Shaw Festival reported that, as a result of this government's investment, their attendance was 6% ahead of the 2006 season, with a 9% increase in revenue. That's really great news. This increase represents an additional economic impact, not just to my riding of Niagara Falls, but to the province of Ontario of over $7.3 million; in other words, $43 for every dollar the government invested—not a bad rate of return.

I know this House joins with me on congratulating the actors, the management and the staff for such an outstanding season. We wish them continued success for next year's season, which I am hearing is going to be truly spectacular. Come out to the Shaw Festival. Bravo, Shaw.

GO TRANSIT

Mr. Bob Delaney: As the autumn weather turns into another cold winter, many of us who commute in the GTA turn our thoughts to leaving our car at home and using public transit to get to work, to get to school, or to get into downtown Toronto. Cold-weather commuting takes longer no matter what you ride to get there. So GO Transit has made some improvements to keep their trains and buses running on time this season and to minimize the inconvenience to passengers when the winter weather blows coldest.

These initiatives include installing more hot air blowers to keep track switches clear of ice and snow; an enhanced switch maintenance program; testing protective switch covers to prevent snow and ice buildup; a new advisory committee on customer services; around-the-clock winter track maintenance, which started last week; and dedicated GO staff working directly with the railways to allow faster response to issues.

If you ride GO Transit, as I do, please pick up some of GO Transit's "GO in the snow" pamphlets available at all stations. As well, today is GO Transit day at Queen's Park. GO is hosting a reception this afternoon in the legislative dining room. GO staff will be there to answer questions and discuss issues with members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

FINANCE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS

Mr. Pat Hoy: I beg leave to present a report from the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs and move its adoption.

The Deputy Clerk (Mr. Todd Decker): Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 114,

An Act respecting Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters, to amend the Ottawa Congress Centre Act and to enact the Ontario Capital Growth Corporation Act, 2008 / Projet de loi 114, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires, l'affectation anticipée de crédits et d'autres questions, modifiant la

Loi sur le Centre des congrès d'Ottawa et édictant la Loi de 2008 sur la Société ontarienne de financement de la croissance.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed? Agreed.

Report adopted.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated November 3, 2008, the bill is ordered for third reading.

PETITIONS

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 50, subsection 11(1), states Ontario SPCA inspectors and (volunteer) agents 'have and may exercise any of the powers of a police officer';

"Whereas Bill 50,

section 6, states, 'the society shall have such officers with such powers and duties as are provided in the bylaws of the society,' and

section 6.1(3) states, 'The chief inspector of the society may have additional powers and duties as are provided in the by-laws of the society';

"Whereas Bill 50, subsection 11.1(1), states, 'Every person who owns or has custody or care of an animal shall comply with the prescribed standards of care';

"Whereas Bill 50, subsection 11.4(1), states, 'An inspector or (volunteer) agent of the society may, without a warrant, enter and inspect any building or place used for animal exhibit, entertainment, boarding, hire or sale'; and

"Whereas over 70 letters requesting amendments to Bill 50 were delivered to each of Minister Bartolucci, Ombudsman Marin, Lieutenant Governor Onley and Premier McGuinty on October 27, 2008;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"

(1) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to legislatively enshrine Ontario SPCA oversight, accountability and transparency and make public the bylaws of the Ontario SPCA;

"

(2) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to publicize 'prescribed standards of care' so that the citizens of Ontario may know what is expected of them under Bill 50;

"

(3) That the Legislative Assembly direct the provincial government to amend Bill 50 keeping in mind

section 8,

section 12 and

section 52.1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

HOSPICES

Ms. Sophia Aggelonitis: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas hospices on church or hospital property do not pay taxes;

"Whereas hospices are not-for-profit organizations providing emotional, spiritual and bereavement support and respite care to terminally ill individuals and their family members;

"Whereas a residential hospice (usually an eight-to-10 bed home-like facility) provides around-the-clock care to terminally ill individuals and support to their families;

"Whereas hospice services are provided free of charge;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to allow hospices across the province to be exempt from municipal taxes."

I sign it and send it with page Brittney.

PENSION PLANS

Mr. John O'Toole: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly that reads as follows:

"Whereas consumers rely on timely and accurate information from insurance companies and other financial institutions when they apply for access to locked-in pension funds;

"Whereas the disclosure of wrong or incomplete information about pension fund access can have devastating consequences for the consumer;

"Whereas the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) is currently limited in its power to enforce standards for the disclosure of information about access to pension funds;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to enact the necessary laws or regulations that will enable the Financial Services Commission of Ontario (FSCO) to hold financial institutions fully accountable for information they give clients about access to pension funds…."

I'm pleased to sign and support this and give this to Zac, one of the new pages here at Queen's Park.

AUTISM TREATMENT

Mr. Kim Craitor: I'm pleased to introduce a petition. I want to thank Ruth Daigle from St. Catharines for providing me with this petition.

"Many children in the Niagara region diagnosed with autism are currently being denied appropriate treatment because of a shortfall in provincial funding.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario for immediate and full funding for all of these children."

I'm pleased to sign my signature in support of this petition.

CHILD CARE

Mr. Paul Miller: "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services has launched a blatant attack on our province's grandparents raising their at-risk grandchildren by cutting off access to the temporary care assistance program;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature call on the minister to overturn her July 2008 directives outlining the temporary care assistance program and grant all grandparents raising their at-risk grandchildren access to this much-needed financial support."

I agree with this petition and will affix my name to it. Swapnil will bring it down.

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

Mr. Mike Colle: I'd like to read more petitions among the thousands I've read into the Legislature in support of Bill 50, the provincial animal welfare act.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act has not been updated since 1919;

"Whereas Bill 50 would require all veterinarians to report suspected abuse and neglect, protecting veterinarians from liability;

"Whereas it would allow the OSPCA to inspect and investigate places where animals are kept;

"Whereas the bill would prohibit the training of animals to fight;

"Whereas Bill 50 would allow the OSPCA to inspect roadside zoos;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to pass Bill 50, entitled the Provincial Animal Welfare Act, 2008, to protect our animal friends."

I support this petition and I affix my name to it.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): There appearing to be no further petitions, I will call orders of the day.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PROVINCIAL ANIMAL

WELFARE ACT, 2008 /

LOI ONTARIENNE DE 2008

SUR LE BIEN-ÊTRE DES ANIMAUX

Resuming the debate adjourned on October 7, 2008, on the motion for third reading of Bill 50,

An Act to amend the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act / Projet de loi 50, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Société de protection des animaux de l'Ontario.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It's a delight to be able to speak on behalf of animals in the province of Ontario, not only the two-legged kind, but others.

I have to start by saying—somebody just gave me this quote, which I really do have to share with the House: "To err is human; to forgive, canine." You've got to like that.

I also want to acknowledge that we have in the House Mr. Michael O'Sullivan and Mr. Tim Trow from the Humane Society of Canada and the Toronto Humane Society. Welcome to Queen's Park again. They have oft been in attendance here, both deputing before the committee and, of course, in attendance in the House for debate of this bill.

You will recall that prior to third reading, second reading and first reading, we in the New Democratic Party had some serious concerns with Bill 50. One of the concerns that we had was with

section 6. In response to hundreds of e-mails, mostly orchestrated by the humane societies that this would affect, particularly the Toronto Humane Society, we were concerned that this particular

section be removed. We didn't get what we wanted. We got something, however. I want to read the amendment that the government brought in. They added, "A corporation or other entity that was an affiliated society on April 3, 2008 may continue to use" these names, i.e. "'humane society,' ... even if it is no longer an affiliated society."

There are a couple of problems with that. First and foremost and, I think, somewhat to the relief of those humane societies that are living in fear of this bill passing third reading—humane societies like the Humane Society of Canada, the Mississauga Humane Society, the Burlington Humane Society—they might find some solace in the fact that I really do believe, based on legal advice, that this

section is ultra vires. What does that mean? It means that I don't think the OSPCA or the McGuinty government of Ontario has the legal jurisdiction or right to remove the name of someone who calls themselves a humane society, whether we pass this or not. I want to let stakeholders who are concerned about this know that this really is covered by federal law. I have to admit, it's still egregious that it's here.

It's certainly a slap in the face of others who are doing wonderful work with animals, who want to call themselves "humane." But based on some legal opinions that we've seen—in particular, I'm going to cite one of the deputants, the Burlington Humane Society, which sought a lawyer's advice on this. The name "humane" is descriptive, for starters. We can't force someone to call themselves humane, or inhumane, for that matter.

Despite the fact that we in the opposition couldn't get this

section removed, I do commend all of those stakeholders who raised a problem with this particular section, who called for its amendment or repeal. Because of their efforts, we at least got this amendment.

Despite the amendment and despite their concerns, I would say to have some confidence, going forward, in using the name that you've traditionally used, and let them come get you, because I don't think they can. So, there's that.

Here are the concerns about the bill that were raised by some of the deputants.

First of all, oversight of the overseers: There was a general concern from many deputants about who was going to oversee the OSPCA, whom somebody could appeal to if they didn't like the ruling, etc. I'm going to deal with that.

I believe that in

part I've dealt with

section 6, but I'll continue.

The other aspect of this legislation which is particularly egregious, and I heard one of the members stand up and read a petition about this, is that there is a lack of private roadside zoo regulation. We remember back to the member from Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer, who brought in Bill 154 about private zoos. We remember also some assurances from the McGuinty government that they were going to bring forward legislation that was going to deal with private roadside zoos. Even CAZA is concerned about private roadside zoos.

We had an incident not too long ago of a wallaby that escaped from a private roadside zoo. We're not saying that that wallaby did not get good treatment at this private roadside zoo, but who's to know? There is not a lot of oversight—there's no oversight, in fact—and unfortunately there isn't any oversight in Bill 50 either, so that's a problem.

Now, is this going to be left to regulation? That is why I stand here today. I certainly hope that the government, when reading these transcripts, when listening to this debate, will do something in regulation to make sure that private roadside zoos get the scrutiny they need. I know that the member from Willowdale wants that. I know every deputant who came forward wants that. We in the New Democratic Party want that. So, again, let's hope that what's not in the bill comes forward somewhere in regulation.

Another concern that was often raised was about the definition of "distress"—I will deal with that—and the other one was regarding training of OSPCA agents. Certainly the general feeling out there among deputants was that that training needs to be more extensive.

I'm going to wander through this and I want to really, in this presentation, give credence to our deputants. Here we purport to practise democracy, and where we see democracy really in action at a grassroots level is when a committee like this on Bill 50 goes out into the community—perhaps not as extensively as it should have, perhaps not for as long as it could have, but it does go out and listens to people coming forward. I want to honour those who came forward and I want to say up front that we in the New Democratic Party are going to vote in favour of Bill 6. But, and this is a big "but," we have concerns.

We hope that the government listens to the concerns. Even a bill that's an inch forward, a step that's an inch forward, for animals is better than nothing, and that's the spirit in which we support Bill 50. But there are problems and there are possibilities still in regulation, so let's not say that this is over. Please, let us continue forward and look at how this bill could be strengthened for everyone concerned.

I talked about the ultra vires action of

section 6. I'm not going to deal further on that. Suffice it to say that I don't think it would stand up in a court of law. So for those who are concerned about it, I spoke to the Mississauga Humane Society just this morning to find out and, again, they are concerned about it. I assured them, "Keep on using your name; keep on using your name." Part of the problem, of course, is that the OSPCA is the arbiter of who is or is not an affiliate. This, again, is a problem of transparency and oversight.

There might be a humane society that wants to be affiliated with the OSPCA, and they decide, "No." Again, where's the route of appeal there? There are a number of problems with that section, but I don't think a problem in actuality, because I do believe it's ultra vires. That is to say that I don't think it will hold up in court.

Just to break it up, because I know that the tendency of talks that go on for an hour in the afternoon is to make people somewhat soporific, I'm going to break it up with some other good quotes about animals. Here's one from Winston Churchill. He said, "I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals." I think we can take some solace in that.

The Mississauga Humane Society came and deputed before us. I'm just going to read a little

section out of the good work that they do. Again, this is one of the humane societies that would be affected were Bill 50 to have its way and

section 6 to hold up. The Mississauga Humane Society takes in surrendered animals that otherwise might end up at Mississauga Animal Services and be killed. Remember, we've heard about euthanasia rates, kill rates, for some of the services. The Mississauga Humane Society doesn't kill any animals. In fact, they don't house animals; they actually find animals adoptive homes. And they save the city funds and reduce their kill rates simply because of their existence and their good work on behalf of the animals. The MHS also contributes greatly to the city of Mississauga by reducing the overpopulation of stray cats, for the same reason, that are almost everywhere in the city.

A cat quote—I have a cat, so I'm particularly fond of felines: "Dogs have owners, but cats have staff." You've got to like that, George.

Hon. George Smitherman: I've got three cats.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: You've got three cats? Well, I don't know whether to be frightened by that or not, but we'll leave that be.

Moving right along, one of the concerns about transparency of the OSPCA and its conduct is, of course, the fact that they get taxpayers' money: $6.1 million, in effect. That has been verified by ministry staff, Mr. Zimmerman, among others—$6.1 million. Here is the problem: Who tracks that? We have heard it said by the government side that this is a private agency, but here's the problem: You can't have it both ways. You can't have a private agency that does public business, which is clearly what the OSPCA does and what is going to be done, of course, even more extensively with the passage of Bill 50, without having public oversight.

We in the New Democratic Party are particular fans of our current Ombudsman. We think André Marin is the best. We like André Marin's reports. We think he does a wonderful job. We think he's critical where he should be and he praises where it's warranted. André Marin has no oversight over the OSPCA, none whatsoever.

Even further, FOI, freedom of information act requests: We hear from the government side—in fact, it was sent to Mr. O'Sullivan of the Humane Society of Canada—that the OSPCA, their books, their bylaws, what goes on, where the money is spent, their audit reviews, are not FOI-able. One might ask, with $6.1 million of taxpayers' money going toward this private agency, why are taxpayers not allowed to find out how the money is spent?

I was very concerned, of course, about the lack of transparency with the bylaws of the OSPCA. I asked and asked and asked, and toward the end of the deputations in our committee hearings, I finally received them. So I do have the bylaws for the OSPCA. I would certainly suggest that someone who is interested in them contact my office or keep pressing, because they're out there. But it highlights the difficulty that even a member of provincial Parliament has.

If I have a difficult time finding the bylaws of a private agency that gets government taxpayer money, how much more difficult would it be for a private citizen or someone else? Again, this points to the lack of transparency. Certainly, that's a problem. It's a problem where $6.1 million of taxpayers' dollars are being spent and where de facto you have police abilities given to a private agency—the right of warrantless entry, for example.

To be fair, they have always had the right of warrantless entry. I know this has come up; I know my colleagues to the right have raised this. Most people didn't know this, and now they do, I hope: The OSPCA does have the right of warrantless entry, whatever we may think of that. Personally, if there's an animal in danger, I would like to have an agent be able to access that house, that car, that pound, whatever, to look after those animals. So I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing, but again, this highlights the lack of transparency. If you have an agency with police powers, you need to have transparency.

You need to have the right of appeal, in the same way that the criminal justice system gives us a right of appeal: You're innocent until proven guilty. The animal owner needs that right, that you're innocent until proven guilty.

So, again, transparency, and that's all we're asking for here. We're asking for the same rights of transparency for our citizens, and for our animals, for that matter, that humans have before their criminal justice system.

Here's a Mahatma Gandhi quote: "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." Well, certainly if that's the case, we have a long way to go in Canada, and we have a long way to go in Ontario.

One of the concerns that was raised repeatedly about this bill, and certainly we on the committee were all educated about, is the difference between animal welfare and animal rights. I think the general population of Ontario and the general population of this assembly would err on the side of animal welfare rather than animal rights. I just think that's where we're at as a community.

But even then, one might ask oneself about the huge exemptions in Bill 50, the huge exemptions to wildlife, to farm animals—and again we're not talking here about standard practices of farmers. We heard many deputations about that, and they are exempt from the bill. We're not even talking about—although some of us might want to go there—the standard practices and legal practices of hunters and anglers. Those too are exempt.

What we're talking about is the needless cruelty visited upon huge swaths and sorts of animals that is not covered in Bill 50. I think of the case, for example—and this gentleman is a lawyer, so perhaps that says something about lawyers—the example of the lawyer gentleman—hardly a gentleman—farmer who had 50 horses starve to death on his property. Those horses are not covered and would not be covered by Bill 50. We have to ask about the extent of a bill that wouldn't cover an egregious, horrendous act like that.

Similarly, many of the deputations that came before us mentioned cases of ridiculous, sadistic cruelty to wildlife. We're not talking about normal hunting and angling practices; we're talking about sadistic practices. Again, that is not covered by this bill.

It's interesting that that's certainly not the case in other jurisdictions where animal welfare and/or animal rights bills have been passed, and I will get to it. There's certainly an interesting case in New Jersey where, despite their deeming that some farm practices are "normal," they still passed a bill outlining them as egregious, as hurtful, and certainly covered them in a piece of animal welfare legislation that was passed in New Jersey. If they can do it not far from here, south of here, then why can't we do it with Bill 50?

Here was our opportunity and, as you heard, as the minister got up and announced third reading of this bill, this has come along once in, what, 100 years almost, 90 years? Surely we don't want to wait another 90 years to have something that will protect wildlife and farm animals just a little bit better than we're doing already and what we're doing in Bill 50.

Again, I mention my colleague—it's unfortunate he's not here—the member from Willowdale, Mr. Zimmer, who brought in a bill looking at roadside zoos. I think perhaps in doing that he was atoning for his role as parliamentary assistant on that other infamous—I'll say "infamous" from the New Democratic Party point of view—pit bull ban. I have to say that I'm really sorry that ban was held up in Superior Court this last little while, because if Mr.

Zimmer and the members of the McGuinty government really were the animal lovers that they profess to be, if they were dog lovers, they'd know that violence in animals is not breed specific. Most vets will tell you that; it's not breed specific. If you've got a violent animal—it could be a springer spaniel, it could be a beagle, it could be anything—it's more likely to be a problem with the owner than a problem with the animal. So we in the New Democratic Party are sad to see that upheld, and we certainly think that maybe Mr.

Zimmer was trying to atone for his actions as parliamentary assistant when bringing in Bill 154. Unfortunately, that too has gone up in smoke in this Legislature. Again, in Bill 50, too bad, no protection of roadside zoo animals either.

The WSPA also came and deputed before us. They support Bill 50. They think it's a step forward—a "significant improvement," as they describe it—and that asking veterinarians to report animal abuse is certainly a good thing. But even they admit, and I'm reading from their deputation, that "unlike Mr. Zimmer's bill," the proposed legislation would not "proactively promote better treatment of animals…." So they seem to give with one hand and perhaps take away a little bit with the other—they are talking there about the regulation of roadside zoos.

We've certainly heard from others about standards of care, which are pretty universally accepted as a benchmark for animal welfare. I'm going to read them, because I think it's important that we hear them and then know whether Bill 50 really addresses them for most animals in the province of Ontario:

(1) All animals must have access to a sufficient quantity of potable water and an adequate supply of fresh, nutritive food appropriate to the species and presented in a species-appropriate manner for the maintenance of good health and to satisfy the animal's nutritional needs.

(2) That the animal be provided with adequate medical attention when the animal is sick or injured or in pain or suffering.

(3) That the animal is provided with adequate protection to minimize the risk of pain, injury, disease, fear and distress.

(4) That all animals must have access to adequate protection from the elements. Shelters must be sufficient for accommodating all animals at the same time if necessary.

(5) All animals must have access to a comfortable resting area, appropriate bedding and comfortable surfaces.

(6) Transport the animal, if it is transported, in such a way as to ensure the animal's physical safety and good welfare and not confine the animal to an enclosure, pen or area without adequate space, with unsanitary conditions, without ventilation, with inadequate light, with uncomfortable substrates and surfaces, with uncomfortable temperatures, and together with one or more other animals that may pose a danger to the animal, or that is in a state of disrepair that is dangerous to the animal's health or well-being.

The internationally recognized five freedoms, by the way, are freedom from hunger, thirst and malnutrition; freedom from fear and distress; freedom from physical and thermal discomfort; freedom from pain, injury and disease; and freedom to express normal patterns of behaviour.

What they're asking for, because we don't see this in Bill 50, is that this be part of the regulations that are looked at and are added to Bill 50 to give it some weight; also some direction, quite frankly, to those who deputed before us who wanted to know what this bill meant when it talked about animal distress. If they added the five freedoms and the other general standards of care that the WSPA is asking for, I think we might get a little closer to that mark.

Again, I ask the government to please consider their submission when looking at the regulations. Certainly, if the animals under human care were granted these, then it would give us some jurisdictional mandate to look at roadside zoos, among other enclosed areas, among other ways of holding and treating and keeping our animals, that would stand up and would certainly be a boon to agents looking into this.

One of the interesting aspects of this—and I have to point this out, again in light of our deputants' concerns—is, where are the agents looking at the pens, the shelters run by the OSPCA, in light of these concerns? Again, one would hope, with transparency and oversight of the overseers, if you will, someone is checking their shelters and making sure the OSPCA's shelters and everyone's shelters also meet the standards of the WSPA and other animal welfare groups in light of this deputation. One hopes that is looked at.

They go on and on to recommend a number of substrates of that in terms of captive animals.

The animal alliance network and the farm sanctuary movement wrote us a letter and were concerned about some aspects of Bill 50, in light, again, of the animals left out of its purview. They mentioned the New Jersey Supreme Court and its ruling, which goes much further than Bill 50. I've mentioned that. Their concerns fall under the following three headings: animals used for research, native wildlife, and animals raised for food. They raise the concern that none of those groups is covered by Bill 50. As I say, we're erring on the side of animal welfare here, not on animal rights.

Certainly, the bill does make mention of animals used for medical research. We're not against that in the New Democratic Party. We are concerned that animals used for research, animals in the wild and animals raised for food are also treated well and concerned that if we're extending warrantless entry by the OSPCA—if they're going to be looking at the welfare of animals in other areas, why not in those as well?

Burlington Humane Society, one of the humane societies that is and was affected by

section 6 of this, in terms of being able to use their name: Again, I thank them for their hard work, for their deputation. I mentioned their lawyer, a trademark law specialist, who also gave the opinion that the province did not have the authority to enact legislation in this regard, as trademarks, unlike business names, are considered federal jurisdiction—so, the ultra vires comment which is so important. Again, by all means, keep using the name "humane society."

We in the New Democratic Party never saw a reason for

section 6 to be in this bill. Really, it has nothing to do with animal welfare; it has to do far more with human welfare, with one charity competing against another charity for charitable dollars. It has no place in a bill respecting animal welfare.

I know that the government has raised their concerns about fraud; I heard that also from ministry staff.

By the way, kudos to ministry staff. I have to say they worked really hard on this bill. I thank them for their hard work, I thank them for the briefs that they gave me, the bylaws that they finally found for me, the work that they did for my office, on behalf of this bill.

Really, there is not a concern about fraud here. Anyone who uses "humane society" in a fraudulent way would, of course, fall under the jurisdiction of the criminal justice system. They're already covered. If somebody fraudulently tries to raise money for any kind of charity that doesn't have a charitable status number, that doesn't do what the charity purports to do, that comes ringing your doorbell and calls themselves whatever, that is already covered by federal criminal justice. So we don't need

section 6 in this bill to protect people from themselves.

I really put forward that this still has more to do with one charity battling another charity than anything else and is not to do with animal welfare.

Here's another deputation which I found somewhat interesting. This is from the Southwestern Ontario Wildlife Coalition. They said something in their conclusion in their statement to us: "This proposed legislation is toothless. It is 'feel good' legislation, drafted to make it seem as though the OSPCA is a useful body (a point we do not concede) and that somehow the wording of this act will make the lives of animals better. In very limited circumstances, it might.

But for all the large issues—those that cover the 95%-plus of Ontario's animals who are not pets or livestock—this legislation does nothing"—again, their point of view, but again, I think with some basis. However, as I said, an inch forward is better than nothing.

They concede that this act confers a modest increase in authority and responsibility for the OSPCA, but it does not give them the responsibility or even the right to act on behalf of the greatest number of Ontario's animals. Their authority is limited to not much more than the family pet. So there you hear from one side of the spectrum: animal rights and animal welfare.

It's interesting to look at the bylaws that I did receive—by the way, not all of them. They're here and certainly they will be, as I said before, in my office if anybody wants to see them. But I would suggest that anybody and everybody listening at home, anybody who is concerned about animal welfare, do read these bylaws, look at them, hold the organization that issues them to account. Even if Bill 50 doesn't give us the transparency we want, the oversight that we ask for, or the accountability that we're due, perhaps citizens can themselves hold this organization to account. We certainly would ask that.

Again, I want to make it very clear. We heard from OSPCA agents. I'm sure many of the agents who came before us have absolutely the best interests of animals in their hearts and in the application of their duties. Nobody is faulting them. People are simply asking for what is rightfully theirs, which is the oversight of a somewhat public and somewhat private agency where taxpayers' dollars are involved. That is all one is asking for.

Of course, in a sense, we want to work with those agents. We want to be able to better prepare them for what they're going out there to meet in the outside world. We want, for example, to see that their training is extended. That's not in Bill 50 either, but we certainly heard a number of deputations that seemed to imply that more training is not only desirable but necessary for agents who are acting on behalf of all Ontarians, quite frankly, where animal welfare is concerned. Certainly, I heard some assurances from the government side that that is going to be put into effect.

I hope, and inveigh upon the government, that perhaps—this is probably not even a regulatory matter—in your conversations with Hugh or the OSPCA you make sure that that promise is upheld, because we certainly would want that for the agents for their own protection, and we would want that for the animals.

Here's a deputation that was somewhat interesting. I won't give the name of the deputant in this instance, but it talked about what one has to go through in order to be an affiliate:

"In order to be approved as an affiliate, as I mentioned, we had to sign an agreement with the OSPCA, and among other items in this agreement,

article 9 states: 'Shelters must be well-ventilated, have plenty of light, and be heated to 60 degrees. Outside runs and shade must be provided.' Nowhere in this agreement does it state the size the runs should be, and nowhere does it state what a cat area or a reptile area should look like. The OSPCA has many shelters under their umbrella, and we would guess that not one of them has the same standards, so how can we impose standards on zoos or exhibits unless we have them too?"—good question.

One would ask, again, for what I mentioned at the very beginning. One of the concerns was oversight of the overseers, that we make sure the shelters, the pens and the runs owned and operated by the OSPCA have some oversight as well, because, when giving them these extended benefits and extended responsibilities, we should also be extending them the onus of those responsibilities along with the rights.

I'm just looking at some of these others. In terms of the ministry staff and their briefing of me, after a few of the deputations went on—and I know that this committee travelled around the province and did a lot of excellent work in doing so and listening, and I believe we really did listen. The ministry staff gave me a briefing—not myself alone but some other members of the committee, and it was welcomed, and was extensive—in which they tried to answer some of our concerns and questions, one of them being about warrantless entry not being new. The other was about the number of complaints investigated.

So I just want to read these into the record, because I know they were questions that some of our deputants had.

According to OSPCA records from 2007, 16,834 complaints were investigated; 254 charges were laid—211 Criminal Code charges and 43 provincial offence charges; 2,581 compliance orders were issued; and 5,171 animals in distress removed. It doesn't say what happened to those 5,171 animals, but it does note that they were removed. One would want to know, in the interest of transparency, the follow-up there: How many had to be euthanized, how many were euthanized, how many were adopted out etc.

There were 35 appeals of compliance or removal orders received: 17 appeals were rejected, abandoned or resolved and 18 appeals had completed hearings and decisions. That was through the Animal Care Review Board.

They answered the question, as I said, about warrantless entry not being new. They answered the question about funding: $6.1 million. We have that from ministry staff. They also go on to say—and this, to be fair, was before the amendment was brought forward by the government—that there are only 10 known groups operating in Ontario with the name "humane society" that are not affiliated with the OSPCA.

Section 6 of Bill 50, they said, again before the amendment, would also repeal

section 10 of the OSPCA Act to enable over 200 animal welfare groups that are not affiliated with the OSPCA to continue operating legally. It's kind of an interesting statement. It doesn't jibe with our research but, again, I read it into the record so that people can respond and, because this is the last time they'll get to look at this bill—undoubtedly it will be passed today—so that they then deal with the regulatory body and send in their concerns, if they have concerns, about the details that I've just read.

In terms of funding, I can and will go into details with anybody who's interested. We received that from ministry staff, so thank you for that.

To continue, the International Fund for Animal Welfare also deputed—a prestigious organization, one that we listened to with interest and gave the gravity that it was due, I believe. They brought us back to the five freedoms which I mentioned: freedom from thirst and hunger, freedom from discomfort, freedom from pain, injury and disease, freedom to express normal behaviour and freedom from fear and distress. They also had concerns, of course, with

section 6, with the humane societies. Just about everybody did.

My concern is that the amendment did not go far enough. Unfortunately, on this side of the House, we don't have the number of members necessary to force the government's hand on something like this. We do give thanks to all of those people out there—and there were hundreds, if not thousands of them—who sent us e-mails demanding that

section 6 be removed. We did what we could, but the amendment to

section 6 is due to them. So I want to thank them again.

Here are some concerns: This was just from an individual, but I thought they were very salient. She said that, in her estimation, inspectors didn't have enough training or supervision. She asks: "Who hires, trains and supervises these inspectors? Some of them are volunteer agents, and they have the powers of a police officer. The OSPCA inspector who handled my case would have had two weeks' training, a high school education and a driver's licence. That's all you need to get the job. The chief inspector is hours away in Newmarket. Who supervises their daily actions?"

She raised this concern when this particular inspector came into her breeding area where there were puppies, which of course needs to be sterile: "When the OSPCA arrives, you ask them to disinfect their hands or step into a bleach bath or put on boot covers or overalls. They're always refusing, saying, 'You're the first place I've visited today.' When I pushed them to disinfect their hands before they touched my puppies, they told me that they didn't have to and touched the puppies anyway."

This could be hearsay; I'm not saying—that's a valid concern, but I'm saying that we heard enough of that so-called hearsay that one wants to reiterate the training aspect of the inspectors.

Of course, the Humane Society of Canada has raised their own concerns about the parliamentary assistant refusing to meet with them; the freedom of information act supposedly not being applicable; $6.1 million, in effect, being spent; and the qualifications for the chief inspector. What are the qualifications? Again, something left to regulation, one hopes. But certainly one would hope that the qualifications are extensive.

Perhaps what was most telling was when we heard from the veterinarians themselves. I'm not saving the best for last, but I'm saving it.

The Ontario Veterinary Medical Association submission to the Standing Committee on Social Justice re Bill 50. They had some interesting things to say:

"(

A) Bill 50 should be expanded to include government oversight and public accountability of the OSPCA. With the OSPCA being given greater responsibilities and further enforcing authority, it would be prudent to have the Ontario government have direct oversight of the organization, providing accountability to the general public. This would include implementing an obligation for the OSPCA to provide regular reports to the government.

"That being said, we should also encourage the government to provide ongoing funding." It is providing funding, but ongoing funding. Along with the funding, they go on to recommend that the oversight be there.

"(

B) The Animal Care Review Board: In addition to the OSPCA, we recommend that the government have full oversight of the Animal Care Review Board. The board should be required to report regularly to the government and make their decisions available to the general public. It is also recommended that Animal Care Review Board members be adequately compensated for their time on the board. This will assist in attracting and retaining qualified experts capable of successfully fulfilling the board's mandate." It goes on.

"(

E) Veterinarians: Bill 50 requires veterinarians to report all suspected cases of animal abuse. Although this adds to veterinarians' responsibilities and obligations, not only do we welcome it, we have been advocating for this change for many years. This obligation will make a significant difference in helping to reduce animal abuse in Ontario. Providing veterinarians with protection from liability when reporting suspected cases of animal abuse in good faith will allow veterinarians to report with more ease and confidence.

We strongly encourage that this provision be kept in Bill 50." That's a good point, because if you want them to report animal abuse, and then someone turns around and goes after them in civil court, there should be some liability option there.

Again, I say all these things in full knowledge that Bill 50 will pass. I say this again to the government in full hopes that the government will take these as useful, helpful suggestions; that they will bring them into regulation; that they will listen to the vast majority of deputants who ask repeatedly for some clear themes—not going to be included in Bill 50, I'm afraid, folks, but certainly to be included in the regulation.

Just to rehash, first of all, that there's some oversight of OSPCA, of its operations; that there's some oversight of the Animal Care Review Board; that there's some oversight of the chief inspector; that there's some oversight of the way $6.1 million of taxpayers' dollars are spent; that there's some reporting mechanism. Certainly, we think that the goings-on of the OSPCA, being a recipient of taxpayers' dollars to that degree, should be at FOIable, if not under the mandate of the Ombudsman. Either/or would certainly help to solve the problem, but certainly a reporting mechanism. This is only sensible. Any accountant would tell you the same thing.

Section 6: It's amended. Thank you, at least for small mercies. At least it helps some who call themselves humane societies, but it still has that egregious aspect to it that there are many humane societies—I would suggest more than 10—who will be covered by

section 6, and who will not be exempt by

section 6, even as amended.

Now, as I said, my advice to them, having talked to lawyers, is that they continue to use their name until somebody comes after them. Then maybe we can raise the question in the House if they do, because as far as I'm concerned, it's ultra vires: It's not their jurisdiction; it's not our jurisdiction in the province of Ontario; it is under federal jurisdiction. So there's that.

Next, the lack of private zoo regulations: Poor Mr. Zimmer, completely ignored by his government that promised to do something about regulating private zoos. It's kind of sad. Actually, I was preaching up in his riding yesterday, up at Newtonbrook United Church on their 168th anniversary. It's a wonderful riding. They're happy to support animal welfare in the riding of Willowdale. Wouldn't they all be very saddened to know that what was the genesis of a good idea has been lost in Bill 50?

Not only private zoos, not only Wally, but also all of those animals raised for food, all of those native and wildlife species, all of those used in medical research. Again, nobody is asking that those activities not be exempt in some way, shape or form, but surely we can ask that there be some kind of oversight of the welfare of the animals under their care, and perhaps standard practice is just not good enough in the 21st century. Certainly that's what we heard from the deputants. That goes to speak to the broad-based problematic exemptions of Bill 50.

Finally, the training of the agents who have been given the powers of warrantless entry, among other aspects of their jobs, who are working really for a private agency—sort of; sort of now a public agency. They should be given the training they need. One would hope that that's more than a couple of days, more than two weeks; that they really know what they are doing before they walk into that breeding area, before they walk into that zoo; that they have someone along with them. We've heard assurances of that from the OSPCA. Good, let's see those assurances lived out, again, hopefully, in regulation.

Certainly I would say, just to wrap up, that there is no cause ever for ignoring the voices of those who do not ignore the voices of animals and those who care for them. "Why, oh why?" we might ask. For example, the Humane Society of Canada, the Burlington Humane Society, the Mississauga Humane Society, to name only three bodies, why have they been shut out of the regulation process, of the process of the writing of the bill? I mean, really, all we're asking for, again, is transparency and what one should always ask from one's elected representatives: that they respond to those who elected them.

I can tell you that across our ridings, across Ontario, we heard deputations that carried those same themes in them. Those deputants want to be heard and they want to know that their government is reacting and acting in their best interests and the interests of the animals they look after.

Not one of the deputations came forward without some recommendation now to be looked after in regulation, including—and maybe I should finish with the Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, which also came forward and asked about the fact that Ontario residents are still free to keep tigers, monkeys, cougars or pythons as pets.

You know, it has been a long process to get us to this point. We've travelled the width and breadth of Ontario, we've listened to deputations from individuals and organizations. Everyone here, and I speak in a completely non-partisan way, I believe, wants the best for animals. There's no question about that. I think what has happened here is that we have a government that finds there's an organization that kind of came ready-made, that was willing to do the work of government for less money than it would take the government to do it. I understand that.

I understand that in tight fiscal times you look around to find ways to look after those under your care, including animals, and you try to do that with the least spent of taxpayers' dollars. Here you have an organization, the OSPCA, which does the work. They're doing the work of government even though they're a private agency. They're doing the work of government and getting taxpayers' money to do it.

The only thing that we ask, then, since the government has found this organization ready-made to do their work for them, is that they at least do the due diligence that's required in looking after that agency, in making sure the t's are crossed and the i's are dotted; in making sure the $6.1 million is well spent; in making sure the agents are well trained; in making sure that there aren't such broad-based exemptions to the bill; in making sure that it's not just about pets, that it's also about exotics and zoo animals; in making sure that it also covers those animals that are exempted by definition, even if to do so means to do it in regulation, and that it's still not okay for that gentleman farmer to starve 50 horses to death with Bill 50 passed.

We're looking for better legislation to protect our animals.

Finally, thank you to all the deputants. Thank you to all of those who came forward. Thank you to Tim Trow of the Toronto Humane Society. Thank you to Michael O'Sullivan of the Humane Society of Canada. Thank you for all your hard work.

Thank you for all the hundreds of e-mails we received from people who are in support of the general gist of Bill 50 but who would like to see it strengthened, who would like to see far more in regulations than is there. Thank you to all the legislators who sat on the committee and thank you to ministry staff who made it possible.

Really, let's hope, finally, that there is a thank you that we can hear in some bare whisper, in a language we don't quite understand as humans, from the animals themselves.

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

Mr. Jerry J. Ouellette: I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill 50.

The member spoke about a lot of the concern regarding the humane societies. I can remember a time, for those who are unfamiliar with it, about 20-odd years ago, when the Toronto Humane Society disallowed anybody to adopt a pet if the individual worked in a grocery store with a meat department. I think some of the concerns would be about the extent to which the regulations would have an impact on individuals or societies throughout the province of Ontario.

The member also spoke about zoos and roadside zoos. I know WSPA has provided individuals with a definition of a roadside zoo, but those individuals around the room have to think, what is the roadside zoo in their community? Is it the one in Peterborough, the Riverview zoo? Or is it the Cat World, or the Bowmanville Zoo, which is the oldest private zoo in Canada? What is the standard for those zoos, and whose standard are they going to use?

For roadside zoos and the standards that are being brought forward, the concern that would be brought forward that the member was speaking about—and I am making comments on the member's comments—is that there would only effectively be two zoos in the province of Ontario, which would be the Metro Toronto Zoo as well as possibly the African Lion Safari, with some moderate changes.

When you speak about the proper care and control of animals, it's establishing a standard by which it's being left to regulation that causes them concern. For those who are unaware, the average boar bear, which is a male bear, has a normal range of about 90 square kilometres. How are you going to fit that into an area which individuals would say is an acceptable area, an acceptable domain?

I don't think anybody in this room—nor do I know anybody here nor do I know anybody who wants to see animals mistreated. We want to ensure that those animals are properly protected in our community, and we would do anything that would be—but there is some strong concern about the impact of the regulations and how they're going to be enforced