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

December 9, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Dec-09 (PDF)

L082 - Thu 9 Dec 2010 / Jeu 9 déc 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 9 December 2010 Jeudi 9 décembre 2010

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ONTARIO ECONOMY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

HOSPITAL FUNDING

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

HUMAN RIGHTS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

SEASON’S GREETINGS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

JACK DODGE

SEASON’S GREETINGS

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT

CITY OF TORONTO

ENERGY POLICIES

UNITED WAY OF PEEL REGION

GOOD CITIZENSHIP AWARDS

FOR JUNIORS

LEGISLATIVE REFORM

HUMAN RIGHTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

URSULINE RELIGIOUS

OF LONDON ACT (TAX RELIEF), 2010

1312510 ONTARIO LTD. ACT, 2010

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

AND RESPONSES

VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARDS

PETITIONS

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

SERVICES FOR THE DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

HOME CARE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

REPLACEMENT WORKERS

RAIL LINE EXPANSION

PROTECTION FOR PEOPLE

WITH DISABILITIES

HOME WARRANTY PROGRAM

WIND TURBINES

GOVERNMENT’S RECORD

HYDRO RATES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ORGANIC WASTE

DIVERSION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE RÉACHEMINEMENT

DES DÉCHETS ORGANIQUES

LABOUR STABILITY

IN THE INDUSTRIES OF FILM,

TELEVISION, RADIO

AND NEW MEDIA ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA STABILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D’OEUVRE

DANS LES INDUSTRIES DU FILM,

DE LA TÉLÉVISION, DE LA RADIO

ET DES NOUVEAUX MÉDIAS

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL SURGE

PROTECTOR ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS RÉSIDENTIELS

ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

ORGANIC WASTE

DIVERSION ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LE RÉACHEMINEMENT

DES DÉCHETS ORGANIQUES

LABOUR STABILITY

IN THE INDUSTRIES OF FILM,

TELEVISION, RADIO

AND NEW MEDIA ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR LA STABILITÉ

DE LA MAIN-D’OEUVRE

DANS LES INDUSTRIES DU FILM,

DE LA TÉLÉVISION, DE LA RADIO

ET DES NOUVEAUX MÉDIAS

MUNICIPAL RESIDENTIAL

AND COMMERCIAL SURGE

PROTECTOR ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR L’INSTALLATION

DE PARASURTENSEURS RÉSIDENTIELS

ET COMMERCIAUX

DANS LES MUNICIPALITÉS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on December 8, 2010, on the motion for second reading of Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2010, repeal the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000 and make complementary and other amendments to other Acts / Projet de loi 140, Loi édictant la Loi de 2010 sur les services de logement, abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social et apportant des modifications corrélatives et autres à d’autres lois.

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I’m delighted to stand in my place and speak about an important topic which concerns many people in the province of Ontario: the affordable housing strategy for the province of Ontario, which was proposed by our minister, by our government, to deal with this very important issue.

As you know, many people across the province of Ontario, especially the people with low incomes and the people who need social support, are looking forward to seeing a strategy to give them a chance to live with respect and dignity, and a place they can go to on a regular basis to sleep and raise their families and also create friends and a create a social network. That’s why our government is introducing this important bill and is also opening it up for debate.

It’s important to tell the people of Ontario what we’ve done since we got elected in 2003. As you know, in 2003 we got elected to this office. When we came to power, we didn’t find any strategy for affordable homes. As a matter of fact, the people of Ontario suffered from a lot of cuts, especially in social programs, welfare, disability—all the affordable housing was being cut.

Back then, the Harris government—a majority of the members of the opposition party today were members of that party. They were part of cutting the affordable homes strategy and cut almost $5.5 billion from the people of Ontario. So when we came, we found the people suffering from lack of support, not enough housing, whether in London, Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor or any part of the province of Ontario. That’s why, when we came, we thought it was important for us to look after the vulnerable people among us and give them the support they need in order to produce like everybody else in the province of Ontario.

We invested, in conjunction with the federal government—back then, it was the Paul Martin government—$750 million in an affordable homes strategy. We’re glad to see the federal government and the province of Ontario back to the business of affordable homes.

After that, we were left alone, so we had to come up with almost $2.5 billion to put in an affordable homes strategy across the province of Ontario. A lot of the stock was in bad shape, not livable, whether in London, St. Thomas, Woodstock or anywhere in the province of Ontario. That’s why we came up with another strategy to fix more than 150,000 units in Ontario: because it’s important to make those units livable so that people are able to use them on a regular basis.

Also, we had a strategy for rent supplements, to support people who don’t want to live in social housing. We had a strategy to support more than 35,000 units across Ontario. We also had a strategy—and it still exists—of $5 million on a yearly basis. They call it the rent bank. It’s to support many different people who otherwise cannot pay the rent, so they are able to live in their places. We prevent more than 25,000 eviction notices to people across the province. We also put caps on rent increases in our term, so that rents didn’t rise more than 2.05%.

As my colleague mentioned yesterday, under the watch of the Conservatives the increase was 2.9% and under the NDP it was 4.82%. I think we’ve tried to address many different aspects of this issue, whether in rent support, fixing the stock of social housing across Ontario or building new units.

I believe it was an incredible achievement, but can I say to you and to all the people of Ontario that we can celebrate success? No. That is why we’re bringing this issue back for debate in this place: because it’s important to celebrate success after we address this issue totally. That’s why we open it up in this place: to listen to many different speakers from different sides of the House, to see how we can enhance our strategy to build and put in place a plan that can help us for years to come.

As you know, the poverty issue cannot be addressed by giving people extra cash. Poverty cannot be addressed by increasing support for food banks. Poverty cannot be addressed by only fixing health care or child care supports or kindergarten. We have to deal with it in a total aspect. As you know, the majority of people in Ontario, in good times, pay more than half their salaries for rent. In some cases, for people who are living on low incomes, they pay 70% to 80% of their salaries for rent in order to have a place to live. That’s why affordable homes are important for all of us in the province of Ontario.

It’s important for us to fight the poverty issue in the province of Ontario. We’ve addressed this issue many different times, and we heard it clear and loud from many stakeholders across Ontario: from co-op housing, from social housing, from municipalities; from the poverty advocacy groups who came to this place many different times and spoke to us, spoke to the opposition, spoke to the NDP and every member of this House. They told us, clear and loud, “You have to invest in affordable housing. You have to invest in co-op housing.

You have to support the vulnerable people and find a place for them to live and raise their families and live in peace and tranquility and live with dignity.” Because we cannot afford to see people living in the streets. If people cannot afford to pay the rent, we cannot see people not able to continue their lives. We cannot afford to see a broken family as a result of not finding a place to live.

That’s why we brought in many different initiatives. That’s why, since we got elected in 2003, we came with a lot of programs, whether it’s to build new units, support rental units, fix the older stock we have in the province of Ontario or to have a rent supplement support. All these initiatives help.

We have to have a national or provincial strategy for affordable homes. I wish the federal government would come to the table with us and help us launch this very important strategy, if they believe strongly that this is the only way to fight poverty and if they believe it’s our responsibility as a government, whether municipal or provincial or federal, to fight this very important issue, which is to find affordable homes for many people in Ontario.

I come from London, Ontario, and many people come to our office asking us to find a place for them to live. The waiting list is 4,500 people. So this is a severe issue. Families working at minimum wage or who cannot find a job find it difficult to find a place to live. Some people are lucky to find affordable homes and social housing in the city of London or anywhere in the province of Ontario. That gives them the chance and ability to live in tranquility and provide for their families.

As I mentioned at the beginning, most of their salary goes to rent, especially if they live in Toronto, where the average rent is about $1,500. In downtown London or a little bit into the suburbs, it may be $1,000. If you work at minimum wage for Tim Hortons or Walmart or anyplace in the province of Ontario, you’re going to find it difficult to be able to pay the rent, the utilities and your telephone bill. You pay for many different things, and you don’t have enough to pay for food. That’s why it’s important to discuss this issue. It’s important to have a vision and a plan for the future.

I listened yesterday or the day before—I don’t remember—to the member from Burlington speaking on this subject. As the member from Durham and many other people said to us, she’s the expert in that party on affordable homes. When she was regional chair for Halton, she said she was excusing the federal government of not being in the business of affordable homes. The member from Durham was speaking yesterday, and he said clear and loud that instead of dealing with the issue of affordable homes, let’s fix our budget; let’s strengthen our economy.

That member, I believe, forgot that we cannot walk by ourselves. Our ability to share the wealth, our ability to look after our vulnerable people—the only way we can fix our economy, the only way we can fix our strategy toward a brighter future is to help the vulnerable people among us to be able to live in respect and dignity, to be able to provide for themselves and for their families. We cannot leave them alone. Our responsibility is to give them the support they need. Our responsibility is to give them the push they need in order to walk with us, to walk with the rest of the community, to walk with the rest of the people of the province of Ontario.

It’s sad how people change their position. The member from Burlington spoke a lot in the past and supported our government’s strategy when she was chair of Halton region. I’ll read what she said. She “applauds the province for addressing the issue of affordable” homes. This was in 2005, the year we introduced our strategy for affordable homes in the province of Ontario. The member for Burlington, Ms. Joyce Savoline, who was the Halton regional chair and also mayor of Burlington, spoke to the Burlington Post in an

article entitled “Region Wants Details of Affordable Housing Program.” It was published on November 6, 2005, on page 14. She said, “Ensuring there’s a variety of housing options for all Halton residents is one of the most important elements in building and maintaining a strong community.” So in 2005, the chair of Halton region, the member for Burlington at the present time, was in great support of affordable homes. Now, when she’s sitting with the opposition, she has a different strategy; she has a different philosophy of how we can address the poverty issue and fix our economy.

I want to tell you that we, on this side of the House, continue to believe that government is fully responsible for building a strategy to include every person who lives in the province of Ontario. One of those strategies is to find affordable homes. Affordable homes help us to reduce the poverty level in the province of Ontario. Affordable homes help us to reduce homelessness in the province of Ontario. Affordable homes will help us keep families intact and living together in the province of Ontario.

Affordable homes are important for many people, especially for those with low incomes and people in poverty, to live with dignity and respect. It’s also important to know that affordable homes will keep a lot of criminals away and minimize criminal activities in the province of Ontario. Let’s face it: People who have nothing have no other choice except to go and steal or break into homes to sleep or break into homes to steal some money.

Our affordable housing strategy will create a social safety network for many people in the province of Ontario to be able to live in a safe environment and keep their families together, and also minimize and reduce the poverty level, minimize criminal activities and minimize homelessness in the province of Ontario, because it’s important.

We are the people who took full responsibility to put our names on a ballot and got elected to come to this place to make rules and regulations. We have the privilege and honour to spend the taxpayers’ money in the areas we think would benefit the taxpayers, to spend in areas to create a safety network in the province of Ontario. That is why the affordable housing strategy is important.

I saw an

article about affordable homes in London the other day. The author is a prominent member of the city of London. He said that flexibility in affordable homes or support from the government that comes to the city of London on a regular basis is important to us, to give us the choice whether to have rent supplements or pay those monies, about $1,500, to a shelter.

It’s a big choice and a very important question whether we give the municipality flexibility to spend money on a shelter or create an affordable home strategy in conjunction with the province and, hopefully in the future, with the federal government. It would be a lot less, about $500 to $600 a month versus $1,500 per month if you put a person in a shelter.

I think that if we put in a comprehensive strategy, it will save us a lot of money in the long run. We talk about our investments in kindergarten, how we are going to create a good environment for children to live in peace and be able to learn. If we create those elements, spending $300 million and maybe $1 billion in our education and health systems and people have no place to live, what did we do? In my own opinion, our society still has holes in it. Those have to be addressed by affordable homes.

When you’re sending kids to school and they have no homes to go back to, it’s going to be a problem. Those kids won’t be able to read or study or comprehend. Also, if we build the best hospitals and the best health care in the province of Ontario and people are living on the street in stormy weather, in bad weather, and have no place to live and eat, what we do is create a lot of sick people.

Also, if a person who is worried about not finding a place to live or always worried about paying the rent at the end of the month and has no place to house his family and himself or herself, what are we doing? We’re creating an unstable family, and most of the time the family breaks up and people go on social assistance, or people are not able to find a job or cannot go to their job at the right time on a regular basis.

I believe strongly that we have to work together as elected officials, on both sides of the House, to create a strategy for affordable homes. I know the member opposite from Durham doesn’t believe what I’m saying. Do you know what they believe? They believe they are going to be the government in 2011. That’s what they believe. They’re telling us, “When we’re the government, we’re going to cut all housing strategy; we’re not going to invest money in affordable homes; we’re going to cut in half all the social programs in the province of Ontario in order to balance our books and our budget.” That’s what they believe.

There are a lot of examples around this planet. So many different elements of right-wing or conservative strategy are floating around, not just in Canada but in many places on the planet, like England. In England, they cut social programs in half, cut policing in half, cut social programs in half, cut affordable homes in half.

Mr. Ted McMeekin: And they wonder why they’re in trouble.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Yes, they wonder why they are in trouble.

You know what? It’s very simple to us on this side of the House: Either we invest now or we pay later in big money and big bucks and it will cost our social network a lot of instability.

I know the member opposite thinks he is telling me, “You know what? You’re not going to be the government. Don’t worry about it. We’ll look after it.”

Interjection.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Yes, the people of Ontario can remember that. They’re watching. They know what happened to them in 1995, when they cut all the social programs in half and they labelled all the homeless as criminals who had to be in jail. Everyone still remembers that.

The member of the government party back then said he was wondering why people couldn’t find food, why they couldn’t eat dented cans of tuna. You know what? Remember what Marie Antoinette said in Europe when she saw the protesters outside her palace. She looked out the window and was wondering why people were protesting. Somebody told her, “They have no food to eat.” “Why can’t they eat biscuits?” That’s what happened. Do you know what was the result? What was the result?

Mr. Ted McMeekin: She was on the cutting edge.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: That’s it. Also, the member opposite was in government back then. What did they do? They labelled all the social programs as a burden on the government. They cut them in half. They labelled all the poor people as criminals. And they were wondering why people couldn’t eat. “There’s lots of tuna out there. Why not open a can of tuna and eat it?”

Mr. Ted McMeekin: A dented can of tuna.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: A dented can of tuna.

You know what? You have to have a heart when you are in this position. You have to have a plan. You have to include a new plan for everyone, whether they’re weak or they’re strong, whether they’re poor or they’re rich, whether they’re able or disabled. Everyone in our government has a role to play. We believe in everyone and we believe everyone has a capacity, dignity and respect, and that’s why we believe and we value every person.

It doesn’t matter what kind of class, what kind of colour, what kind of religion, what kind of social programs; we bless everyone, we believe in everyone, because we are the people who care about the future of this province. Hopefully, the opposite party got some of our blessings and understands our strategy and will come with us and work together to find the best way to serve the people of Ontario. I thank you.

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

Mr. John O’Toole: I think the member for London–Fanshawe has been celebrating way too much. His exuberance is not justified. In fact, they are leaving Ontario in a very dismal position.

I’m going to go strictly to the comments that were made in the media in the last day or so. This is from the Toronto Star, which is generally very friendly and more than fair with—here’s what they say. This is from the Toronto Star. It says, “A Flurry of Announcements but Little Content.” It says: “Poverty reduction plans poured out of Queen’s Park so fast last week it was hard to keep up with the paper flow.

“But once all the packaging had been stripped away and the self-congratulatory rhetoric sifted out, there wasn’t much left. Welfare rates were still below the poverty line. Healthy food was still out of reach. Affordable housing was still a dream.

“The 1.6 million Ontarians living in poverty had to settle for an 18-month study of social assistance, a slight loosening of rent rules for subsidized housing and an extensive list of the good things Premier McGuinty had” promised to do.

The predictor of future behaviour is looking at past behaviour. Past behaviour is that they have promised one thing and done completely the opposite. They’ve said they wouldn’t raise taxes, yet they’re the highest they’ve ever been. The people of Ontario can’t be fooled any longer. If you want to know if spending money will solve all the problems—they’ve spent all the money; we have a $20-billion deficit, and how is it at your hospital? How is it in your home care? How is it in long-term care? How is it when you’re paying your taxes? How is it when you’re paying your heating bill or filling your car with gas?

They have pretty well destroyed Ontario, technically, on any measure, and the most affected people are the most vulnerable people, who are not being looked after by this government. In fact, you should stand, in your response, and admit that.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: In fact, this is pure Orwellianism. Strong communities through Affordable Housing, yet in the province of Ontario we have the worst record in Canada for providing affordable housing. In Ontario, we have the worst per capita investment in Canada. We have 142,000 families waiting for affordable housing—the worst record ever. We have 50% of our renters who can’t afford to pay rent and their basic necessities on top of it. These are facts.

And 480 organizations comprised of housing activists have said that this so-called strategy doesn’t meet any of the five criteria which they set out. As I say, it’s positively Orwellian that they title it the Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act, because there’s not one new unit of affordable housing promised in this, there’s not one new dollar given, and there’s not one new rent supplement provided. To make matters worse, there’s not even the ability of municipalities to bring in inclusionary zoning to do anything on their own. They didn’t even do that, which was required by and asked for by municipalities across this province.

We now have one in six children living in poverty. We have not seen poverty rates or homelessness rates or lack of affordable housing rates like this since the Depression, and I argue that it’s getting even worse than the Depression. This is under Premier McGuinty. This is under Liberal rule in Ontario.

All you have to do is look at what’s not in this bill to see what should be done in the province of Ontario where housing is concerned. Shame on the government. It brings to mind the words of Charles Dickens: “Are there no workhouses? Are there no prisons?” Because that’s what’s left under McGuinty’s Ontario for those who lack housing.

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

Mr. Jeff Leal: I do want to salute the member from London–Fanshawe this morning. Along with his mayor, Joe Fontana, he’s been helping to take leadership in London, Ontario, which has had a huge dump of snow. The member there is helping to organize things and allowing the city of London to recover as quickly as possible. We salute that leadership.

But then again, I also salute his leadership in the field of housing. Here are the facts: Since 2003, we have made unprecedented investments of more than $2.5 billion in this sector. That includes the largest affordable housing investment in Canadian history, $734 million of partnership with the previous federal government. It’s helping us build more than 22,000 new units, repair over 150,000 existing units and provide more than 35,000 rent supplements to Ontario’s families in need.

It is important to understand that this is over and above the roughly $430 million we provide on an annual basis in housing, homelessness and other supports. We have stabilized the rent bank funding with $5 million per year since 2003 and provided $33.8 million, which has prevented more than 23,800 evictions.

I also want to look at the annual rent increase: under our government, 2.05% per year; under the Conservatives, 2.9% per year; under the NDP, 4.82% per year. Since we’ve had the privilege of governing, the third party has voted against every investment that we put forward in housing since 2003.

But I’m absolutely delighted that they saw the light yesterday. They voted for Bill 135. That will allow a 10% decrease in electricity rates in the province of Ontario, starting January 1. We always welcome people to the party. Even though it’s a bit late, they’re with us now. They’re working with us to help consumers in the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I too want to echo the wonderful praises that have been doled out to the member from London–Fanshawe, not only because of the work that he does in his riding but also because of the connectivity he makes between London and the rest of Ontario and, indeed, the rest of the world. So I want to make sure that it’s on the record that I have this man in high esteem because of his commitment to not only the political process but also to the people who he represents. So I want to thank him for doing that.

The second thing I want to talk about is a repetitive theme that I’ve brought to this place on an ongoing basis. I love to hear the rhetoric pouring out of the lips of the opposition when they do not acknowledge the history that took place before 2003—from both parties. Stand in your places and tell us you did a better job. Stand in your places and tell us that you didn’t cancel affordable housing. Stand in your places and tell us that there’s been nothing right done in this government. When we were in opposition, we pointed out to the government the folly of cutting social services by 21%. It was a disaster.

So let’s talk about the history before you start throwing those stones, because the glass I hear breaking from the opposition is absolutely abhorrent.

What I also want to ask is, were you listening to what the member was talking about in terms of not leaving people behind? The examples he gave you from around the world were very evident. When those types of right-wing agenda items took place, it took a while—I will tell you clearly, it took a while—but people began to recognize that that right-wing agenda of cut, cut, cut, cut and leave people behind doesn’t work. Historically, it’s evident that it does not work. And what did they continue to do? They continued to cut. And now, what are they saying they’re going to do?

They’re going to protect the interest of the little guy. If we don’t know what the history was in 2003, let’s take a look at it and compare notes.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The member for London–Fanshawe has two minutes for his response.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I guess it’s an important debate. The member from Durham, for you and the member from Parkdale–High Park, any time we compare our record to your record, you have no plan, whether for hydro, affordable homes or social programs. We do. That’s why we debate in this House.

The member from High Park: The NDP were in power for many years. What happened? They broke the whole government. You know what? It’s clear. We have put a cap on rent increases of 2.05%. They had it to almost 2.9%, 3%, so no comparison. We continue to invest.

I want to also thank the member from Peterborough and the member from Brant, who outlined the importance of the affordable housing strategy. You cannot leave people behind. The philosophy of cutting, cutting, cutting does not help. It didn’t work for the Conservatives in 2003 and it’s not going to work for any government in the future when you cut social programs, and affordable homes.

And when you do not invest in hydro, what’s going to happen? We’re going to have a blackout.

It’s important for us to continue to include everyone with us, to continue to invest in affordable homes, to continue to invest in social programs, to continue to invest in health care. It’s important to create that social network, an affordable one, for all the people to be able to live in peace and harmony, dignity and respect.

Our strategy on this side of the House is to reduce poverty, and affordable homes are one element of reduction of poverty in the province of Ontario, because when people find a place to live—they cannot live on the street. And you know what? They live in peace and harmony. They can put their family together. They can plan for the future. When you have no place to live, how can you plan? How can you send your kids to school and think about your health care? Nothing matters. The most important thing is to create a permanent shelter, a permanent home for the people of Ontario, an affordable one.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I’m certainly pleased to rise today and contribute to the debate on Bill 140, the Housing Services Act, 2010.

I think, as everybody in this House recognizes, affordable housing is a most critical component of any compassionate society’s social safety net. It is imperative that we all provide and work together to make sure those who are poor, those who are vulnerable and those who are disfranchised have access to housing that is both affordable and also of the highest quality possible. Unfortunately, what we’re seeing today in the province is that the housing needs of Ontario’s disadvantaged are being ignored. We’re seeing that there are many difficulties that these people encounter when they’re trying to access a home for their family that is both safe and dignified.

Unfortunately, this bill that was introduced and anything related to the housing strategy does not contribute to increasing the stock of housing that is available or reducing the wait-list. Again, we see that the initiative and what the government has talked about is dependent on funding from the federal government, but we just have not seen any commitment to new provincial operating or capital dollars for housing.

I’ve heard the members opposite talk about what it does and what they’re doing. I guess I can stand here as a member of the opposition—my job is to hold the government of the day accountable—and I could be very critical of this bill, which I’m going to be, but I think I’d like to focus on an

article that I saw in the Toronto Star; it was by Carol Goar.

Interjection.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: We’re talking about now.

Carol Goar, on December 6, earlier this week—the headline was, “A Flurry of Announcements but Little Content.”

This is what she said in the Toronto Star: “Poverty reduction plans poured out of Queen’s Park so fast last week it was hard to keep up with the paper flow.

“But once all the packaging had been stripped away and the self-congratulatory rhetoric sifted out, there wasn’t much left. Welfare rates were still below the poverty line. Healthy food was still out of reach. Affordable housing was still a dream.

“The 1.6 million Ontarians living in poverty had to settle for an 18-month study of social assistance, a slight loosening of the rent rules for subsidized housing and an extensive list of the good things Premier Dalton McGuinty had done for them.

“The week began with the release of the government’s long-awaited affordable housing strategy”—and I just digress for a minute because, as we know, this housing strategy had been promised by three successive Liberal housing ministers, and Carol Goar makes reference to that, too. She indicates that, “Three successive Liberal housing ministers promised a long-term plan and produced nothing.”

This has been ongoing since 2003, so I don’t know how this government can stand and say that they’re a compassionate, caring group of people, because they’ve had seven years to deliver for the people who need housing in the province of Ontario. They’ve had seven years to address poverty. They’ve had seven years to address welfare. And we’re not seeing any results yet.

They then go on to say that the fourth Liberal housing minister who had promised a long-term plan and produced nothing was Rick Bartolucci, who “finally delivered a blueprint”—notice the word “blueprint”—“entitled Building Foundations: Building Futures.” But then she goes on to say that, “Nowhere in the 17-page document was there a pledge to build social housing.” And that is what is key.

You can talk about being compassionate, you can talk about being caring and you can say you were going to do something over the past seven years, but here we are approaching another provincial election and, as Carol Goar says, nowhere in Mr. Bartolucci’s blueprint was there a real pledge to build social housing. “All the minister offered the 142,000 low-income Ontarians on the waiting list for a rent-geared-to-income apartment was a commitment to loosen the rent collection rules.” What a slap in the face to the people who wanted housing.

She goes on to say, “A second disappointment was that Bartolucci did not respond to entreaties for a housing benefit that would narrow the gap between the rent private landlords charge and the amount low-income Ontarians can afford. The minister merely said he would consider the idea.” Then Mr. Bartolucci is quoted as saying, “Despite significant global economic challenges, we have not removed a single penny of the funds earmarked for housing.” Yes, but there also were no new funds. There was no new social housing for the 142,000 people who are on the waiting list.

Then we get an announcement following this from the community and social services minister, Madeleine Meilleur. Again, she comes out—and we’ve seen a two-year delay and we’ve seen excuses—and she says that they’re going to launch the social assistance review promised in the government’s poverty reduction strategy. It’s going to happen over 18 months. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that is going to take us beyond the next election campaign. That’s going to take us until June 2012.

So again the Liberals, despite their commitment to address this issue, have not lived up to it or made any improvement whatsoever in regard to the introduction of a poverty reduction strategy. Just like the housing, it’s been all words.

So they’re never going to have to, as Carol Goar says, defend “their punitive treatment of the poor in next fall’s election.” Then, of course, she goes on to talk about what happened with the $250 special diet allowance and the release of Minister Broten’s Breaking the Cycle progress report on poverty reduction. At the end of the day, she concludes her remarks in the Toronto Star of December 6 by saying, “By week’s end, it was clear that, for all the paper his government had churned out and all the announcements his ministers had made, McGuinty had very little to say about reducing poverty.” That is Carol Goar in the Toronto Star on December 6.

So let’s get back to the bill at hand. Supposedly, this is about affordable housing. Supposedly, it’s about a promise the government has made since 2003. However, what we see today is that the government has turned a blind eye to the over 142,000 households that are waiting for affordable housing in Ontario.

In this province today we need to take a look at the situation. We need to understand that there are 142,000 households who are waiting for affordable housing units. This is a huge list; and this list, by the way, does not include the people who need affordable housing or people who are currently spending well beyond what they can afford on housing. This list only includes people who are actually in the process of waiting for a unit. We know that the list is much longer.

What we’re seeing is an increase to the list of about 9% from last year alone. We’ve seen a rise in the number of households who are waiting. In fact, if you take a look at 2004 and you take a look at today, we’ve seen during the term of this government an increase of about 22% of people in this province who are waiting for affordable housing. It looks like—because the government has made no commitment to new, additional affordable housing—that they could be forced to wait 10 to 12 years for an affordable house. That is totally unacceptable. It is disgraceful that that is happening in Canada and in our own province of Ontario.

As the member for Parkdale–High Park pointed out last week, there are “250,000 families who pay more than 50% of their income on … housing.” Well, take a look at your own paycheque and think if you had to spend half of your paycheque towards housing; that is simply not sustainable. It’s going to be a very short time before these families will also join the waiting list for affordable housing.

Action needs to be taken now. This government promised in 2003, and again in the 2007 election, that they would take action. However, they’ve only paid lip service to a very serious problem. We’ve only heard large announcements and grandiose statements, but no new housing. People have been waiting for action for seven years, but they were let down by the most recent announcements.

So we have a piece of legislation that we’re debating here today that is underwhelming, to say the least. It’s quite distressing to think that it’s taken the government seven years to develop this disappointing affordable housing plan and coinciding legislation. It’s disappointing. It appears as though the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing mailed this in, because the bill accomplishes very little. It does make some revisions to the way municipal service managers can spend provincial funding, and amends the Planning Act to allow for secondary units.

It doesn’t address the many systemic problems which today serve as significant obstacles to affordable housing. There is no thorough strategy here to address the needs of Ontarians who desperately need affordable housing.

Perhaps what is most worrying about this bill is its complete lack of ambition. It contains no clear goals or objectives. It’s just another bill, with no context, and it’s not going to effect any real change.

If we are to correct and improve Ontario’s affordable housing situation, we need creative thinking and we need innovative solutions. In fact, that was what the stakeholders were looking for. There were consultations: 485 housing stakeholders were consulted for over six months on this bill. They did offer to this government thousands of submissions. But what most of them did concentrate on—they asked for four distinct actions. They asked for new units, new money, rent supplements and inclusionary zoning provisions.

These are the front-line workers who asked for those four actions on the part of the government. They are the experts who work in the housing field every day. They know what the challenges and the difficulties are. But this government did not respond to their requests, because the bill contains no new units for families who need affordable housing; there is no new money; there is not a housing benefit; there are no rent supplements; and it doesn’t even include a provision for inclusionary zoning.

This bill is really an abdication of responsibility on the part of the government. It does, however, download enormous amounts of responsibility onto the municipal service managers. They are now tasked with developing and implementing their own affordable housing plans.

I think what we see here is a government that, after seven years of promises, simply is admitting they don’t know what to do. They have no new ideas, they have no money and they are not prepared to offer additional affordable housing to the people who so desperately need it.

The stakeholders have been pleading with the government for seven years to take decisive action on housing, but this bill provided them with nothing but platitudes. In fact, it’s rather disappointing to the many stakeholders, the 485, who didn’t see their requests given any attention. They all identified the same needs, but the government, once again, chose to ignore them. They asked for bold targets on housing units and sustainable funding for municipalities to enable long-term planning, but they did not receive a response.

So today we have a bill that doesn’t help municipalities in the province of Ontario. In essence, the buck has been passed to them. In essence, they have been told that they’re now responsible for the hundreds of thousands of Ontarians who have no access to housing. But there was no funding for housing strategies, and it’s going to be difficult for municipalities to plan for the future and develop long-term goals when they have no idea as to what funding may or may not be available over the long term.

How can we expect our municipalities to devise and execute long-term housing strategies without knowing whether the provincial government is even capable or willing to provide the necessary funding? I’m not sure if the government realizes that the responsibilities that they have downloaded to the municipalities are impossible to carry on and do without any assurance of any funding for the future.

We have a government with seven years in office that ends up, after numerous promises, introducing an empty bill that doesn’t provide for the building of one single unit. We are not seeing any decrease in the waiting list whatsoever. All we’re seeing is a downloading of responsibility to Ontario municipalities. The bill is another attempt on the part of this government to shift responsibility. It will allow the Liberals, I guess in the future, to start blaming municipalities for failing to deliver the housing.

But you know, I think this bill is a reflection on the ineptitude of this government. This bill is leaving Ontario’s most disadvantaged without any hope. It’s also an indication that this government is out of steam. It’s tired, and they’re not capable of solving the housing problem.

Again, it’s an attempt by the government to say that any changes are contingent upon the federal government. The federal government has made it clear that they will be removing themselves from the housing business. Housing is a provincial issue. It is the province’s responsibility to ensure that affordable housing is built and is accessible. It’s disappointing today to see a bill that assumes that a one-size-fits-all approach is capable of solving the problem.

I want to congratulate the member for Burlington, the member who’s responsible for this issue. I think she’s done an outstanding job in pointing out the deficiencies with this bill. I think she stressed the fact that many Ontarians don’t need long-term housing assistance, but they do need some assistance to get back on their feet. This assistance could have been made available in this bill in the form of a housing benefit, but it was not made available here. Other jurisdictions have been providing that housing benefit: British Columbia, Manitoba and Quebec.

There’s much that could be said about this bill. I think at the end of the day, we realize that it falls short of meeting the needs of Ontarians in this province who desperately need affordable housing. I think we see a government that promised in 2003 and 2007 to take action, but as I have indicated today and others have indicated as well in our attempt to hold this government accountable, it isn’t going to create one additional unit of affordable housing for the people in this province who so desperately need it.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I listened intently to the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. What she said is absolutely correct: This bill will not create one new unit of affordable housing. Not one new dollar will go to affordable housing; not one new rent supplement. Moreover, it won’t even amend the Planning Act so that municipalities can take some real action through inclusionary zoning.

We’ve had four housing ministers. We’ve had three years of promises. We’ve had six months when we’ve waited past the time when we wanted a housing strategy—and it’s starting to sound like a carol. There’s no partridge or pear tree at the end of it, though. There’s absolutely nothing at the end of it. In fact, we are number 10 of 10 provinces, the worst record among all the provinces.

We spend $64 per capita on affordable housing. By contrast, Saskatchewan spends four times as much—one province. We are literally the worst, and what do we have to show for it? Some 142,000 families waiting an average of 10 to 12 years for affordable housing. Fifty per cent of those who rent cannot afford to pay their rent and also buy the necessities of life—50%. The member for Kitchener–Waterloo is absolutely correct: 250,000 Ontarians spend more than 50% on overhead that relates to housing. That’s untenable. That cannot be sustained.

These are figures the likes of which we haven’t seen since the Great Depression. No other government has overseen such devastation in the housing quarter as the McGuinty Liberals have.

Then we get this Orwellian Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act. No strong communities and no affordable housing to be had in this bill.

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: I listened very intently to the member for Kitchener–Waterloo, and frankly, she is wrong. She is wrong in everything that she said.

Let’s start correcting the record. Here’s what the member for Kitchener–Waterloo refused to support in her riding: 1,398 affordable housing units created in her riding; 8,397 units repaired in her riding; 377 housing allowances and rent supplements in her Kitchener–Waterloo riding; 1,168 evictions prevented in her Kitchener–Waterloo riding. Why hasn’t she stood up and supported these people? Our government has. Our government has built the units. Our government has repaired the units. Our government has prevented people from being evicted.

I listened to my colleague from Parkdale–High Park. What a sorry excuse for a critique. Listen to what’s happened in Parkdale–High Park, and this member really needs to pay attention to that:

—5,066 affordable housing units created in the riding of Parkdale–High Park: Why isn’t that member standing up and supporting that?

—92,565 units repaired in that riding: Why hasn’t that member for the NDP stood up and supported that?

—3,591 housing allowances and rent supplements in that same riding, and 4,769 evictions prevented.

One wonders what these acronyms stand for with the other parties. I know that NDP really means “never developed a plan,” but I’m sure PC means “public cuts.”

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

Mr. John O’Toole: The member from Kitchener–Waterloo has stood for her riding and has been successfully supporting her riding for many years, and the member who just spoke should probably take a bit of a breather.

The real thing is, when you listen to the Liberals talk, much has been promised and much has been said, but really, they have made more talk about it than anything else. If you look at the

article that Ms. Witmer referred to, she hit it right on the head: There’s been a lot of talk and very little action. Even if you look at the articles this morning in the paper about how the province of Ontario is being let down by the government—I think the

article is “Home Care Report a Wake-up Call for McGuinty.”

When you look at the real issues, we all support having a strong ability to have a place to call home. Every side of the House recognizes that, as part of the poverty reduction task force strategy, there’s not one nickel in this report. Most of the report talks about the federal money. This is the Building Foundations: Building Futures report. In that report, almost $900 million, the money that the member spoke of, is actually federal; Stephen Harper money. Let’s tell the facts. Your bill here hasn’t got one nickel of money for housing.

Let’s tell the people of Ontario the truth. Where are we today? Ask yourself: Are we better off? The real question here on any debate is, are you better off today than you were a few years ago? No, you’re not. We have a deficit, we have a debt and we have an impending disaster in health care. Not one long-term care, let alone shelter for people. How about taking care of the frail and elderly?

I am so discouraged and distracted by anything they say that I’m losing confidence by the hour.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Kitchener–Waterloo has two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: I do appreciate the comments that were made by the member for Parkdale–High Park. I think she has been a very strong advocate for those in this province who are disadvantaged, who are vulnerable and who are in need, and I think she made some excellent points.

The member from Mississauga-Streetsville I don’t think understands what’s in the current bill that we are debating. The current bill was seven years in the making. This current bill was based on promises that had been made by Premier McGuinty in the 2003 and 2007 elections that we would actually see a plan for affordable housing. This bill, I would remind the member, contains absolutely no new funding for additional housing. It doesn’t contain any reference to new affordable housing units.

Certainly, for those who made representation, of which there were almost 500 people, it is very, very disappointing, because obviously, just like the poverty reduction strategy, from the time they were elected in 2003 until well after the next election, we’re not going to see much progress in this area whatsoever. We also know that if we are to reduce poverty, it is important that people have access to good housing and affordable housing. When we think that today some people are spending 50% of their salary on housing, it’s simply not sustainable, and they’re soon going to join that waiting list.

I also want to thank my colleague from Durham. My colleague from Durham has been a strong and passionate advocate for all of the people in his community and people throughout the province of Ontario. I applaud him, and I appreciate his remarks.

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

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I have to tell you, I really, really appreciate the speech that was made by the member from Kitchener–Waterloo. I agreed with 100% of everything she said, which is remarkable. You have to understand that when I agree 100% with the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, we’ve got something going here.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): May I just interrupt for a moment? Are you doing your leadoff speech?

Mr. Rosario Marchese: No, we’re standing down the leadoff speech.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Okay.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I think we had unanimous consent to do that yesterday.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: Thank you very much.

I just love Conservatives in opposition; I really do. They get better and better every year. Every year that I listen to their speeches, I say, “Good God, there’s a lot going on.” I just think with four more years in opposition, they’re going to get better. They mature as they stay in opposition. Don’t you find, member from Rainy River, that they get better with every successive year?

Mr. Howard Hampton: Better with age.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: It’s like a good bottle of wine. You have to age it longer and longer.

And by the time they get back into government, they will have had so much social democracy built into their foundation that they’re going to be a whole lot better than they were in the past. That’s what I’m dreaming of. So I don’t want them to rush into government too quickly. I don’t want that to happen too quickly because I’ve listened to a whole lot of speeches by my colleagues here on the right, and I tell you, I’m getting to like them.

In fact, I was going to quote Carol Goar as well. It’s amazing how ad idem we are with each other. You understand that when the Toronto Star beats you up, it’s a problem. You know that, right? Just in case you didn’t know that. When the Toronto Star editorially and/or with its columnists beat you up, you are in doo-doo.

I just wanted to remind you in case you forget, because I know the member from Mississauga–Streetsville is a real trooper, and so is the member from London–Fanshawe. You can always count on them to stand up and defend the government, no matter what. But you need the troopers. You need them because without them, you don’t stand up, right? So member from Mississauga–Streetsville, you keep doing what you’re doing; they need you.

But Carol Goar from the Toronto Star—man, it was a tough article. It was dated December 6. I kept it because it was so good. It says “A Flurry of Announcements but Little Content.” Ouch, is what I normally say. Member from Peterborough, you say that too, every now and then. So when Carol Goar says that, which is in line with what we New Democrats normally say, I think you’ve got to listen. At least, that’s what I think.

“The week began with the release of the government’s long-awaited affordable housing strategy. Three successive Liberal housing ministers promised a long-term plan and produced nothing.” That hurts. “The fourth, Rick Bartolucci finally delivered a blueprint entitled Building Foundations: Building Futures.”

She says—so that you don’t have to say that the New Democrats are saying it, or Liz Witmer from Kitchener–Waterloo—“nowhere in the 17-page document was there a pledge to build social housing.” She said that. We say that. The member from Kitchener–Waterloo says it. You’ve got a little problemo on your hands, right?

Now, the member from Mississauga–Streetsville stands up and says, “We did this in your riding. We did that in that riding. How come you don’t say we did this and did that?” It has got nothing to do with Bill 140, Strong Communities. But to your promise of 2003, member from Mississauga–Streetsville—you might take note of this, because you’re a college professor; take notes on this. In 2003, the McGuinty government promised to build 20,000 new affordable housing units in three years. Are you listening, member from Mississauga–Streetsville? You were going to do that in three years. Did you do it? Just tell me. Did you do it?

Mr. Bob Delaney: Done.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: You see how much of a trooper he is? That’s why they love you on the other side, because they can count on you to say whatever it is that the Premier wants you to say.

You didn’t do that, and you could have done it. You could have kept your promise, because we had a great economy in 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. The economy was booming. There was money, in fact. You could have done it, and you didn’t do that in your seven years. In every year you built 1,900 units, to give you credit. But if you add it up, you are far short still—still—of the promise you made in 2003. You can’t just paper over some of this stuff and pretend that the people are not watching and that they’re not listening.

The 434 housing organizations say that this bill does nothing for those who are in distress and who are desperately looking for the government to support them with their housing needs.

Here are some of the facts: A book released this week, Persistent Poverty: Voices From the Margins, outlines the extent of the housing crisis. Some “1.3 million Ontario households are precariously housed; that is, they pay more than 30% of their income on housing.” Some “120,000 Ontario families live in overcrowded housing; 80,000 Ontarians live in substandard housing that requires major repairs; 140,000 households are on affordable housing waiting lists in Ontario, a number that increased by 10% from 2009 to 2010. Housing insecurity is rising because energy costs have gone up 50% in the past decade.

Rents have increased faster than inflation, and the incomes of tenants have stagnated or declined. Half of the renters do not have enough income to pay for housing and other necessities such as food, medicine, transportation, education and so on.”

Persistent Poverty spoke to hundreds of people struggling with poverty and insecure housing from across Ontario, people like Jacob, a young man from Toronto, who said this at a recent community meeting held by the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition: “A bachelor apartment costs $600, maybe $700, a month in Parkdale. Rooming houses are terrible. People steal your food, mess up the bathroom, get drunk and bring friends home. My socks and underwear were stolen from the laundry. How do I pay a high rent on my ODSP of $1,092 per month? It would be worse if I were on $585 from OW. Am I supposed to steal?” is what he says.

People like Harry, a middle-aged man from Brantford, who said, “If I can become homeless, there’s not another person in the world who can’t become homeless. Even people who are wealthy are very close to being in poverty—one death, one broken relationship, one loss of a job. There are not a lot of choices for housing, and it often means living next to people who are smoking pot or crack.”

These are the stories that we get from people, men and women who live in this province. We have a terrible record in terms of our spending on housing. We are number 10. I often make fun of the government and make fun of the minister of post-secondary education when they talk about how much money they’re spending, and on a per capita basis, in Canada we are last; one of the strongest provinces in Canada, and we are last. When Prince Edward Island spends more than we do, we are in trouble. When we pay the highest tuition fees in the country, as one of the wealthiest provinces in the country, we are in trouble.

And when we are last in building housing for those who are in need in Canada, this is not something that the government can be proud of.

Interjection.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: And that’s the problem. The services we’re giving to them are so poor that they are impoverished each and every year that Liberals are in government. When you give away $5 billion cumulatively, over a three-year period, to corporations that do not create the jobs that we so desperately need—and we have seen the evidence for this over the last 15 years.

Corporations have been getting tax cut after tax cut each and every year, and you would think that we would have jobs each and every year and the jobs would be increased each and every year, that unemployment would be lower each and every year, yet, with all of the billions we give away, we have the highest unemployment—not the highest, but Ontario has unemployment that we haven’t seen in a long, long time. It’s not good.

Mr. Jean-Marc Lalonde: Rosario, my wife is watching you this morning.

Mr. Rosario Marchese: I’m glad she is.

It is not good. We have a situation here in Ontario where the previous Conservative regime downloaded housing to the municipalities, which no other jurisdiction in the world, save one, does, and you have not had the strength and the conviction, after seven years, to say, “Enough.

We can’t allow housing to be paid by the property tax—we can’t allow that; it’s wrong—because no other jurisdiction in the world downloads housing to a municipality.” Yet, after seven years of government, you still allow that bad policy to continue when you know that municipalities simply do not have the money to provide for the housing needs of our citizens in Ontario. We—you, not me; you have a bad record when it comes to housing, and Bill 140, Strong Communities, is only strong in the title and nothing else.

The title of the bill reminds me of a previous regime where the strength of their bills was in the title only and in the name only, but the content was empty, similar to what—and I echo what Carol Goar from the Toronto Star says, “A Flurry of Announcements but Little Content.”

We can do better, and we can and should be more helpful to those in need. That’s the role of government. It is the obligation of government to be there when the markets fail us. When the markets fail us and they are not building—because the private sector doesn’t build public housing, where they make very little money; they only build it when governments invest. If the government is not there to help those in need when the markets fail us, then we’re losing not only our civility but the civilization that we depend on.

The member from Parkdale–High Park will be doing her hour when we come back. I’m looking forward to that speech, because she has so much more to say on this.

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1014 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: It’s my honour and pleasure to introduce page Alexandra Oleiche’s mother, Fida, and Mr. Zein Oleiche. Thank you very much for coming here today.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It’s my pleasure to introduce a young man from Oakville, Ontario, who has been helping out in my office for the last couple of weeks. Andrew Muncaster is there in the west members’ gallery. This is his first question period.

Mr. Rick Johnson: On behalf of Minister Chiarelli, I’d like to introduce his Ottawa office staff, who are here this morning: Elizabeth Caracristi, David Salter, Stephanie Barry and Lauren Essiambre.

Mr. John O’Toole: I am pleased to introduce the parents of page Joshua Turner: Denise Turner and Scott Turner. Welcome to our proceedings here today. Watch your son perform remarkably.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d like to take this opportunity, on behalf of the member from Halton and page Tony Mistak, to welcome his father, Gary Mistak, to the Legislature today. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

MEMBERS’ PRIVILEGES

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m in receipt of a notice of a point of privilege from the member for Simcoe–Grey, Mr. Wilson, on the same subject I ruled on yesterday. Without hearing from the member, I’m prepared to make my ruling now, as standing order 21 allows me to do.

Given that the nature of the member’s point is substantially the same as the one ruled upon yesterday, I do not believe I have much further to add.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. These are important for all members to listen to.

However, for the benefit of all members, let me repeat a portion of that ruling: “The members have characterized the staffer’s videotaping of elected members in the hallways of this place as ‘reprehensible.’ I myself find the practice distasteful at best. In this technological age, when video and photographic devices are so common, I can see that it is tempting to use them for political purposes. Unfortunately, that temptation is succumbed to all too frequently” and “I am not surprised the practice has given rise to the complaints.... I would prefer if the political process rose to a level of dignity our surroundings here suggest it deserves.”

As I indicated yesterday, while I have serious concerns about this activity occurring and strongly suggest that it should not continue, it does not amount to a prima facie case of privilege. But I might add here that at the same time in my ruling yesterday that I made reference to activities that I consider unworthy to this place, I note that at that very moment I was making that statement, such activity was underway outside the chamber doors. I trust forethought will take place before any of these kinds of behaviours are repeated.

GOVERNMENT CONTRACT

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Yesterday, the member for Thornhill, Mr. Shurman, raised a point of privilege with respect to statements made in the House by the Minister of Tourism and Culture, Mr. Chan, that the member for Thornhill alleges were at variance with the facts. The government House leader, Ms. Smith, also made representations on this point.

The remarks in question stem from question period on December 2, when the minister responded to two different questions, one from the member from Wellington–Halton Hills and the other from the member for Thornhill, relating to matters concerning the Niagara Parks Commission. The member for Thornhill alleges that the response to his question contained incorrect information. The member further points out that the minister’s error has been drawn to his attention on several occasions in the House, but the minister has not explicitly corrected his statement.

In the view of the member for Thornhill, the member’s willingness to knowingly let the incorrect information remain on the record amounts to a contempt of the House.

The member raised, as one of the authorities in his case, a 2002 incident in the House of Commons of Canada involving then minister Art Eggleton. This very case has been previously raised in this House to support a similar point of privilege involving alleged incorrect statements by a minister.

At that time, Speaker Carr had this to say: “I’m reluctant to accord applicability of that ruling to this case.

“Firstly, in that case Mr. Eggleton concurred that contradictory statements had been made and that clarification of the reasons for this in a suitable forum was required. Secondly, I see no precedential value to Speaker Milliken’s ruling—within the ambit of parliamentary privilege—since, if the ruling is carefully read, it becomes apparent that a prima facie case of privilege was not explicitly found.”

I agree with Speaker Carr, and do not consider the Speaker’s ruling to offer any meaningful support to the contentions by the member for Thornhill.

The member for Thornhill also drew my attention to a ruling this past May by Speaker Toth in the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly. There are two things about the Toth ruling that also mitigate its applicability to this current case. First, that matter concerned a denial by an officer of the Saskatchewan Legislative Assembly, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, that he had been consulted by the Minister of Health on a regulation. While the minister told the House he had done so, the privacy commissioner corresponded to all members of the assembly to advise them otherwise.

That obvious and serious conflict between a minister and an officer of the assembly simply could not be allowed to stand, and needed to be considered by the House and resolved. For this reason, Speaker Toth found a prima facie case of privilege had been made out. But the fact situation is quite different than the one raised by the member for Thornhill.

The second issue with the Saskatchewan ruling is that Speaker Toth found a prima facie case of privilege on the issue of misleading statements allegedly being made to the House, in the absence of an admission by the member making the remarks that this was so. Speaker Toth was guided by precedents of his assembly which established that—unlike in the Ontario assembly and others—“in Saskatchewan, the threshold of proof of an offence is not restricted to an admission of guilt. Contempt has been found on the basis of evidence.

In this situation,” Speaker Toth continued, “the minister has not admitted to have misled the assembly so the case must be reviewed on the documentary evidence provided by the opposition House leader.”

Speaker Toth was correct that his approach was at odds with the practice of other Parliaments, including ours. Perhaps the most decisive declaration and confirmation of this was made by Speaker Carr in his ruling to the assembly on June 17, 2002. Speaker Carr examined both the Eggleton case and the famous Profumo case in the United Kingdom. He fully accepted the essential factors of the Profumo incident and stated that, “The threshold for finding a prima facie case of contempt against a member of the Legislature, on the basis of deliberately misleading the House, is therefore set quite high and is very uncommon.”

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

“It must involve a proved finding of an overt attempt to intentionally mislead the Legislature. In the absence of an admission from the member accused of the conduct, or of tangible confirmation of the conduct, independently proved, a Speaker must assume that no honourable members would engage in such behaviour or that, at most, inconsistent statements were the result of inadvertence or honest mistake.”

Yesterday morning, the Minister of Tourism and Culture rose on a point of order to clarify the remarks he made on December 2—presumably the same ones with which the member for Thornhill takes issue. The fact that even following the clarification the member for Thornhill still raised the point of privilege is perhaps an indication that the clarification didn’t clarify quite enough to remove the member’s doubt.

Nevertheless, the minister is presumably content with where the matter stands and feels his clarification yesterday removes confusion. I can discern nothing about any of his statements nor do I have any proved finding that would indicate a deliberate desire to mislead the House. Indeed, the member for Thornhill has not made that case. He himself admits that he is unable to say whether the alleged inaccuracy is “an error of commission or omission.”

I am of the view that the threshold set out by Speaker Carr in 2002 to support a finding of prima facie contempt of the House, on an allegation that a member has deliberately misled the assembly, has not been met in the case before me.

As was Speaker Carr’s finding in 2002, “I can only find that I am left with what amounts to a genuine disagreement between two honourable members. As a result, I am unable to find a prima facie case of contempt has been made out.”

ORAL QUESTIONS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Tim Hudak: My question is to the Premier. Premier McGuinty and his Liberal government have become so out of touch they can no longer tell right from wrong. When asked to assess what he did wrong in reviving war measures for the G20 and then deciding to keep them secret from the general public, the Premier said, “We moved too quickly to provide that authority.”

Sir, your mistake was hardly pace; it was what the Ombudsman rightly called a premeditated, conscious plan to bring forward war measures and keep them secret from the general public. Premier, what made you think that you could get away with this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this yet again. I always appreciate the enthusiasm and the volume that characterize my honourable colleague’s interventions in this Legislature, but they’re not commensurate with the logic that ought to be there as well.

I’ll just reference my colleague to one particular paragraph in the Ombudsman’s report, where he says, “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose in” passing the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.... More fundamentally, the regulation had the laudable purpose of protecting participants from harm either from terrorist enemies or from protestors....”

I would encourage you, Speaker, and Ontarians as well, to reference the Ombudsman’s report when it comes to characterizing our activities as a government.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the Ombudsman’s report is rightly called Caught in the Act. The Ombudsman said that you had—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Notwithstanding that the report of the Ombudsman is a document of this Legislature, I’m concerned that it is being used in a manner—that it is being used as a prop within this chamber. I’ve noticed a number of members, as their honourable leader was speaking, holding that document up. I would just ask that they not engage in that activity, please.

Mr. Tim Hudak: In his report, Caught in the Act, the Ombudsman talks about how you had a premeditated plan to keep these war measures secret from the public.

Premier, you had a choice to have a debate in the Ontario Legislature about the extraordinary war measures you brought forward. You refused to put that before the House, and then you went further. You had a plan to keep it secret, and you said you were going to stick the blame on an inattentive media for not figuring this out. The public would only have true notice of these extraordinary war measures long after the G20 was over.

Premier, how in the world did you ever think you could get away with this?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to quote from the Ombudsman’s report, because my honourable colleague—although he has heard it, it has failed, to this point in time, to register in him internally.

That quote again is, “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose in” passing the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression....”

I might also add that it is passing strange for my honourable colleague, a gentleman who is absolutely committed to shutting down the Human Rights Tribunal in the province of Ontario, to stand up in this House and somehow pretend that he has a genuine interest in human rights. I remark, it is somewhat passing strange.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, the Ombudsman’s report, again, entitled Caught in the Act, says that on June 3, you passed extraordinary war measures. For three weeks, for 21 days, no one outside of your cabinet knew anything about the law you deliberately kept secret until the first arrest popped the lid and blew the story wide open.

At that point in time, some earnest and honest public servant drafted a press release to clarify the war measures law to the general public, but the Ombudsman says in paragraph 177, “By the end of the day, the ministry had decided to scrap the idea of” the press release.

I ask you, Premier, who gave the order to kill the press release and keep this secret from the public?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’ve had the opportunity to raise the comments offered by the Ombudsman on a number of occasions now. It’s interesting, again—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: It’s interesting, the new language and the new position adopted by my honourable colleague, who is pretzel-like in his ability to evolve—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier, I would just ask that you—

Mr. Toby Barrett: You’re the one without the spine.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’ll ask the Premier to withdraw his comment, please.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I withdraw that, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the member from Haldimand–Norfolk will withdraw the comment that he just made as well.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I withdraw the comment about the spine.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No.

Mr. Toby Barrett: I withdraw, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, a quote from the Ombudsman. He says, “Typically, international summits attract protests, and protests can turn violent and even deadly. The world’s leaders have also been subject to terrorist threats.”

At the time my honourable colleague referenced the need to “contain ... violent thugs,” but now he has an entirely different perspective. He would have us believe that he has become a champion of human rights. I’m not sure how he can reconcile that with his absolute determination to shut down the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal, which has been performing an absolutely valuable function for years on end; the tribunal that was supported, at one point in time, by the Progressive Conservatives here in Ontario. Apparently that party no longer exists.

I say to my honourable colleague, if you want to find out what happened at the G8 and the G20, read the Ombudsman’s report.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Tim Hudak: Back to the Premier: I know, Premier, that our questions are getting under your skin, but we are not going to give up. We are going to continue to fight on behalf of Ontario families, get to the bottom of this and make sure that Minister Bartolucci, who is responsible, gets the boot out of cabinet like he should.

Your minister, Minister Bartolucci, showed extraordinarily poor judgment in bringing forward this war measures act and then deciding to bury the truth from the public. For 21 days, Premier, your government conspired to keep the facts of the war measures a secret, and then when the ministry itself wanted to do a press release to explain this to the public, somebody, either you or your minister, gave the order to kill the press release. Here is a question that only the Premier can answer: Why don’t you fire Minister Bartolucci on the—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I understand how that line of questioning might serve my honourable colleague’s political interests, but I’m not sure at all how it serves the public interest. You’d think if it was that important, the Ombudsman would have made reference to that.

I will draw my honourable colleague’s attention to the following facts: He has been the Leader of the Opposition for 529 days. He’s attended 134 question periods. He’s asked over 800 questions. I would ask you to ask yourself on how many of those occasions, those individual 800 questions, he has ever advanced a practical, positive, progressive plan that speaks to schools for our families, health care for our families, a stronger economy for our families and a clean and safe environment for our families. The answer is zero. On not one single occasion has he stood up and spoken to a positive future for the families of Ontario.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Boy, everybody is antsy to get home for the holidays, nobody more so than the Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will please come to order.

Supplementary?

Mr. Tim Hudak: Frankly, that answer shows why this Premier has become so out of touch—that embarrassing answer on such a serious matter—and why Ontario families want to see change in the province of Ontario.

On June 7, according to the Ombudsman’s report Caught in the Act, an email to your office, Premier, says, “So long as we can stress as best we can that this should be kept under wraps”—your war measures act, your premeditated plan to keep it secret from the public. Premier, this is not a failure to communicate. It is a premeditated plan to keep it secret from the general public.

You went out there, and you advertised changes of hours during the World Cup when it came to drinking time. But when it came to a war measures act, historic in the province of Ontario, you kept it secret.

Is the reason the minister is still in cabinet because it was actually you—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I’ll reference my honourable colleague to the language used by the Ombudsman: “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose” in passing the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.”

Again, I say to my honourable colleague: 529 days, 134 question periods, over 800 questions, not a single positive proposal put forward. The only thing we know for sure is that they want to take $3 billion out of health care, they want to keep burning coal, they want to shut down full-day kindergarten, and they want to evict the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills from his seat.

Apart from those commitments, we’re not aware of any positive, progressive proposal they want to put forward on behalf of Ontario families.

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

Mr. Tim Hudak: Premier, seven and a half years, over 2,100 days, and you still refuse to take responsibility for your actions and your misguided decisions that are impacting on Ontario families.

You, Premier, and your cabinet obviously can no longer tell right from wrong; you are so consumed with maintaining power in the province of Ontario. Look at your sorry record in the last six months alone: You signed a secret Samsung deal; you brought forward a secret plan to teach sex ed classes as early as grade 1; you brought in a secret tax on hydro; you brought in, on Canada Day, secret eco taxes that hit Ontario families hard; and now your secret, illegal war measures act.

Premier, what makes you think you can get away with this kind of secrecy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: As they say, those who can, plan; those who can’t, criticize.

We’re experiencing an endless, relentless litany of criticism over the course of over 800 question periods. During that time, we’ve been working hard on behalf of Ontario families. In our schools, class sizes are down, test scores are up and graduation rates are up.

In our health care, we’ve got more MRIs, we’re got more CTs, we’ve got shorter wait times, more nurses and more doctors.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members from Renfrew, Lanark and Nepean–Carleton: I would like to hear the answer. I’m having difficulty hearing the answer over your interjections.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And the interjections from the member from Eglinton–Lawrence don’t help the situation either.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleagues maintain their pessimistic view of the world and our future here in Ontario. We continue to work hard to build a positive future for Ontarians.

As I was saying, in health care there are more doctors, more nurses, shorter wait times, more MRIs, more CTs. One million more Ontarians now have access to a family doctor.

Then there’s the economy. Take a look at the auto sector, for example. It is back on its feet. There are more jobs, more production and more exports. We’re working hard with the economy generally.

Then there’s our green energy policy—thousands and thousands of new jobs as we clean up the air and ensure we have a reliable supply of electricity. We will never stop putting forward positive plans that meet the needs and expectations of Ontario families.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Who did the Premier consult with before secretly passing his illegal and unconstitutional changes to the Public Works Protection Act?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, I want to reference my honourable colleague to the report prepared by the Ombudsman. It is lengthy, it is detailed, it is thorough, which is perfectly in keeping with the approach brought by the Ombudsman in all of these affairs. I think that when we’re looking to an authoritative characterization and definition of what we did as a government, it’s really important to take a look at that report.

I’d ask my honourable colleague to reference paragraph 221, where he said, “There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose” in passing the regulation “was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.... More fundamentally, the regulation had the laudable purpose of protecting participants from harm either from terrorist enemies or from protesters.”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: People expect their government to stand up for their interests. They expect representatives that they elect to be their voice, but after seven long years, this government has forgotten that. The secret decision to suspend civil liberties is just the latest example.

Last year, at this very time, the government was closing off debate on its decision to impose their unfair HST on an unwilling public. When did the Premier decide that he no longer has to listen to the people who sent him here?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague is complaining about an old law that’s been on the books for decades, and yet when they had the opportunity to review that law in 1990, they chose not to.

We’re doing a couple of things. First of all, we’re going to respond in full to the recommendations offered by the Ombudsman. Secondly, we’ve asked former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: The other thing we’re going to do, because we think it’s very important, is we’re going to await the findings and the recommendations of former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry with respect to the legislation in question. When we receive those recommendations, we will look at those in concert with the good ones put forward by the Ombudsman so that we can decide on a plan going forward. When we come up with that plan, I’m sure my honourable colleagues opposite will have an interest in that and we will ensure that they have the opportunity to speak to that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The McGuinty government has grown increasingly out of touch. When the government passed their illegal and unconstitutional G20 law, when they slapped their unfair HST on daily essentials, when they cut private power deals that drove up the cost of electricity they forgot all about the Ontarians who sent them here. When did the Premier decide that he no longer has to listen to them?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Every day my honourable colleague gets up and offers criticism. But the fact of the matter is that on over 80% of the bills that we introduced as legislation and passed, the NDP supported us. On our Not-for-Profit Corporations Act, they supported us; on our Water Opportunities Act, they supported us; on our Children’s Activity Tax Credit Act, they supported us; narcotics safety act, Ontario energy and property tax credit, pension benefits, broader public sector accountability, ticket speculation, the Ontario clean energy benefit—on 81% of the bills they in fact supported us.

The reason they’re doing that is because they understand that the fact of the matter is, we’re on the side of Ontario families. We’re fighting for their schools, their jobs, their health care, their future. In their heart of hearts they recognize that and I want to acknowledge that.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier acknowledged that he should have “taken the necessary time” to communicate the illegal and unconstitutional legislation that he secretly passed before the G20. If time was the factor, when does the government think they should have told people about the decision to secretly pass this law and suspend civil liberties?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Again, the Ombudsman’s report speaks for itself. We look forward to awaiting the report from Chief Justice Roy McMurtry. I will quote a bit more from the Ombudsman’s report because I think it helps set the context for the times.

In paragraph 7 he says, “It wasn’t that the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services didn’t mean well in promoting the use of the act through”—the regulation—“to assist Toronto police in maintaining security during the summit. Typically, international summits attract protests, and protests can turn violent and even deadly. The world’s leaders have also been subject to terrorist threats....

“Traditionally, these international summit meetings have served as magnets for large-scale and at times violent protests.... On the second day of the G8 meeting held in the United Kingdom in 2005, suicide bombers killed more than 50 people on the subway and on a bus in London.”

So that was the context. We were approached by the police to help them protect public safety. We responded quickly. In hindsight, I say we responded perhaps too quickly. We will learn from that, and we’ll learn from the recommendations put forward by Chief Justice Roy McMurtry and the Ombudsman.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: This Premier is trying to justify his unjustifiable behaviour.

On June 26, after the Toronto police chief claimed there was a so-called five metre rule in place and after the media had reported on it and after legal experts had notified both the chief and the government that the rule didn’t exist at all, the Premier issued a statement saying, “I want to thank our police officers for upholding the rule of law and keeping our community safe.”

How can the Premier seriously claim that his only problem was a failure to communicate when he never actually tried to communicate the facts or correct the misinformation?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think there’s a very important paragraph and I’ll reference it again; it’s paragraph 221. Notwithstanding the partisan perspective brought, perhaps understandably, by my honourable colleague, I think Ontarians are entitled to some disinterested, objective, impartial assessment of what took place. That’s why paragraph 221 is so important.

“There is no fair basis for suggesting that the ministry’s purpose in”—passing the regulation—“was to infringe or deny freedom of expression.... More fundamentally, the regulation had the laudable purpose of protecting participants from harm either from terrorist enemies or from protestors.”

That in fact was the sentiment and the thinking that informed our actions as a government. We accept the report of the Ombudsman and we look forward to the recommendations as well of former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: The Premier passed an illegal, unconstitutional law. He didn’t tell the public about it, even when the new law was miscommunicated and used to arrest hundreds and hundreds of innocent people.

If the Premier didn’t intend to mislead the public about his law, why did he go to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment she just made.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

If the Premier didn’t intend to mislead—didn’t intend to confuse the public about his law, why did he go to—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Rewithdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, Speaker.

If the Premier didn’t intend to obfuscate the reality about his law—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Withdraw.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I withdraw, but I cannot understand how I cannot state the facts about what this Premier did and didn’t do in the context of the G20. That is my job.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague has said—I think they made reference to illegality and unconstitutionality, and there has been no such finding made by either the Ombudsman—and we await the findings of former Chief Justice Roy McMurtry.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will withdraw the comment that he just made, because I know exactly what he’s alluding to.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I withdraw.

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to cite from paragraph 255 of the Ombudsman’s report, and it reads as follows: “To their credit, once it was apparent that the police had misconstrued the intent of the regulation, ministry officials were quick to seek assurance that the mistake would be corrected.”

Given the circumstances, we in fact moved quickly to ensure that people truthfully understood the intent of the legislation. Again, I appreciate the enthusiasm with which my honourable colleagues opposite—

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

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The city of Toronto wasn’t consulted by the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing before the extraordinary war measures law was passed. As the minister responsible for passing this law, this minister did nothing to ensure that Toronto municipal officials were informed. You should have resigned. Why didn’t you?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The honourable member knows that we don’t deal with points of order during question period, but the honourable member is also aware that any question directed to the Premier or a minister can be directed to the appropriate ministry to deal with the specific issues.

The Minister of Community Safety.

Hon. James J. Bradley: One thing I do know is that the officials of the city of Toronto were very much opposed to your federal friends imposing the G20 on the city of Toronto. When people were asked, virtually everybody I have heard from in the city of Toronto has indicated that they were very displeased that downtown Toronto was chosen as the site of the G20 summit because they recognized how difficult it would be to deal with a situation of this kind, bringing the 20 top terrorist targets—

Interjections.

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

Final warning to the member from Renfrew. To the Minister of Research and Innovation: There is no member above the rules within this House. If you have an issue with another honourable member in this place, don’t have the cross-discussion on this floor. Take it outside of this chamber.

Mr. Paul Miller: Yeah. Yeah.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The same applies to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: As I indicated, I did not know that the city of Toronto had invited the summit here. I listened to the representative of the city of Toronto at the time, who was Mayor Miller, who indicated that he thought it was a bad location for this particular summit because he recognized all of the possibilities, with the 20 top terrorist targets in the world in downtown—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: My question is: Why didn’t this minister resign? He’s refused to answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Member from Lanark, member from Oxford, member from Durham, member from Leeds.

Please continue, member from Burlington.

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is sitting there mouthing at us across the aisle. I don’t know why he doesn’t just stand up and speak.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Members will come to order. I think the ideal Christmas gift that every member of this House should receive is a copy of O’Brien and Bosc, about parliamentary practice and procedure and how we collectively should be dealing with one another in this House. I think it would be ideal reading for those blustery days between Christmas and New Year’s.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, don’t say it. I started to—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): But I honestly do. This is a very important place where each of us operates every day. Yes, you can look at the clocks, but that is the one tool that the Speaker has. The disruptions have been coming from all sides of the House today. This is the final question period and it is an important time, but at the same time, we cannot bring it to a level where we’re starting to deliver personal attacks on one another, and those are being hurled at each other from both sides of the House.

Member from Burlington?

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: In paragraph 15 of his report, the Ombudsman says that Toronto municipal officials didn’t inform citizens about the minister’s war measure law for the same reason that poor Mr. Vasey didn’t comply with the policy requests: “They simply didn’t know about it.”

Well, the minister was responsible for passing this law. This minister is responsible for embarrassing Toronto municipal officials by keeping the law secret from them. One way or another, this minister is accountable.

I’ll ask again: Will you resign and do the right thing?

Hon. James J. Bradley: It’s interesting to see the changing views of the Conservative Party on this issue. My good friend the leader of the official opposition wrote an excellent op-ed piece in the”—

Interjection.

Speaker of the House: A final warning to the member from Lanark.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I heard somebody giggle out there. It’s not a laughing matter; it’s very serious when any member of this House is warned.

Please continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: My good friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote, I thought, a very informative piece in the Toronto Sun on July 5. Today, he’s characterizing the law as a war measure, and he said it’s illegal and so on. On that day, in his column, he said, “I believe the public would have understood the necessity of these new powers to contain the violent—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just warned the member from Lanark. I have no choice but to name Randy Hillier, the member of Lanark–Frontenac–Lennox and Addington.

Mr. Hillier was escorted from the chamber.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And final warning to the Minister of Research and Innovation.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: With all the manufactured rage that I’ve heard about this today, I read an

article in the Globe and Mail on June 29, 2010, on page A13. I guess they’re talking about the government. It said, “Finally, they should thank their good fortune for an official opposition that clearly wants no part of the issue for fear of muddying its law-and-order credentials. While the provincial NDP has been vocal, Tim Hudak hasn’t touched it—”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable member that we use titles, notwithstanding quoting.

New question.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. Yesterday, the Premier scrambled to distance himself from decisions to pass an illegal and unconstitutional regulation under the Public Works Protection Act. But during the summit, while his secret law was being miscommunicated, he deliberately withheld key facts from the public. The day after the summit, the minister responsible told the press there was “no question” the government did the right thing.

Why should anybody now believe the Premier’s contrition?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I read with a good deal of interest the recommendations of the Ombudsman in terms of communication and other matters. The government has already indicated that communication could have been better in this instance.

But what I have undertaken with the Ombudsman—I had an excellent meeting with him where we discussed a number of issues contained in the report. I thought that the recommendations that he made were very helpful to the people of the province of Ontario. On behalf of the government, I gave an undertaking to implement each and every one of those recommendations.

Some of them also deal with what Justice Roy McMurtry will be dealing with as he reviews the Public Works Protection Act to determine what changes should be made or whether the act should be completely changed. I look forward with anticipation to Justice McMurtry’s deliberations and the recommendations which will be forthcoming.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Back to the Premier: The Premier has a moral and legal obligation to the people of this province. He failed them last June. He’s now scrambling to rewrite history, but the facts simply don’t change. He passed an unconstitutional and illegal law and deliberately hid the facts from the people. The people of this province can’t believe a word that comes out of this Premier’s mouth.

If he’s not afraid of the truth, why does he not simply call a full public inquiry into the scandal of the G20?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I would say that if the law were as the member characterized it, I wondered why in 1990, instead of simply increasing the penalties—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order. Member from Cambridge. The minister is right beside me, and I’m being challenged to hear him.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Instead of simply increasing the penalties under that law, which your government did as part of a legislative package—instead of replacing it, you simply increased the penalties. So if it were so egregious then, I wonder why you didn’t get rid of it.

I would like to note that the NDP, as recently as this week, has called for a federally led inquiry. You should perhaps talk to your federal members.

I notice, as well, that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association welcomed the appointment of Justice McMurtry, but they’ve also had to say that the G20 was a federal summit hosted by the federal government, policed by a federal security agency and paid for by federal funds. The federal government is therefore best suited to coordinate such an inquiry.

I inform the member that it would be wise for her to consult with her federal—

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

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Since last fall, we’ve heard members of the opposition party stand here in this House, time and time again, criticizing this government for their lack of attention and action when it comes to jobs and the economy.

Yes, our province, like many other jurisdictions around the world, has felt the negative effects of the most recent global downturn. The people of our province face some difficult times, and we know that we’re not out of the woods yet, but recent reports from Statistics Canada seem to tell a very different story than the opposition is telling. Last month alone, 31,200 new jobs were created in Ontario. Statistics Canada also reported last month that 87% of jobs lost in Ontario during the recession have been recovered. If you compare these numbers with the United States—

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

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I’m delighted to have this chance to respond to the member who works so hard and tirelessly for Peterborough. It’s been wonderful to work with this MPP.

We can see the effects of the Ontario government plan to build jobs and build communities in the city of Peterborough alone, with the great investment by General Electric—one of the world’s best companies—landing a greater footprint because of this member’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Sorry to interrupt, but there is a cross-floor discussion taking place between the government House leader and the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, who, by the way, is not in his seat and should be. I would just encourage these two honourable members, if they want to have this discussion, to please take it out of this chamber so that I can hear the honourable minister.

Minister?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Thank you, Speaker, for that.

Once again, to see the great strides that GE is making in Ontario because of the kind of advocacy by the MPP from Peterborough is heartening. We wish members opposite participated in building Ontario’s future.

Our jobs plan, just in the last two weeks alone, has seen the announcement of 2,500 jobs right across Ontario—in Tillsonburg, in Hamilton, in Windsor—

Interjection.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Yes, in Hamilton. The people in the steel industry of Hamilton are delighted by the support and advent of—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Final warning to the member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Please continue.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: With the advent of Max Aicher from Germany landing in Hamilton, I know the people of Hamilton are delighted by the support of our government for great jobs in Hamilton as well.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I was indeed working hard yesterday afternoon.

I also want to thank the Minister of Economic Development and Trade for her response. My constituents need to know that this government has a plan for the economy and jobs and that plan is working. The results we’ve seen over the last weeks speak volumes.

During these difficult times, we can’t have our elected representatives engaging in games and stunts. It’s an embarrassment.

We know that the opposition doesn’t have a plan for jobs and the economy. We know that they’re against the many job announcements just highlighted. We know that they’re against clean energy investments by international companies in our province and tax cuts for individuals, families and businesses. They’re against reducing the regulatory burden for the business community. They’re against cutting our hydro bills by 10%. So we can’t be sure these things are part of their plan. It’s for this reason that I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, what is this government’s plan to strengthen Ontario’s economy and keep Ontarians and Peterboroughians working?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I do hope that during the holidays the members of the opposition find a plan in their stocking, so that when we come back in the House again in February, they might actually have one.

In the meantime, we’re going to continue moving forward to help Ontario families, with things like our clean energy benefit, helping families and small business with a 10% reduction on their electricity bill; things like moving forward with junior kindergarten, building the workforce of the future for Ontario.

Yes, when we go to great cities like Hamilton, we’re going to talk about the great advent and future of great cities like Hamilton.

I appreciate the opportunity, and we look forward to your plan. I hope you do lots of work this Christmas. We want a plan.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to warn the Minister of Health Promotion about the use of props in the chamber.

Sergeant-at-Arms, will you collect the prop from the Minister of Health Promotion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And a final warning to the Minister of Health Promotion.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I can assure the honourable member from Cambridge that if somebody asks for unanimous consent for the House to continue to sit, there will be a no from the Speaker.

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. John Yakabuski: The party over there talks about stunts, but they’re treating this place like a comedy club. It’s disgraceful.

My question is for the Premier. Premier, for two days you have refused to answer any questions with respect to your role in passing your secret, unconstitutional G20 law. You’ve said it was a failure to communicate, but the Ombudsman caught you in the act, saying keeping it secret was a “conscious decision” by you.

Will you answer why you passed the G20 law and kept it secret, or agree to keep this House in session until you do?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Once again, I say to the member that I’ve heard the law characterized in a certain way—a very inflammatory way in this particular case.

I want to go back to this column. I think you should actually read the column from July 5. It’s a guest columnist; it is Mr. Hudak. I thought it was a very well-written piece. In it, it says this about the law that you’re now characterizing as an unconstitutional and illegal war measure: “I believe the public would have understood the necessity of these new powers to contain the violent thugs....”

Obviously, your leader happens to believe that the public would understand that. From that, I draw the conclusion that he agreed with the law that you are now characterizing—perhaps for political reasons; that’s not for me to judge. But now you’re characterizing—

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

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, on November 22, the government House leader moved motion 50 that, if passed, would allow the House to sit next week. The Ontario PC caucus is more than willing to give consent to extend the House sitting in order to get you to finally answer and explain why you passed the illegal G20 law and why you conspired to keep it secret from the general public. Will you either, for the last time, answer the question or instruct your House leader to extend the House sitting until you do?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to ask the honourable member to withdraw the comment that he made that was directed at the Premier, making an accusation against him.

Mr. John Yakabuski: I don’t know what it was, but I withdraw.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I would say to an honourable member, if they made an unparliamentary comment—

Hon. Christopher Bentley: I withdraw.

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

Minister?

Hon. James J. Bradley: The only thing I can think of, when you’re saying you want to extend the time of the House sitting, is that you may want some time to actually come up with a plan or something like that, and I fully understand that. But I can’t believe for a moment that there’s anybody sitting on the benches of the Conservative Party today who wants to sit here another week. I just don’t believe that.

In terms of the law that you talked about, the

article I made reference to in the Globe and Mail says, “While the provincial NDP has been vocal,” Mr. Hudak “hasn’t touched it—the Conservative leader joking about the protests during a speech to party faithful on Monday night, but offering no serious critiques.”

It seems to me that what’s happening is, in one part of the province, they want to be known as pussycats; in the other part of the province, they want to be known as junkyard dogs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’m going to ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment, please.

Hon. James J. Bradley: I would be pleased to withdraw that.

Nous sommes le 9 décembre et il n’y a toujours rien de fait. Pourquoi est-ce que le premier ministre permet qu’on ignore complètement les recommandations de notre commissaire, qu’on les envoie aux oubliettes, que son travail ne compte pas et que ses recommandations ne comptent pas non plus?

L’hon. Dalton McGuinty: Pour la ministre des affaires francophones.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Les Franco-Ontariens et Franco-Ontariennes sont bien contents de la mise en place du commissaire. M e Boileau est vénéré par la communauté francophone. Mais si la ministre n’écoute pas et ignore le commissaire, bien, tout est foutu.

Est-ce que le premier ministre est prêt à changer les pouvoirs du commissaire afin qu’il se rapporte directement à l’Assemblée législative et qu’ainsi, il soit pris au sérieux?

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Vic Dhillon: My question is for the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. In October 2007, I stood with the former Minister of Health and members of our Peel caucus and promised my constituents that Peel Memorial Hospital would not be permanently closed. Our government was so committed that we gave Peel Memorial Hospital $95 million for the redevelopment of this facility.

Minister, my constituents would like to know whether this government is still committed to the redevelopment of Peel Memorial Hospital.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: Thank you to the member for Brampton West and to all the members from Brampton for their strong advocacy on improving health care in their communities.

I am very happy to assure the member from Brampton West that we remain fully committed to a viable project to better meet the health care needs of the people of Brampton. There are a number of steps in the planning process. A major project like this does have several stages. As part of stage one of the capital planning process, the William Osler Health System submitted a proposal for redevelopment of the Peel Memorial Hospital site. I’m very pleased to say that the ministry has completed its review of William Osler’s proposal submission and has granted approval to proceed to the next stage.

We are committed to continuing the work in partnership with the William Osler Health Centre and the Central West LHIN to make this—

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

Mr. Vic Dhillon: Thank you, Minister. I’m pleased that you’ve confirmed our government’s commitment to this project.

I understand the party opposite has only one plan, and that plan is to cut $3 billion of our health care budget. Minister, can you please tell this House what these cuts would mean to my community?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member from Brampton West is absolutely right: When it comes to health care, the members opposite have only told us one part of their plan, and that’s to cut $3 billion. They’ve also told us that they’re going to silence the local voice in health care planning.

Let me give you one example of the impact of that. When we were elected in 2003, our emergency departments were in fact in crisis. Twenty-two of 25 hospitals in the GTA were closed to ambulances for days on end. The Toronto Star called it the worst ever in the GTA. We’ve turned that around. We do have a plan. We’re repairing the damage that was done and we’re moving forward.

When the Tories were in power, they cut funding to William Osler hospital by 8% in just two years. In stark contrast, we’ve increased funding by 68%. That means better and faster access to care for the people of Brampton—

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

HEALTH CARE SERVICES

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is for the Premier. For the past three months, I’ve been campaigning against the closure of medical laboratories in Stayner and Elmvale. In this province there are three companies who have a monopoly on diagnostic testing. One of those is LifeLabs, and, like the others, they rely on taxpayers to stay in business. In fact, we’re their only customers.

April Gamache, LifeLabs’s vice-president of operations, gave a speech in Atlanta last year on how to find “substantial cost savings” at a conference where the first three words of the flyer read, “Cash is king.” Premier, why is your government supporting companies that put cash before patients?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Health.

Hon. Deborah Matthews: The member opposite has raised what I think is a very important issue, and that is the adequacy of the health labs in this province to meet the needs of the people.

We are committed to reducing the incidence of diabetes or at least stopping the increase in diabetes. Part of that means that people have to access lab services more frequently. We are working to resolve the issue of access to lab services. It is something that is very much an issue we are working on.

I think it’s important to note that access to labs is part of our health care system. They are private companies that deliver this care, but I think we do have some responsibility to make sure people have access.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, on Friday my office spoke with Monette Greenway, LifeLabs’s vice-president of government relations. On the phone, Ms. Greenway confirmed that LifeLabs has no intention of permenantly reopening the Stayner laboratory that your government allowed them to close. When we asked about seniors on fixed incomes who now have to pay $80 to go from Creemore to Wasaga Beach and back just to get their blood checked, Ms. Greenway said that LifeLabs can’t worry about every patient.

Minister, it’s about time that your government started dealing with lab companies who understand rural Ontario and care about our constituents. Since LifeLabs is unwilling to commit to keep their Stayner location open on a permanent basis, will you show some leadership and revoke their licence—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development, final warning.

Please continue.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Minister, will you show some leadership and revoke their licence, take the money you were spending in Stayner and give it to another lab company who will do the job right?

Hon. Deborah Matthews: As I said in the first answer, this is an issue that is very concerning. It is under active consideration in my ministry right now.

But really, this is the party that really did an excellent job destroying our health care system. When we took office, you couldn’t find a family doctor who was taking new patients. When we took office, we had very serious problems around wait-lists. People were waiting two years and longer for access to procedures as simple as cataract surgery or hip replacement surgery.

We have worked very hard to repair the foundation of our health care system. If they have a plan to improve health care by cutting $3 billion out of it, I want to see that plan. You can’t stand on that side of the House and complain about—

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

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Niagara Parks Commission scandal continues to simmer, and the heat was turned up even higher yesterday when five members of this government voted to keep the scandal under wraps by rejecting the NDP’s motion to call in the Auditor General.

If this government is truly concerned about the alleged improprieties at the Niagara Parks Commission, why is it afraid to call in the Auditor General?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism.

Hon. Michael Chan: A decision was made, and we respect the commission’s decision. The committee recognizes that we are taking a very responsible approach to bring greater accountability and transparency to the agency.

We have a good plan. We have a strong chair. We have a strong vice-chair. We have an audit process under way to review the commission’s travel, meal and hospitality expenses, as well as its procurement activities. We will have a forensic audit in the coming months that will focus on several aspects of the commission’s operation. These actions reflect our government’s commitment to openness, transparency and accountability.

We are taking action to restore public confidence and we are taking action to move tourism in the Niagara region forward.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Even after repeated calls from the public, from the media and from New Democrats to bring in the Auditor General to get to the bottom of the Niagara Parks Commission scandal, this minister insists on burying his head in the sand.

Yesterday, his office stated that they would release a “summary of the government’s internal audits.” That’s about as transparen