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

December 2, 2010

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2010-Dec-02 (PDF)

L078 - Thu 2 Dec 2010 / Jeu 2 déc 2010

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 2 December 2010 Jeudi 2 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

ORAL QUESTIONS

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

ENERGY POLICIES

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

PUBLIC TRANSIT

ENERGY CONSERVATION

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

DRIVER LICENCES

ENERGY POLICIES

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MANUFACTURING JOBS

CORRECTION OF RECORD

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

DEFERRED VOTES

BROADER PUBLIC SECTOR

ACCOUNTABILITY ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 SUR

LA RESPONSABILISATION

DU SECTEUR PARAPUBLIC

TICKET SPECULATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA LOI

SUR LE TRAFIC DES BILLETS

DE SPECTACLE

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

STEPHEN PETRUCCELLI

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

EDGEWOOD VILLA

INTERNATIONAL DAY OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

SOLAR ENERGY PROJECTS

ARZ BAKERY

SEASON’S GREETINGS

WINE INDUSTRY

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REPEAL OF THE HIDDEN

ENERGY TAXES ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 ÉLIMINANT

LES TAXES CACHÉES IMPOSÉES

EN MATIÈRE D’ÉNERGIE

RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES

AMENDMENT ACT

(DAMAGE DEPOSITS), 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR

LA LOCATION À USAGE D’HABITATION

(DÉPÔTS POUR DOMMAGES)

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HOME CARE

MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS TREATMENT

HYDRO RATES

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

HYDRO RATES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

HYDRO RATES

IDENTITY THEFT

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

WEARING OF RIBBONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2010 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2010

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

JAMAICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

TAXATION

HAWKINS GIGNAC ACT (CARBON

MONOXIDE DETECTORS), 2010 /

LOI HAWKINS GIGNAC DE 2010

(DÉTECTEURS DE MONOXYDE

DE CARBONE)

JAMAICAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

TAXATION

The House met at 0900.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Good morning. Please remain standing for the Lord’s Prayer, followed by a moment of silence for inner thought and personal reflection.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2010 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

Mr. Bartolucci moved second reading of the following bill:

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): Debate?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: I will be sharing my time with the member from Etobicoke Centre. Before I get into my remarks, I would like to spend a few minutes thanking several people who worked so very, very hard on this particular piece of legislation.

If I had to compare this place to a school, there’s the principal and the vice-principal. The vice-principals here are called our parliamentary assistants. They don’t get the recognition or the credit they deserve. I know members on both sides of the House here will say how hard parliamentary assistants work. This is an example of the incredible dedication shown by Donna Cansfield, the member from Etobicoke Centre, who did so much during the formation of this bill. I certainly want to thank her.

I also want to thank our second parliamentary assistant, Lou Rinaldi, the member from Northumberland–Quinte West. The reality is, as Donna and I were removed from our ministry in order to ensure that this legislation was right, Lou had to do a lot of the heavy lifting within the ministry. I just want to thank him so much.

I would be remiss, as well, if I didn’t thank the incredible public servants we have in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, led by our deputy minister, Bill Forward; Janet Hope, our ADM; Melissa Thomson, the director of housing policy. They were critical to getting this piece right.

I also want to thank two former ministers, Jim Watson and Jim Bradley, who really worked hard on this legislation as well.

We have to do everything within the confines of the law, so Adam Lawlor from our legal branch was very, very important along this entire process.

Finally, I would be remiss if I didn’t thank Brian Teefy, who is the political policy adviser for my ministry. He worked so, so very hard.

Publicly, to all those individuals, thank you so much. And thanks to the many people across the province of Ontario at 13 centres who took

part in the consultation process.

Our government is looking to be more resourceful and strategic in developing real solutions in light of the fiscal pressures we all face. The proposed Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act, 2010 and related long-term affordable housing strategies introduce a package of initiatives that will transform the face of affordable housing in Ontario. It provides a solid foundation and the necessary framework to work with our housing partners to provide safe, affordable housing choices for Ontarians.

As David Rennie, president of the Ontario Municipal Social Services Association, has said, “This strategy articulates the province’s recognition of the importance of strong partnership and collaboration with municipalities in the area of housing.” And as Sharad Kerur, executive director of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, has said, “This strategy, and the accompanying legislative reforms, should create much-needed local flexibility, allowing communities to better engage the power of community-based non-profit housing providers in meeting local housing needs.”

Affordable housing plays a critical role in addressing many of the province’s most pressing challenges. It helps to lift low-income families out of poverty by reducing the cost of housing and freeing up income to pay for other family needs such as food and clothing. There is widespread evidence that safe, adequate and affordable housing is a key factor in determining health, and has a positive impact on the educational achievement of children and families.

According to the Canadian Council on Social Development, children living in adequate housing have significantly higher overall health and do better in school than those living in inadequate housing. Affordable and social housing also provides the opportunity to build stronger communities and neighbourhoods.

The redevelopment of Regent Park in Toronto is one example that illustrates the positive impact of building communities that are well-integrated, have local community services and supports, and attract investment.

In addition to the social benefits of investing in affordable housing, there is also a significant economic impact. New affordable housing units typically generate 2.2 person-years of employment per unit. An investment of $100,000 in social housing renovation creates 1.8 person-years of work per unit. For example, the $1.2-billion housing funding that was announced in the 2009 budget is estimated to create 23,000 jobs.

Housing is important to the people of Ontario, and housing matters for many reasons. There are too many people living on the streets, perhaps trapped by mental illness or addiction. There are too many children in Ontario who worry about when they will have to move again and change schools. There are too many people in Ontario who can’t find a home where they can manage their disability and live independently.

Housing matters, because if a person can have a home, they can have dignity, they can care for their family, they can be involved in their community, they can get an education and they can get a job and plan for the future.

Let me spend a few seconds talking about the vision, principles and pillars that this legislation depends upon. The vision that has guided our strategy reflects this: to improve Ontario’s access to adequate, suitable and affordable housing, and to provide a solid foundation on which to secure employment, raise families and build strong communities.

As the strategy is long-term in reach and broad in scope, it will be guided by six key principles.

The first principle is that this strategy is people-centred, meaning that housing programs, services and supports should be based on a people-first approach that focuses on positive results for individuals and families.

The strategy is partnership-based. Housing in Ontario requires strong partnerships between all levels of government, non-profit and co-operative housing providers, and the people who require housing support to build healthy, sustainable and inclusive neighbourhoods.

Third, the strategy is locally driven, meaning that affordable housing must be locally relevant and provided in a supportive environment that includes access to jobs, community resources and services.

The strategy is supportive, as housing policy in Ontario should help those who are in need of housing to move into permanent, affordable housing with appropriate support services.

The strategy is inclusive, meaning that all persons have the right to equal treatment and protection from discriminatory practices that limit their housing opportunities.

The strategy is fiscally responsible and needs to reflect fiscal circumstances as they evolve to promote a diverse housing marketplace that helps Ontarians access affordable housing.

We have listened to our stakeholders and partners, and that has helped us shape our long-term strategy that focuses on results for people. The strategy sets the stage for a transformed affordable housing system built on four key pillars: putting people first, creating strong partnerships, supporting affordable options and accountability.

The strategy builds, in particular, on our strong partnership with municipalities. In 2008, the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review reached a landmark agreement that will provide municipalities with a net benefit of $1.5 billion annually by 2018. The review was a wide-ranging initiative that examined the provincial-municipal relationship in order to improve the delivery and funding of services for Ontarians. Our long-term strategy builds on many recommendations from the review, including working together to build locally managed housing services, a stronger focus on positive results for people and simplifying the delivery of income assistance supports.

One of the consensus recommendations that resulted from the review was the need for the province to work with its municipal partners “towards consolidating the existing range of housing and homelessness programs into a housing service managed at the municipal level.” The consolidation of housing and homeless programs is a cornerstone of our strategy that will allow funding to be used in a more flexible manner to address local housing needs.

Affordable housing is also an important part of Ontario’s poverty reduction strategy, which concluded in 2008 that the province needed to work with its housing partners to make it easier for families to find and maintain affordable housing. In 2009, we held extensive province-wide consultations to hear from the public, our partners and stakeholders about different perspectives on the housing system. We held 13 different public consultation sessions in communities across Ontario.

Our consultations told us that the current housing system is too complicated and overly restrictive. We heard that there are too many programs with too many rules with too much red tape that do too little for the people they’re supposed to serve. We also heard that the current system does not adequately address local needs and local priorities.

During our consultations, it became very clear that the existing issues within the housing system are highly complex and that a multi-pronged response to address legislative, program and service delivery challenges was required. Through these consultations, Ontarians, municipalities and stakeholders—the people on the front lines who use and deliver housing services—have helped shape the long-term strategy.

The need for a long-term affordable housing strategy has been a long time coming for Ontario. In the late 1990s, the province transferred responsibility for social housing to the municipal part, as part of the local services realignment. In order to facilitate devolution, the province created 47 municipal and district social services administrative bodies, known as service managers, that are responsible for the management of housing services across the province. At that time, the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, was introduced as a mechanism to implement the transfer of social housing to service managers.

The Social Housing Reform Act was developed to ensure that the province had sufficient oversight as service managers transitioned to a new responsibility as the primary funders and administrators of social housing. This legislation, we found out, was highly prescriptive, complex and an administrative burden. It was like Big Brother was overseeing what the municipalities were doing, which is why we need better legislation that also reflects current realities in the housing system.

Over the past 10 years, service managers have developed the capacity and experience to manage and administer social housing programs, services and supports. We thank them for that. Service managers have embraced their role as the service system managers for housing programs and are best positioned to assess local needs, set local priorities and integrate services. This was confirmed by the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review. Our proposed new legislation would more fully recognize local government as a capable, responsible and accountable order of government.

The heavy-handed restrictions in the Social Housing Reform Act, whether intended or unintended, are no longer necessary and limit the ability of service managers to develop housing solutions that best meet local needs.

This does not mean that we are abandoning our interest in housing. In fact, through the proposed legislation the province is strengthening accountability through a new shared accountability framework with service managers. The proposed legislation would set out key provincial interests that service managers must address in developing new local housing and homelessness plans. The province will also work with service managers to develop local performance measures to track progress in implementing these local plans and will help ensure that there is strong mutual accountability between service managers and the province. This is truly a partnership.

Over the past seven years, the McGuinty government has re-engaged in the housing area because we understand that stable, affordable housing opens doors for a better future for Ontario families. Our government has developed various new programs and made significant investments in affordable housing, and we have worked with our municipal and federal partners to provide more housing supports to those in need. Under our government, the largest affordable housing agreement in Canadian history was signed with the federal government.

However, despite our significant investments, additional work is required to ensure that the range of housing and homelessness programs, supports and services work better. The current system of housing and homelessness services is highly complex, involving federal, provincial and municipal funding, and cost-sharing arrangements with a variety of service delivery partners involved in overlapping human services. There are too many programs, each with their own design, rules, eligibility and target groups.

In this sort of environment, with narrow program parameters, service providers can struggle to help people with complex needs. Those in need can find it difficult and discouraging to gain access to complicated and uncoordinated programs.

This strategy, thankfully, introduces a number of policy initiatives that are centred on producing positive results for individuals and families. It recognizes that local flexibility offers the best path to address the diverse needs across our province in order to build healthy, strong communities. The proposed new legislative framework would be more responsive to local needs.

A good housing strategy must be about people, neighbourhoods and communities, rather than what best suits government. Under the strategy, service managers would develop multi-year housing and homelessness plans that reflect provincial interests and address local housing and homelessness needs. This approach would also accommodate the specific housing needs of different areas of the province, such as rural and northern Ontario, where a unique housing response is often required.

Service managers would also have a more active role in policy and the design and delivery of local programs, supports and services. For example, under our strategy, funding that must currently be used for shelter beds could instead be used to house a person in more stable and affordable housing, and the remaining funds can be used to provide additional social supports for the now housed individual. By giving our municipal partners that flexibility to use provincial funds in a way that makes sense at the local level, people will have a real opportunity to improve their lives.

This is a real example of how our innovative people-first strategy would work. Housing programs would be flexible and tailored to different needs, and tax dollars would be used more efficiently. Paul Johnson, the director of Neighbourhood Development Strategies—

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: A good guy.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The Minister of Revenue says he is a good guy. I met him for the first time on Tuesday; he is a wonderful guy.

Hon. Sophia Aggelonitis: He does a lot for Hamilton.

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: Yes, he works with the city of Hamilton. He has said, “Consolidating existing funding portfolios will provide opportunities for communities to develop innovative solutions that can ensure stronger outcomes for the unique needs of the people they serve.” It makes sense.

We would also put people first by reforming the rent-geared-to-income calculation process. Under the current system, a tenant living in a rent-geared-to-income unit must declare every time their income changes, which can result in immediate increases—immediate increases—in their rent. This can make it very difficult to get ahead. It creates barriers and provides disincentives to work. It also means that service managers have to spend a lot of their resources and time on administering the rent-geared-to-income system.

Our legislation, if passed, would simplify the rent-geared-to-income calculation process. In most instances, tenants would only declare their income once a year, allowing them to use extra money to increase their standard of living, rather than having it clawed back on their rent—something that is clearly a disincentive. As Mary-Anne, a single mother living in Ontario, has said, “My dream is home ownership. With this change to the way the rent is calculated, it will make it that much easier to do so. I know there are lots of people who need to live in a place like this.

If I can move out and give someone else the opportunity that I have had by living in a co-op on rent geared to income, that would be fantastic.” She has lived the experience and welcomes the change.

As a province, we are working to ensure the sustainability of public services. We need to be concerned not just with spending the dollars we have a responsibility for today, but thinking about how to manage current programs, activities and resources in a way that can be sustained over time.

To help put things into perspective, this strategy comes at a time when Ontario and the rest of the world are adapting to the fiscal realities of the recession. Governments are experiencing higher demand for social supports while at the same time coping with a lower revenue base. Over the last few weeks, we have heard about the drastic cuts governments around the world are making to housing and other human services. While the current fiscal circumstances limit our ability to make additional investments in housing at this time, affordable housing remains a significant priority for our government.

The strategy provides a foundation and direction for future investments and focuses on doing better with existing resources.

While a significant milestone, Ontario’s long-term affordable housing strategy is the beginning of a journey to deliver real housing solutions for Ontarians. The future of housing depends on adequate, sustained funding, which is why a long-term commitment is needed from the federal government as well. The lack of long-term sustainable funding limits the ability of housing providers to plan long term and fully participate in capital projects that build more affordable housing.

I think it’s a well-known fact that Canada is the only G8 country without a national housing strategy. We need the federal government to lead a coordinated national response to address the need for adequate housing across Ontario. Ontario will be a willing partner in that. We also call on our fellow provincial and territorial counterparts to join our efforts to engage the federal government to create a housing framework that includes long-term, flexible funding for affordable housing. It’s very important that we do so, each province, each territory and our country as a whole, and so we reinforce the need for a federal long-term affordable housing strategy.

Our long-term strategy is an extension of Ontario’s commitment to affordable housing and is about making our investments work better for people. Over the past few years, our significant investments in affordable housing have helped families and individuals in communities across Ontario.

Here are some of the ways we’ve done that: More than $2.5 billion has been invested to build and repair over 200,000 units of affordable and social housing; more than 35,000 rent supplements have helped low-income Ontarians pay their rent, which includes a $50-million short-term rent support program that will be available in 2011; and more than $430 million is invested in annual operating funding for housing and homelessness services. These programs and services have clearly made a real, positive impact for people and communities.

Now we are focusing on making even better use of the resources at our disposal to ensure that housing programs and services produce the best possible outcome for Ontarians.

This plan continues our government’s commitment to develop good public policy that creates opportunities for people to achieve their full potential. As Keith Ward, the president of the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, has said, “The long-term affordable housing strategy is an important moment in the history of affordable housing in Ontario.”

I’d now like to pass my time over to my very hard-working parliamentary assistant, Donna Cansfield, the member for Etobicoke Centre.

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

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: Thank you, Minister. In our 2007 platform, this government made a commitment to create a long-term strategy for affordable housing in Ontario. Today we are making good on that commitment.

You heard the minister speak about how our consultation on this strategy told us that the current housing system is too complicated and that it creates barriers for people in need. The people who deliver housing programs told us they were unable to develop the best possible services because of dated provincial rules.

Last year, this government held consultations in several communities across our province. Over 1,100 Ontarians attended these consultations, and we received over 100 formal submissions from housing stakeholders and organizations. We also held specialized round table sessions which included landlord and tenant organizations, municipalities, home builders associations, social and co-operative housing organizations, seniors’ organizations, aboriginal partners and social advocacy groups. Our approach to developing this long-term strategy was inclusive, it was comprehensive, and it was thorough.

I would like to thank the dedicated individuals and organizations that helped shape this long-term strategy. Their expertise is respected, and their commitment to improving lives and building strong communities helps to make Ontario a great place to live.

Some of the key issues that were identified through the consultation process include, one, the need to reform the existing social housing legislation; secondly, the need to increase local flexibility to deliver and to promote affordable housing opportunities; and, third, the desire to work closely with and engage the federal government to seek long-term support of affordable housing. I would like to speak briefly about each of these issues.

In terms of legislative reform, it was very evident from our consultations that a far more strategic legislative framework was needed for affordable housing in Ontario. Ten years ago, the province got out of the housing business. Local service realignment represented the largest reorganization of provincial and municipal responsibilities in the history of Ontario. The Social Housing Reform Act was used to facilitate the transfer of funding and administration for social housing to municipalities.

The McGuinty government re-engaged in housing. Under our government, record investments in affordable housing have taken place. We’ve also recognized that the Social Housing Reform Act, with all of its many rules and regulations, and which goes on for hundreds of pages, is far too cumbersome. We heard from many of our partners and stakeholders as well; they felt the same.

Our new legislative framework would be people-centred and provide a strong foundation for moving forward. It would chart government direction for new investments. It will provide a coherent plan for addressing housing needs across the housing continuum from homelessness to mortgage-free ownership and to inform federal-provincial negotiations so that federal money is spent as efficiently and quickly as possible to benefit those Ontarians in need.

Our government is proposing a new bill that introduces proposed new affordable and social housing legislation and also proposes to amend provisions in the Planning Act and the Residential Tenancies Act. We have introduced new legislation in this Legislature that, if passed, would transform the way housing and homelessness services are delivered, focusing on achieving better outcomes for people. This new legislation would provide a single overarching policy direction for affordable housing. It would have clear linkages to the homelessness prevention and support systems.

It will clearly define the new provincial role as a steward of Ontario’s housing system. This would mean setting out provincial interests to be respected in community housing plans, introducing new indicators to measure progress of these plans and establishing a shared accountability framework with municipalities that would oversee the system.

If enacted, the new enabling legislative framework for social housing would replace the Social Housing Reform Act, 2000, and eliminate redundant provisions tied to the transfer of housing programs which are no longer necessary. The legislation would streamline other sections to simplify administration.

The new legislation would provide opportunities for service managers to more effectively manage their portfolios. It would ensure appropriate accountability measures are in place to better respond to the needs of low-income households and the social housing sector, and it would create new opportunities for tenants to save money and to become more self-sufficient.

There was a need to increase local flexibility in the housing plan, and a key part of our strategy is to establish more local flexibility to deliver better housing services to our communities. Our strategy will be flexible and consider the diversity of communities of all sizes, be they urban, rural, in the north or the Far North, because different communities have different priorities and different needs. Ontario will work closely with municipalities to ensure that we meet the unique needs of diverse communities.

By establishing clear roles and responsibilities, and by measuring our progress, we will ensure that housing services are affordable and effective. Both municipalities and the province, through the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review, recognize that local solutions provide the best outcomes for those in housing need and that service managers have developed the capacity and experience to manage housing programs, services and supports.

In developing the long-term housing strategy, we have been working in close collaboration with our municipal partners, and their input has been instrumental in shaping this strategy.

Our proposed legislation would set out for the first time the provincial interest in relation to Ontario’s system of housing and homelessness programs. The provincial interest would focus on achieving positive outcomes for individuals, families and communities through a coodinated, accountable system that treats people with respect and with dignity. It would recognize the role of municipal players, multiple players, in providing local housing and homelessness services.

Under our proposed legislation, service managers would be responsible for establishing a local vision for housing and for those homelessness services through the development of a multi-year local housing and homelessness plan. The requirement for these plans is a key element of our new accountability framework and is consistent with the Provincial-Municipal Fiscal and Service Delivery Review.

It was recommended that communities engage in integrated human services planning. These plans would provide the foundation for consolidation of housing and homelessness programs. They would provide municipalities with more flexibility, enabling them to direct housing and homelessness resources more effectively to where they are needed most. They would ensure that planning for housing is done in a coordinated fashion with other local planning, such as land use planning, human services planning and infrastructure planning.

Our proposed legislation would require that local plans reflect provincial interests and be developed through consultation with the public. To enhance accountability, each service manager will be required to report on specific performance measures. These plans would guide local housing services for at least 10 years and would need to be reviewed at least every five years.

These changes would be rooted in a new partnership with municipalities, recognizing the critical role that municipalities have in delivering housing services to Ontarians and allowing them to do their job more effectively.

I would like to briefly discuss a few other key elements of our strategy in the proposed legislation.

The new act would provide for the delivery of new, cost-effective services for the housing sector through an expanded mandate for the current Social Housing Services Corp. Under the proposed legislation, the Social Housing Services Corp. would be renamed the Housing Services Corp. It would continue to be an independent, non-profit organization, responsible for managing and administrating cost-effective goods and services to its members.

Currently, the corporation has a prescribed mandate in legislation. It is unable to offer new services to housing providers and social housing tenants. As part of our commitment to create stronger partnerships, this legislation would provide the Housing Services Corp. with an expanded mandate to also offer optional access to its services, as appropriate, to affordable and supportive housing providers and tenants. It would also be able to offer additional optional services and supports that will help tenants and housing providers, such as energy-efficiency initiatives, tenant property insurance and tenant financial education.

I would also like to note that through enabling provisions in the proposed legislation, the Housing Services Corp. would work with service managers to pilot an asset-building program that would help tenants living in social housing to plan for their future and to become more self-sufficient. Tenants would save money for specific purposes, such as training and education, without reducing their rent-geared-to-income assistance. This would potentially remove disincentives to seeking employment and education opportunities, and it would improve economic outcomes for low-income households.

We are also planning amendments to the Planning Act that would require municipalities to establish policies allowing second units in new and existing developments. This would provide more affordable options for lower- and moderate-income households and for elderly parents or live-in caregivers. These units can provide additional income for homeowners such as first-time homebuyers and would help them with their mortgage payments. A reference to affordable housing would be included in the matters of provincial interest in

part II of the act, and the period of time for which a bylaw may authorize the temporary use of a garden suite would be increased from 10 years to 20 years.

These changes would further expand affordable housing opportunities. They would build on the range of planning and financial tools that are currently available to municipalities that encourage affordable housing, including property tax exemptions for municipal housing facilities, loans and grants, and establishing affordable housing targets through official plans.

Finally, the proposed legislation and our long-term strategy would help tenants in a number of other ways, a couple of which I will highlight. There will be a new local and more independent review of certain decisions they feel are unfair and unreasonable. Housing providers would also have access to this review process.

Our government would continue to support victims of domestic violence by retaining the special priority policy that gives them priority on the social housing waiting list. We will also work with municipalities and housing providers to identify additional options to meet the needs of victims of domestic violence. Service managers would also be required to include a plan for housing special-priority-policy applicants as part of their comprehensive local housing and homelessness plans.

We have developed a strategy that will, in good and in lean economic times, achieve more with existing resources by retooling and enhancing the existing system so that it better meets the needs of the people it serves.

However, housing depends on adequate sustainable funding, and we need the federal government to make a long-term commitment. Unlike many industrialized countries, Canada has never had a national housing strategy or a housing framework. Currently, the federal funding for housing is short-term, program-specific and declines over time under specific agreements. That is why, with support from our municipal partners, the province continues to call upon the federal government to develop a housing framework based on a long, stable funding commitment.

We have often partnered with the federal government to ensure that Ontarians have more access to affordable housing throughout the province. But long-term sustainable funding is integral to the success of an affordable housing system that supports the need both today and tomorrow.

Our long-term strategy is an extension of Ontario’s commitment to affordable housing. Over the past few years, our significant investments in affordable housing have helped hundreds of thousands of families and individuals in communities right across Ontario. In addition, Ontario invests approximately $430 million in annual operating funding for housing and for homelessness services. These ongoing funds support important programs and services such as emergency hostels, supportive housing that provides additional assistance for people in need and the provincial rent bank, which has prevented more than 23,800 evictions to date.

This government understands that affordable housing opens doors to a better future, and that’s why, despite significant global economic challenges, we have not removed a single penny of the funds earmarked for housing. Record investments notwithstanding, we heard from people across the province that Ontario can do better and we agreed.

We’ve made significant investments in the housing system, but we understand there is still more to be done. Our efforts to improve the housing system are ongoing and we will continue to work with our partners and our stakeholders moving forward, understanding that transforming the housing system is a long-term commitment.

I had the pleasure recently of spending some time with Neil Hetherington and Habitat for Humanity. One of the most outstanding pieces of information that I received from him was that in the approximately 1,800 homes that have been built for families—typically, these are modest-income families in need or people who have no home—there is a 98% rate where the young people who now have stable housing have gone on to finish their high school education, but more importantly, have gone on to post-secondary education in one form or another; 98%.

So that small piece of research tells us how important housing is to providing a stable life for our young people so that they, in turn, have a future, enabling them to get out of that circle of poverty; enabling them to dream like each of our children have over the years of what they can do, where they can go and who they can become. So housing is a really important part of the social fabric of Ontarians.

It’s an extraordinary part of the policy and the commitment of the Liberal government, our government, to move forward and say, “What is it that we can do, given our times, to make a difference in the lives of a lot of people?”

I started years ago with something called Beatrice House, when I discovered, in a really inadvertent way, that there were more than 1,000 homeless families on the streets in Toronto. I couldn’t quite grasp that there were 1,000 homeless families. I’d heard of homeless people, of course; you see them on the street, and you knew about the shelters, but I’d never thought about the impact of children not having a place to rest, a place to eat, a place to go to school, a place they could call home.

Having been a school trustee, I was well aware of the challenges of children who have had multiple places where they’ve stayed. Often their schooling fell apart because they tend to fall through the cracks. But I was overwhelmed by the fact that we had these folks on the street.

I was blessed to be able to work with Dr. Fraser Mustard and many others—the Honourable Margaret Norrie McCain—and to be part of a group who put together Beatrice House, which is now run by the YWCA in a former school in Toronto. Over the years, we’ve been able to provide for them—we being the people of Ontario, as well as social benefactors—an opportunity for children to have a place they can call home while their moms—typically, it’s moms—get a better education, get social services support, have that envelope that supports them as they move forward and, ultimately, get a job, get back into society and provide that stability for their children. That’s what housing is all about.

That’s why we’ve made the kind of commitment we have. That’s why we’ve listened to the people who are on the ground, making a difference day to day, as they told us the system we had in place was far too cumbersome, with too many rules, too many regulations and too many burdens that didn’t enable them to have the flexibility that they needed. Whether they lived in Wawa or Cornwall or Windsor or Toronto, one size doesn’t fit all. They needed to have that flexibility.

One of the other things we’ve forgotten about when we talk about homelessness is that we unfortunately also have homeless seniors. We have people who need social housing as they grow older. They don’t have a place to live. So we’re looking at the whole spectrum. Homelessness is not just restricted to a particular age group; it can actually go across all Ontarians.

I know that each of us feels the same in that we want to do whatever it is we can to help those less fortunate. It’s just part of who we are; I think it’s in our DNA. We want to make a difference. I don’t think there’s anybody in this House who doesn’t believe that there is a place for social housing in this province. The issue is, how do we work together effectively and efficiently with the providers, with the service managers, knowing our restrictions, to start a strategy?

I say start a strategy that will take us to where we ultimately want to go, and that is to be able to provide adequate housing, adequate social housing, rent-geared-to-income housing, supporting those people who just need a hand up for a little while till they get their feet on the ground and a job established. That’s part of who we are and what we want to do.

Thank you very much for allowing me this opportunity to discuss the long-term housing strategy on behalf of the province of Ontario.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: I agree with the member’s final words regarding this House: It’s what we all want. The fact of the matter is, this bill doesn’t do it.

One of the main things that municipalities need and want, in order to manage properly not only their housing situation but also the rest of their municipal agenda—one thing that they do need is they need to know what kinds of monies they’re getting from the provincial government on an ongoing basis, on a year-to-year basis, and this bill doesn’t do it. It doesn’t give them any assurance that there’s any funding. Any funding that may come out of this bill is dependent on federal sharing, and that puts it in someone else’s hands.

There’s no guarantee; there’s not even an intelligent projection that the municipalities can do in order to determine how much money they’re going to have to spend next year or the year after or down the road. You can’t build a good prototype, you can’t build a system, without knowing how it’s going to be funded.

Although the words are good in this bill, and I’m sure it will have some support from the municipalities, because it does include allowing the municipalities—for any funds they do get, they can be flexible with those funds. They don’t have to go into specific silos, which is good. It gives the municipalities some credit for having some intelligent people working there who can determine where they best need to put that money, because every municipality is different and you can’t treat them all the same. So the municipalities will like that flexibility.

But it doesn’t give them any assurance of funds, or a formula for those funds, into the future, and that’s too bad. I think the government missed an opportunity.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To put it simply, not one of those thousand homeless families will find housing because of this. Not one person or family of the 140,000 families that are waiting for housing will find housing because of this. Not one of the 250,000 folk in Ontario who pay more than 50% of their income on rent will find any solace in this.

In fact, of the 485 housing stakeholders who consulted for over six months and submitted a thousand submissions, none of them are happy either. They asked for five distinct actions on behalf of this government. The government has failed on all five: no new units, not one; no money, not a dollar; no rent supplements—asked for by everyone; no inclusionary zoning provisions, or the ability for municipalities to get that, which is what the municipalities have asked for.

All this does—and it really only promises to do it; it doesn’t actually do it—is simplify rent geared to income. That’s the only actually positive step. And yes, it gets rid of some of the red tape.

This is a shameful, laughable attempt to placate those who have been calling for three years for a housing strategy. Four housing ministers we’ve seen come and go with this government, and again, we’re not looking at one new unit, one new dollar. Guess what? In March 2011, the federal government is getting out of the business. The money is going to drop even further.

We’re dealing with homelessness as a national disaster in the city of Toronto, the GTA, and this bill will do absolutely nothing to address that. That’s the reality. The small, slight little changes they’ve made are simply that: an admission of ineffectiveness.

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

Mr. Lou Rinaldi: I would like to add a couple of minutes of my comments to the minister’s and the parliamentary assistant’s leadoff on this particular new piece of legislation.

I just want to go back a little bit and say that during the consultation process—I’m going to go back prior to the housing, to the poverty reduction strategy that the Premier put in place back in 2007-08; I was part of that group. We consulted not only across Ontario but across Canada and some places outside of Canada, and housing was always a big issue.

Fast-forward to the consultations that then Minister Watson initiated to come up with some strategy. We need to remember that housing was sort of handed out to the municipal sector very much in a straitjacket, with very little flexibility. So during the consultations that were initiated by then Minister Watson, I attended a number of them, and I had some of my own in my riding. One of the things that kept coming up over and over again is that it’s not all about money all the time. Yes, money plays a big role in this. There’s money that governments of all levels are investing in housing, but as most governments normally do, we form these boxes and not everybody fits into that box.

We talk about the homeless in the streets of Toronto who are sleeping on the sidewalks. In the communities where I come from, there’s not much of that, but there are people in Concession 21 of Brighton township who have no car, have no means of transportation, so we need to give the flexibility to those communities to do what they do best and be good providers.

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

Seeing none, the honourable member for Etobicoke Centre has two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Donna H. Cansfield: I’m pleased to be able to stand, and I appreciate the comments that have come, but the fact of the matter is we’re putting $450 million annually into the programs dealing with housing and homes.

There’s no question there is a deficit, but part of the deficit results from the fact that the previous government cancelled 17,000 units. That’s a reality check. If you cancel it and you don’t do anything for 10 years, obviously you are going to have a deficit, and we inherited that deficit. So we’re going to try to do something about it.

I don’t care which party is in power. We have a $20-billion deficit that we need to deal with. What we have been able to do is find a way, working with the municipalities—remember the previous government downloaded to municipalities; we’re uploading, working with them—trying to find solutions considering exactly what we’ve got to be able to work with.

I think it’s particularly important that we met with the service managers, 47 of them, and asked them what it was that they needed to be able to provide the housing needs in their communities. The greatest thing they need is flexibility, and they needed the red tape to start the process of how to do this better, given the circumstances they are working in. And that we did. This bill actually provides a host of opportunities to start the process, recognizing that there is in fact more to do.

I think it’s also important to say that we have 22,000 new units under way, $1.2 billion worth of investment; overall, a $2.3-billion investment this government has made into housing in this province. You can’t take that away. That’s exactly what we’ve been able to do. I think that shows our commitment on how we are going to move forward, but absolutely, given our reality, we are working within our means, which is exactly what every Ontarian would like us to do. I think that this is—

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

Mrs. Joyce Savoline: I’m pleased to stand and begin my comments on Bill 140 this morning,

an act that’s called the Strong Communities through Affordable Housing Act; the

short title, of course, is the Housing Services Act.

I must say that this piece of legislation and the corresponding plan, Building Foundations: Building Futures, have been long awaited. They were promised seven years ago. They’ve been three years in the making, and given the great expectation, this is, by all accounts, a backtrack.

I was more than surprised at the way this government chose to release these two documents. Let me just run through the events of the past few days. On Monday, November 29, the government quietly, and definitely without any notice to my office as critic, released their long-term affordable housing plan, Building Foundations: Building Futures. Although the title indicates that the government is building, the plan doesn’t propose to build any new housing developments. It doesn’t provide any funding to a housing subsidy. It doesn’t propose any new programs. Most importantly, it doesn’t reduce the numbers on the current social housing waiting list.

After three years’ time, I think we are safe to say that this report does not achieve the goals that it was expected to achieve. This government’s affordable housing plan shows no initiative. There are no new real ideas and, as we have seen many times before, this plan, too, includes dependency on federal funding.

Obviously the government wasn’t too proud of this long-awaited report because, in a ploy to distract from it, a few hours after the release of the report they introduced a massive, new, almost 100-page bill. Staying true to this government’s way, the members opposite tried to ram this bill through by starting debate only two days after it was released, something that we appealed and were able to at least begin one day later.

The industry stakeholders weren’t even able to get a copy of the bill until almost noon on Tuesday, almost a full day later. I will tell you that my office sent out copies of this piece of legislation to stakeholders, and they were anxiously waiting to see what the contents were and, more importantly, what it meant for them.

I want to talk a bit more about the government’s so-called long-term affordable housing plan. The arrival of this long-anticipated report dates back to 2007. During the 2007 election campaign, the McGuinty government promised Ontarians an affordable housing strategy. The strategy was supposed to be a 10-year plan for affordable housing in Ontario. According to their 2007 platform, the strategy would contain a mix of non-profit and co-operative housing and would take advantage of creative financial options. The report was to be released this past spring.

In fact, the former Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member from St. Catharines, promised to release the eagerly anticipated report by June 21 of this year. When he took over as minister at the beginning of the 2010 is when he made this promise.

As the members opposite know, the report was not released in the spring and it was postponed until now. At the time the delay was announced last spring, a ministry spokesman said: “The ministry was going to be working full tilt through the summer to get this very important plan correct.”

I guess the three years they had wasn’t enough and they had to cram for another few months. Well, this decision was very upsetting to many. Stakeholders were frustrated and disappointed. Ontarians were disappointed and particularly those 142,000 Ontarians on the current affordable housing wait list were very disenchanted.

Let me read a few comments of industry experts when they found out that the spring release date was going to be delayed. Michael Shapcott, the director of affordable housing and social innovation at the Wellesley Institute and the co-chair of the Housing Network of Ontario said: “Poor housing is directly linked to poor health, and the delay in delivering and implementing a provincial affordable housing strategy will be costly to individuals, communities and the economy.” Mr.

Shapcott continued: “The Ontario government’s failure to meet its own timeline underlines a concern raised by the provincial Auditor General that the housing ministry lacks the capacity to do its work. In its 2009-10 budget, the provincial government said it would match federal housing investments as a placeholder until its own housing strategy was in place. Ontario has missed the 2010-11 budget and risks losing the 2011-12 cycle as well—pushing back solutions for yet another year.” This is called backtracking.

The Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association, which represents more than 770 non-profit housing providers across this province, was also disappointed by the delay, especially since so many Ontarians are struggling to pay their rent.

Linda Coltman from Voices from the Street said, “With this delay I’m left to wonder just how important a priority is being placed upon the ideal of helping to have everyone at their best. For people like me living with the long-term effects of poverty, we aren’t asking for a handout but simply to be afforded with real opportunities to develop our talents and abilities. We need a step up towards our goals of self-esteem and personal and community understanding of our pasts and our living conditions.”

She also said, “My personal desire and expectation is to see great leadership from the province united with all orders of government, working with all sectors and especially with those of us living in poverty, to create opportunities, remove barriers and provide much-needed supports so that all Ontarians can live with dignity.”

Yutaka Dirks, co-chair of the Housing Network of Ontario, said, “McGuinty made a promise to introduce a housing strategy to help reduce poverty, but this pause means another summer of hardship for hundreds of thousands of Ontarians facing inadequate and unaffordable housing.”

I questioned this government on the delay of their housing report. First, they broke into uproarious laughter, and then refused—they refused—to answer the question, other than to tell me that “affordable housing is very important in the province of Ontario.” But it wasn’t important enough to release the report in the spring as promised, was it?

The minister talked about how this was a “very, very important issue” and how he was “very, very proud of the consultation” and “very, very proud” of the engagement, but he didn’t say anything about the release of the report and what brought on the delay.

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that I was happy to hear the word “consultation” from the other side, as it is not something that we often hear or see happen. They have a long history of failed energy experiments as a result of that—but that’s for another day. And they have a long list of other failed initiatives.

What concerns me is that they didn’t plan for the consultations to be finished and the report to be done by the planned date. They had three years; there was no need for a delay.

The minister said that his government was “ensuring that the long-term affordable housing strategy is a strategy that works for Ontarians.” Well, I’m afraid that this isn’t the plan that’s going to do that.

He said, “We’re about ensuring that we put a plan in place that is long-term ... and about ensuring that there is a housing strategy in place that works.”

Now the report has arrived and we have this new, large piece of legislation. Both the long-term affordable housing plan and the new piece of legislation will give service managers more flexibility, there’s no doubt about that. But I know that this is something that municipalities have been asking for for a long time, and they’re quite happy that they have finally received a mechanism that enables them to serve Ontarians more appropriately.

The government has actually acknowledged that one size doesn’t fit all, and that’s a good model to have for housing. Each of the service managers has different housing challenges, and as you can imagine, the challenges in the city of Toronto, for example, differ greatly from the challenges that are faced in the north and in other parts of the Golden Horseshoe.

This piece of legislation and long-term affordable housing plan allow service managers the flexibility to use the funding for the five homelessness-related programs to best meet their own needs at home.

The current programs are as follows: First of all, there’s the consolidated homelessness prevention program. That has helped those experiencing or at risk of homelessness to find and maintain stable housing.

Then there’s the emergency energy fund program, which helps prevent homelessness by reducing the risk of householders being evicted due to energy arrears.

Then there’s the emergency hostels program, which provides for short-term lodging and a temporary personal needs allowance until an emergency situation is resolved.

We also have the domiciliary hostels program, which provides permanent housing with supports for vulnerable adults who require limited supervision and support with daily activities.

The last is the rent program, which provides outstanding rent directly to the landlords on behalf of tenants who, due to some emergency or other unforeseen circumstances, are in short-term arrears and facing eviction.

These five have been collapsed, and service managers are now able to use the money in whichever area they see fit.

Currently, these programs are allotted funding without any flexibility. This piece of legislation allows funding to flow from one program to another as the service managers see fit and if it serves their community’s needs.

I’m told that the idea is that instead of continuing to allocate money to each program separately, the ministry is working out a way to give one lump sum of funding to the service managers and then they will do the dividing. It will remain to be seen how this will work, and it is difficult to determine how long it will take before we even know if it works.

While service managers do get some flexibility with funding for these five programs, with this piece of legislation they have another responsibility. They’re also required to develop the 10-year affordable housing plan.

If this government was going to put the responsibility for the development of a housing plan on service managers, why did they wait three years to do that? This could have started three years ago. It was the responsibility of this government, a commitment that they made to develop the 10-year affordable housing plan. Then, lo and behold, they failed to develop a plan, and they have downloaded the responsibility to the service managers. As history has proven, when something goes wrong, the government will have someone else to blame. It won’t be their plan, after all.

Have they considered the administrative costs to the service managers to take on this risk? We asked whether service managers would be given any funding to offset these costs, and the answer was no. We asked if the development of these 10-year plans would increase municipal tax dollars, and the response we received was that this government isn’t requiring that property taxes go up; it would be up to the municipalities.

Well, municipalities don’t have any money either. They have nothing to ante up. Creating a plan will cost money, so, although not spoken, the government is requiring municipalities to put more tax dollars into the development of a plan that should have been their plan to develop.

This 10-year plan is quite complex. Expectations are that it establishes current and future housing needs, objectives and targets, the measures to meet the objectives and targets, and how progress will be measured. The plan is due in 2012, and it will be reviewed every five years.

We asked how service managers could be expected to develop a 10-year plan without knowing what sort of funding they’ll get. The answer was that the ministry would work with service managers as they develop their plan, and they would give them guidance as to future funding. They won’t give them funding, but they will give them guidance.

According to the ministry, municipalities won’t be required to invest money to achieve the plan targets, but they will have to show progress. How will that be done?

Would you like me to stop there?

Second reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Jeff Leal: I have a number of constituents from Peterborough riding in the members’ east gallery today. Ms. Janie Kelly and Mr. Dave Nickle are both teachers with the Kawartha and Pine Ridge District School Board in Peterborough. Ms. Kelly is also the president of the Peterborough OSSTF unit.

Also in the gallery today is Ms. Christina Crowley, a constituent of mine in Peterborough. She’s employed with the Ministry of Government Services. I also welcome her on behalf of her minister, the Honourable Harinder Takhar.

Mr. Ted Arnott: On behalf of the member for Newmarket–Aurora, I would like to welcome representatives of the Salvation Army who are here today: Lieutenant Colonel Lee Graves, Lieutenant Colonel Ray Moulton, Major Pat Phinney, Major Neil Lewis, Captain John Murray and Captain Brenda Murray. Welcome.

Ms. Helena Jaczek: In the members’ east gallery, please welcome two teachers from Sarnia representing the OSSTF: James Grant and Stephen Lynch.

Hon. John Wilkinson: I would like to also welcome two of my constituents, Shane Restall and Mary-Jane Karkheck, who are here with OSSTF from the great Avon Maitland District School Board.

Mr. Paul Miller: In the west gallery, I’d like to welcome Chris Watson, political liaison for CUPE, and two Hamiltonians, Michelle Hrushka and Lauren Marela; they’re co-chairs of the Campaign for Adequate Welfare and Disability Benefits in Ontario.

Hon. Harinder S. Takhar: They’re not here yet, but I want to welcome the students from Thomas Street Middle School. They’re going to be performing at the visit of our 28th Governor General, His Excellency the Right Honourable David Johnston’s visit to Queen’s Park at 2 o’clock.

Hon. Eric Hoskins: I would like to introduce Kaley Ames from my riding of St. Paul’s and her friend Tyler Golden, both of whom are joining us today to watch question period. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

Mr. Dave Levac: Up in the west visitors’ gallery is a very strong advocate for mental health issues and brain injury issues and a co-chair of the Drinking and Driving Countermeasures Committee in the riding of Brant, Mr. Lawrie Palk. Thank you for being here, Lawrie.

Mr. Tony Ruprecht: I’m especially delighted today to introduce to the Legislature a delegation from the People’s Republic of China. They are from the Anhui province from the water resources department of Hefei City. They heard about our great policy on water resources and water safety. I’m delighted to introduce them to you: Mr. Cai, who is the deputy director; Mr. Huang, Mr. Zhou, Ms. Xu, Mr. Ji, and Mr. Zhao. Thank you very much for coming to Canada and seeing our water resources.

Hon. John Gerretsen: I would like to introduce two delegations that are with us today from the OSSTF, the Kingston representatives Steve Newstead and David Mathers, who are here for lobby day at Queen’s Park.

I’d also like to introduce two citizens from Kingston who are here to enjoy our hospitality here at Queen’s Park today, Don Sinkinson and David Sinkinson.

Mr. Yasir Naqvi: I want to take the opportunity to welcome the honourable representatives of the OSSTF: Cindy Dubué, Barry Kelley, Cheryl Cavell, Barbara Hope, Julia Banks, Isabelle Cousineau, Dan Maxwell, Andrew Horwood, Carol Crocker, Susan Rab and James Wright. Welcome to Queen’s Park.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. Before the government appointed Fay Booker chair of the Niagara Parks Commission, she was a partner at the accounting firm Grant Thornton.

A record of decisions made at a September 21 meeting of the Niagara Parks Commission shows that Ms. Booker handed a five-year contract to none other than Grant Thornton to be the commission’s external auditor. I’m told that Ms. Booker has said that the price was not the determining factor in her decision to hand the sweetheart deal to her former firm.

Why would she say that?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question, and thank you for the opportunity to talk about the Niagara Parks Commission. There’s important progress under way. We are moving forward with audits. We have a new chair in place. We have a new vice-chair in place. They are helping us to move the commission forward. They are experienced and knowledgeable. These individuals are determined to bring greater accountability and greater transparency. We are on the right track.

The agency has a responsibility to all Ontarians to be more transparent and to be more accountable. We are working hard on behalf of all Ontarians to make the commission accountable and transparent.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Ted Arnott: My question was about a contract. The external auditor was supposed to be chosen through a competitive bidding process run by Fay Booker, but Ms. Booker departed from the usual procurement practices and standards and brought in the three lowest bidders for interviews. These interviews were conducted without the full commission present or even being informed.

Then Ms. Booker handpicked her former firm over a bid that was the lowest in price and another from the incumbent. So if incumbency didn’t matter, as Ms. Booker has said, and if price didn’t matter either, then what did matter in her decision to unilaterally hand a sweetheart contract to her former firm?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much, again, for the question. As I said, we have a chair at the commission who is steering the commission in the right direction. That individual brings significant experience—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew. Interjections at all times are not helpful, but it’s certainly not helpful when he’s not in his seat.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: That individual will bring significant experience in auditing and in corporate governance.

The commission is making significant progress. The commission has redefined the governance structure for board committees. The commission has developed a new code of conduct for the board and employees. The commission is consulting with residents in Niagara region through public meetings.

We are on a new direction; we are going to continue that. The commission is vital to Ontario’s future: to build on our strengths, to build on tourism and to build on our economy for a stronger and more prosperous Ontario.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Again, the question is about a contract and the minister’s answer was not.

Fay Booker is the minister’s handpicked appointee to clean up after a previous purge at the Niagara Parks Commission following the Maid of the Mist boondoggle. Minister Chan has repeatedly said he has confidence in her to change the culture and make the commission more accountable and transparent—he said it again today—yet she sole-sourced a $500,000 printing contract and bypassed a competitive bidding process to hand a sweetheart deal to her friends at her former firm.

The rules of the commission require that members disclose conflicts of interest and take no

part in decisions involving friends, family or personal interests. The meeting records show that she did neither. How can Minister Chan say he has full confidence in Fay Booker now that he knows she’s been caught breaking the rules for her friends?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much for the question again.

Let me say this: The honourable member is wrong. Let me repeat again: The honourable member is wrong. There was a competitive process.

Our government is taking a responsible approach to address concerns that have been raised. There are currently audits under way. The audits cover everything from procurement practices to expenses at the commission. These audits are carried out by the finance audit team—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Simcoe North, member from Haldimand, member from Oxford, member from Halton, member from Renfrew, member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: The audit covers everything from procurement practices to expenses at the commission. These audits are carried out by our finance audit team. The audit team brings the utmost in experience and quality as they take on this important work on behalf of Ontarians.

I have full faith in the Ministry of Finance’s objectivity and expertise. We are moving forward with a plan that will strengthen the commission. We are moving forward with a plan that will make it more transparent and accountable to all Ontarians.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Ted Arnott: My second question is also to the Minister of Tourism. At a time of record deficits and debt, the Premier is asking Ontario families to make sacrifices, but it gets worse. How does the minister justify Fay Booker’s zealous effort to increase compensation for herself and members of the Niagara Parks Commission?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much again for the question. Tourism is an economic driver of Ontario. It contributes over $20 billion to our economy, generating 300,000 jobs. Niagara Falls is one of Canada’s—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister.

Hon. Michael Chan: Niagara Falls is one of Canada’s most important tourism attractions. We must steer the Niagara Parks Commission in a new direction. This is why we have appointed a new chair. This is why, since the appointment, we have seen a redefined governance structure for board committees and the development of a new code of conduct. But the changes do not stop here. We are seeing changes in the way the board reviews and approves the chair’s expenses, consultations with individuals across—

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: I’m not sure if the minister is hearing my questions because he has yet to address any of the specific issues that I’ve raised.

Our PC caucus found a record of an October 5 Niagara Parks Commission meeting in which Fay Booker pushed to double her per diem. The minister is on record several times in this assembly—I think he’s on record now 12 times—and in media reports, expressing full confidence in Ms. Booker and asserting that she will help change the culture and practices at the Niagara Parks Commission. The records we uncovered, however, suggest that Ms. Booker is more interested in helping herself double her pay.

How can Minister Chan still say that he has full confidence in Fay Booker now that he knows she’s been caught breaking the rules for her friends and herself?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. I said it before, but let me repeat it again: The honourable member was wrong. There was an RFP; it was a competitive process. There is important progress under way. We have a new chair in place—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Member from Renfrew. It’s not helpful from the member from Hamilton East as well.

Minister?

Hon. Michael Chan: Now with a new chair and a new vice-chair, we are moving forward with the Niagara Parks Commission. They are individuals who are determined to bring greater accountability and greater transparency. We are on the right track and moving ahead. The agency has a responsibility to all Ontarians. We are working very, very hard on behalf of all Ontarians to make the commission accountable and transparent.

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

Mr. Ted Arnott: Again, I asked the minister about Fay Booker’s pay. The Auditor General will release a new annual report on Monday, but it appears that the McGuinty Liberals have yet to fix the eHealth-style mess the auditor uncovered there two years ago. In eHealth, Sarah Kramer was the Premier’s hand-picked appointee who was fired for handing out sweetheart deals to her friends, approving sole-source contracts handed out by others at eHealth and breaking the rules to pay herself a bonus.

Fay Booker is the minister’s hand-picked appointee who, within months of being on the job, handed out a sweetheart deal to friends at her former firm, approved a half-million-dollar sole-source contract and tried to pay herself more.

Before the Premier fired Sarah Kramer, he and his health minister used to express confidence in her. Would the minister now say he has confidence in Fay Booker that is greater, the same or less than what they had in Ms. Kramer?

Hon. Michael Chan: I said it before, I repeated that before and let me repeat it one more time: The honourable member is wrong. There was an RFP. It was a competitive process.

Audits are under way. This audit will be undertaken by the Ministry of Finance audit team. They will look at everything. They will look at everything from travel, meals and hospitality expenses to procurement practices. Come January, there will be a plan in place for forensic audits by third parties.

We have a chair that is helping us move the commission forward, one that is experienced and knowledgeable in governance and auditing. We are taking action to move this commission forward and restore public confidence in this very important government agency.

ENERGY POLICIES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. We’re hearing from more and more families across Ontario who are worried about paying the bills. Beverley Soranno from Mississauga writes: “I am a single parent living from paycheque to paycheque and I have just become aware of a 46% increase in hydro over the next few years. My salary is not increased to offset this amount.”

Interjections.

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I’m sorry, Speaker. They’re calling this woman a liar; I’m quoting directly from her: “My salary is not increased to offset this amount. Where does one find the money?”

That’s a good question. That’s exactly my question to this Premier. Where will Ms. Soranno and people like her find the money?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question. It’s an opportunity again to speak directly to Ontarians about our long-term energy plan.

First of all, I want to reassure them that we in fact have one; the opposition parties do not. Secondly, I want to say that it’s devoted to ensuring that Ontario families have access to clean air, new jobs and reliable electricity.

Beyond that, there’s been some great news this week that speaks directly to that jobs matter. Just yesterday in Windsor, there was a great announcement there attended by my colleagues on my right and my left here. We’ve opened up a wind tower manufacturing plant. It is 300 new full-time jobs, up to 400 construction and service jobs. The plant will use 100% Ontario steel; that’s 200,000 tonnes of domestic steel with a value of $140 million. I think that’s good news for all families.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Keeping the house warm and the lights on is becoming a lot more expensive and so is driving to work in the morning. In fact, gas prices shot up over 4 cents a litre across Ontario last night and they’re heading towards $1.20 a litre by the holidays, all compounded by the Premier’s HST. Where are people supposed to find the extra money to pay the bills?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to remind my honourable colleague and Ontarians as well about the desperate state we found ourselves in in past years when it comes to electricity. The IESO—consider them the watchdog for electricity—issued 19 public appeals in 2002 and 2003 alone, warning Ontarians to lower their electricity demands. In 2010, after all the work we have done together with Ontarians, after one of the hottest summers in recent memory, the IESO said Ontario is “in the best supply situation in a decade as a result of the new generation and transmission”—infrastructure—“added over the past five years.”

We recognize that there are real costs associated with this massive investment in new generation and new transmission. That’s why we’ve said we’re going ahead with our clean energy benefit. It’s a 10% reduction in all electricity bills during the course of the next five years and that speaks directly to the needs raised by my honourable colleague.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Incomes are not going up, but thanks to this Premier the bills are. Tracy King’s husband lost his job. A mother of two, she’s working as much as she can to support her family. In fact, she’s got two jobs, but they’re barely scraping by on her minimum wages. She writes: “How do you afford to feed, clothe and pay utilities that just keep increasing? Not to mention the humiliation that is experienced when you inform your children that there will be no Christmas because of the economy.”

How are people like Ms. King and her family going to get by?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: My honourable colleague made reference to a family which has suffered a job loss. I think one of the most important things that we can do for our families is ensure they have access to good, well-paying jobs. I want to tell you a little bit about our long-term energy plan and the good influence it’s been having in that regard.

My honourable colleague knows that in Hamilton, three weeks ago, we announced 300 clean energy jobs. A few days ago in Cambridge, we announced—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew was interjecting so much that he did not hear the Speaker warning him.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance.

Premier?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: In Hamilton two weeks ago, we announced 300 green energy jobs. A few days ago in Cambridge, it was 150. Two days ago in Essex county, it was 126. Yesterday in Windsor, it was 400 construction jobs, 300 full-time jobs. Today in Tillsonburg, it’s 300 jobs, plus 600 construction jobs.

Every single day, we’re creating more jobs as a result of our long-term energy policy. We think that’s what families want to hear.

PHYSIOTHERAPY SERVICES

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My next question is also to the Premier. Families facing uncertain times need to know affordable, reliable health care is there when they need it.

While this government asks people to pay more than ever before, they keep seeing cuts to their local hospitals. Documents from the Ontario Physiotherapy Association show that, since 2008, 27 hospital outpatient physiotherapy clinics have been gutted.

My question is, can the Premier explain to families in these 27 communities why the cuts just keep coming?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think, by any objective measure, health care just keeps getting better in the province of Ontario.

We’re not laying any claim to perfection, but I can say, for example, that we’re building 18 new hospitals. We’ve hired 10,000 more nurses. We’ve hired 2,900 more doctors. One million more Ontarians now have access to a family doctor. Wait times are down in everything from MRIs to CTs to cataracts to cancer care to cardiac care to hip and knee surgery.

The fact of the matter is, by any objective assessment, health care is getting better. There’s always more work to be done, and we look forward to doing that.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: I don’t know who the Premier is talking to, but the people who I’m talking to are telling me they’re frustrated. They’re constantly asked to pay more, and they see that the money is being spent on everything from corporate tax cuts to consultant vacations in Japan.

When these hospital services are gutted, people are forced to pay for physiotherapy out of their own pocket, leaving many to simply go without physiotherapy.

Why is the McGuinty government cutting preventive health care, a decision that will ultimately drive up health care costs?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I want to be very direct to that question: We’re not. We’re not cutting that. The fact of the matter is we continue to make tremendous new investments in health care in Ontario.

I’m just going to repeat: One million more people have a family doctor. More than five million Ontarians now have an electronic medical record. We’re tracking wait times, and surgery wait times are down. Over 10,000 new nurses have been hired. There are 8,384 new long-term-care beds. We’re building 18 new hospitals. We cut the price of generic drugs in half, and that’s especially important for the one-million-plus Ontarians who are paying for those generic drugs out of pocket.

Again, there’s always more work to be done, but I want to reassure my honourable colleague and the people of Ontario that we continue to invest more, not less. We continue to get more and not less.

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

Ms. Andrea Horwath: When this government introduced their family health teams, physiotherapy was supposed to be part of this primary care model. Yet today, not a single family health team has received funding for physiotherapy.

For elderly people, access to physiotherapy prevents falls and increases their quality of life. Physiotherapy is essential when you break a bone, when you’re in chronic pain or when you experience an injury. Yet today, Ontario is rapidly losing access to these services.

Is the Premier finally ready to re-evaluate his government’s faulty model or will Ontarians continue to suffer from inadequate access to physiotherapy?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m just being provided information on the fly here, Speaker, by my very capable Minister of Health.

I just want to say we’re very proud of the fact that we’ve put in place 200 family health teams. They are wonderful new creations. They’ve taken on, so far, some three million Ontario patients; many of those had no access to family health care before.

They are an interdisciplinary model, which means, basically, from a patient’s perspective, it’s one-stop shopping. You can see a doctor, a nurse practitioner, a nurse, a nutritionist, a counsellor, and some of those have in fact hired on physiotherapists. We’re now providing, by the way, on the physiotherapy front, through OHIP, OHIP-funded physiotherapy to approximately 138,000 seniors annually.

Again, we’re making progress; there’s more to be done, and we aim to do it.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Peter Shurman: Again, to the Minister of Tourism, and we’ll keep questioning Minister Chan until he gives us a proper answer.

In addition to handpicking friends at her former firm to provide so-called external oversight of the Niagara Parks Commission, Fay Booker ensured a friend was handed the contract to oversee the competition for boat tours at Niagara Falls. The sweetheart deal was worth $50,000 and was handed to Peter Van Kessel, a consultant and friend of hers from Burlington.

How can you still have full confidence in Fay Booker?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question again. Let me repeat: That went through a competitive process, and the honourable member is wrong.

Chair Fay Booker is a strong asset for the commission. She brings extensive experience in corporate governance, accounting and auditing to her position. Chair Booker has already addressed these allegations and set the record straight in the Niagara Falls Review. She has my full confidence and support to take all the necessary action to bring greater accountability and transparency to the Niagara Parks Commission.

Since her appointment earlier this year, Chair Booker has initiated a number of important changes to processes at the commission. These changes will lead to a more open and transparent organization that will instill public confidence.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Shurman: I think you’d better be expanding that accountability act.

At an October 12 meeting, the Niagara Parks Commission learned that Mr. Van Kessel went over budget. Following in step with another mistake from eHealth, Ms. Booker and the commission simply hiked the $50,000 ceiling for his consulting services.

The Ontario PC caucus tried to warn you about Fay Booker when you were appointing her earlier this year. At the public appointments committee hearings, we told you her ties to Burlington would be a problem, as would her ties to the Liberal Party. You didn’t listen, and now either her governance style or Liberal pedigree has allowed eHealth-style rot to spread deeper into the Niagara Parks Commission.

Is the only way to deal with the rot and cronyism to change government?

Hon. Michael Chan: Our government is very, very committed and serious about openness in governance. Our government is taking a responsible approach to address the concerns that have been raised, and there are currently audits under way. The audits cover everything from procurement practices to expenses at the commission. These audits are carried out by our finance audit team. The audit team brings the utmost in experience and quality as they take on this important work on behalf of all Ontarians. I have full confidence in the ministry’s financial objectivity and expertise.

We are moving forward with the Niagara Parks Commission.

PUBLIC TRANSIT

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Premier. Toronto families have been waiting patiently for improved public transit so that that the morning commute to work and school doesn’t take so long and so they can get home in the evening to enjoy dinner together.

Fifteen years ago, these families saw a previous provincial government kill Eglinton transit. Is the Premier going to subserviently sit back and let the same thing happen under his watch?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Transportation.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I think the member opposite knows that we have been strong advocates for public transit and that we have made an investment in public transit that is the biggest investment in a generation, and we want to see that plan go forward.

But the reality is that the local democratic process has taken place in the city of Toronto. A new council and a new mayor have been elected, and I think that the member opposite would understand that that council and that mayor have to have an opportunity to talk about what they would like to present as a go-forward position. Obviously, we are very concerned if there is to be waste—there’s money that has been invested in the current projects—but the council has to determine what it would like to present as its go-forward plan.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The Premier is from Ottawa, so he is familiar with the impact of scuttled transit plans. Families there waited and waited while governments dithered and change their minds. Here in Toronto, we are bracing for the same. Hundreds of Thunder Bay workers and their families are being left to twist in the wind, wondering if they’ll have work. When can people in Toronto and Thunder Bay expect the Premier to show some backbone and finally get better public transit built, in particular on Eglinton Avenue?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The member opposite has consistently stood in this House and advocated against the air-rail link from Union Station to Pearson airport. The member opposite’s seatmate was the former mayor of East York. He stood in the House yesterday and argued against local democracy. I can remember a time when the Conservatives were in power in this province. I did a TV show with the member from Beaches–East York, and he made a very strong argument for honouring council’s decisions and honouring the mayors that were duly elected.

We are very committed to public transit. We have made billions of dollars of investments and we want to see the plan go forward, but we are going to continue to work with the elected representatives of the city of Toronto and the entire region of the GTHA.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr. Phil McNeely: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Minister, while action to address pollution is a global effort, residents in my riding are doing simple things around the house and in their community to conserve energy, like buying programmable thermostats, taking public transit and turning off the lights. We have one of the highest public transit usages in the city of Ottawa at over 30%.

They know this saves them money on their energy bills and helps protect the environment, but they also want to see the McGuinty government continue its leadership in developing policies—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): To the Minister of Consumer Services, the Minister of Transportation and the honourable member for Trinity–Spadina: Take it outside. There’s a question being asked.

Please continue.

Mr. Phil McNeely: Thank you, Speaker.

They also want to see the McGuinty government continue its leadership in developing policies that conserve energy and reduce emissions.

Minister, my question is simple: Is conservation still part of the government’s energy mix to protect the air we breathe?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Absolutely, because the McGuinty government understands that we need to have a sustainable environment and a sustainable economy. As the economy recovers from the global recession, we expect that companies will see the economic and environmental benefits of investing in new technologies to help them conserve and reduce their costs. In the meantime, the McGuinty government’s conservation efforts have already saved some 1,700 megawatts over the last five years alone. That’s like taking the entire city of Scarborough off the grid.

I’m pleased to say that in our recently released long-term energy plan, we have committed to an ambitious target of some 7,100 megawatts of energy conservation by 2030.

The focus on energy conservation will remain. Our focus on making sure that we have reliable sources of energy, clean sources of energy—I want you to know that the best thing is not to flip on the light, but if you do, it’s reliable and it’s clean.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Phil McNeely: That’s certainly good news. I’m confident that my residents’ practical conservation actions around the House and this government’s commitment to conservation will make sure we have cleaner air to breathe and jobs for our children.

But conservation is only one part of the supply mix. While my constituents in Ottawa–Orléans are committed to ensuring a cleaner Ontario, they are concerned about going back to failed energy policies of the previous government. While it is clear that wind, solar, hydro and nuclear are the better alternatives to coal, I think you can agree that actions speak louder than words.

Minister, with many Tory members suggesting that clean coal is the way to go, will the McGuinty government really eliminate coal from our energy mix?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Let’s be clear: On this side of the House, we believe that clean coal is an oxymoron. As Gideon Forman of the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment wrote, “Burning coal always creates poisons. There is simply no getting around this. Hence the danger in fossil fuel combustion is intrinsic—the technology cannot be made safe.”

Coal plants emit lead; mercury; dioxins; chromium; arsenic, which is a carcinogen; nitrogen oxide; and sulphur dioxide, which causes acid rain. Those are the scientific facts. I don’t want that getting into our air, and neither do Ontario families. That’s why our reliance on dirty coal so far is down 70% and we’re driving it down to 0% by 2014 and closing down those dirty coal-fired plants.

We’ll continue to conserve energy, but it’s important when we flip on the lights that the source of that energy is intrinsically clean.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Mr. Jim Wilson: My question is to the Minister of Tourism. For several years the minister’s parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, was aware of the problems at the Niagara Parks Commission. Former commission member Italia Gilberti even brought her concerns about Fay Booker, the chair, to his doorstep, and by extension, to the minister’s doorstep. Everything Ms. Gilberti has said to the media about Fay Booker is backed up by the commission’s own records, yet the minister and the parliamentary assistant just tried to sweep the whole mess under the rug. In fact, the member for Niagara Falls told Ms.

Gilberti to keep her head down and she would be given another three-year appointment.

Does Minister Chan think it is acceptable for his parliamentary assistant to be doling out public appointments just to buy someone’s secrecy?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): You are impugning motive, and I’d ask that you withdraw that last comment, please.

Mr. Jim Wilson: Withdrawn.

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

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question.

Our government is committed to transparency and openness. As I said before, there is an audit process currently under way. This audit will be undertaken by the Ministry of Finance. They will look at everything from meals to travel and hospitality expenses to procurement practices. Also, come January, there will be a plan in place to conduct a forensic audit by a third party.

We have a chair who is helping us to move forward, one who is experienced and knowledgeable in governance and auditing. We are taking action to move this commission in a new direction to restore public confidence in this important agency.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jim Wilson: Even with all the proof that the new chair, Fay Booker, can’t fix a culture she is a part of, the minister sticks by her as his choice to change the culture of the Niagara Parks Commission.

The parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, said of the first wave of scandalous spending, “This is devastating to me. The taxpayer has to know that ... money is being spent wisely.”

Well, the parliamentary assistant must have given that quote on the golf course, because freedom-of-information records reveal that he took advantage of 158 rounds of free golf on Niagara Parks Commission courses in recent years. In fact, he arranged for 506 people to play rounds of golf for free, in addition to his free golf.

Minister, did your parliamentary assistant give a reason why he didn’t tell you about the problems at the commission, or do you think he said nothing so that he could keep his free golf?

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you very much, again, for the question.

We have a chair at the commission who is steering the commission in a new direction, and the commission is making significant progress. The commission has redefined the governance structure for board committees. The commission has developed a new code of conduct for boards and employees. The commission is consulting with residents in Niagara region in full public meetings.

We are moving ahead. We are going to continue building. The commission is vital to Ontario’s future, to build on our strengths, to build on tourism and to build on our economy for a stronger Ontario.

MUNICIPAL FINANCES

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the finance minister. Before the last election, the Premier said, “The downloading of [social assistance] programs stands as one of the worst misjudgements of the previous government.” He went on to say, “They’ve been a burden to every municipality and we’re taking them back in full.”

The community and social services website clearly indicates that the province will pay half the administration costs for Ontario Works. My question is: Why is the government refusing to pay the outstanding $53.7-million share of welfare administration costs to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I welcome the question. Yes, we’re very proud that we are uploading the total cost of OW. We’re very proud of what we’ve done to upload the cost of public health. We’re very proud of what we’ve done to upload the cost of ODSP and the obvious savings that will afford municipalities so they can in turn invest that money in important municipal services. We’re very proud that we signed the provincial-municipal service delivery review and especially proud that even in spite of the enormous challenges to our books, we are continuing to implement that in its entirety, according to the timelines that were laid out and agreed to.

This government is all about that. It’s about respecting municipal property taxpayers, it’s about working with our municipal partners. I remain confident that the approach we’re taking is the right one for our municipalities and certainly the right one for the people of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: With all that was said by the finance minister, he never once said that he will honour the government’s commitment to pay the $53.7 million that is outstanding.

As far back as last February, the city of Toronto, in its analyst briefing notes, set out what was expected to come from the provincial government. Now, the provincial government is challenging that and they’re saying they’re not going to pay.

The government had an agreement with the outgoing city council to cover half of the administrative costs of Ontario Works for 2010. It is failing to honour that agreement. There is a new council in place and they need to know whether or not that money is forthcoming.

Will the minister put an end to the government’s foot-dragging now and pay the full $53 million that this government owes to the city of Toronto?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: This year, right here in Toronto, we have already uploaded $136 million. For that member’s constituents, it means lower property taxes, it means better public services and it means access to better public services. That’s what it’s all about.

We are currently discussing with Toronto the accurate amount of costs associated with that. As I indicated publicly, we remain committed. We have meetings going on as we speak, and I look forward to a satisfactory resolution for all people with respect to this. I only wish you and your party had supported us as we lowered property taxes for Torontonians.

DRIVER LICENCES

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, everybody knows that Ontario’s roads rank among the safest in North America. This is due to some of the very important initiatives the government has taken recently, like the requirement of a zero blood alcohol concentration for drivers 21 years of age and under; and also the graduated licences.

Despite all these initiatives, we still have a lot of things to do in order to make sure the people of Ontario drive safe. I was reading the other day that statistics show that three quarters of drivers who have their licences suspended are still driving in the province of Ontario, which causes a lot of harm for many people across the province.

Can you tell us, Minister, what you are going to do to deal with this very important issue and to make sure all the people who are suspended cannot drive in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: The reality is that there are too many people who have their driver’s licence suspended who still get in their cars and drive, so we believe that we need to take strong action. Starting yesterday, December 1, if someone is caught driving with a suspended licence due to a serious Highway Traffic Act violation, or for chronic non-payment of family support, or with a blood alcohol level of over 0.08, or if they’re supposed to have an ignition interlock and they don’t—in any one of those situations, their car can now be impounded at the side of the road for seven days.

People who choose to drive with a suspended licence or who have been caught with their blood alcohol over the legal limit are breaking the law. We believe there needs to be a serious deterrent in place. These new penalties will help get people off the road who should not be driving because their drivers’ licences have been suspended.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Thank you, Minister. Over the past week, I’ve received many calls to my constituency office in London–Fanshawe asking about the announcement as it relates to the Family Responsibility Office and individuals paying family support. At the end of the day, we need to make sure money that is rightfully owed to children and their families gets to them. However, impounding someone’s car for being late or missing one payment is not acceptable, Minister.

Can you tell me how you can deal with this and when the responsibility office can exercise that right? Can you explain this to my constituents and my people, because they ask me on a regular basis?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Thank you very much—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No—

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: To the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I’m too quick this morning.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: She’s eager.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Yes.

First of all, let me say that vehicles will only be impounded from people driving illegally because their licence has been suspended.

FRO initiates a driver’s licence suspension because the payer is continually in arrears in their family support, not that they missed one payment.

Our first priority is getting the money owed to the children and families. We’ve suspended over 31,000 drivers’ licences since 2003, which resulted in $665 million getting to families.

Just yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition said that more needed to be done at FRO. Our government has increased funding to FRO by 51% since 2003—

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

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. John Yakabuski: My question is for the Premier. On November 1 this year, the Minister of Energy seemed confused when asked a direct question from Ontario PC leader Tim Hudak regarding your $53-million hidden hydro tax and a possible similar tax to be levied on natural gas customers. The very next day, he said no taxes would be imposed and that the $53-million backdoor energy tax grab, also known as the special purposes fund, would be gone. The minister didn’t keep his word, and your Attorney General continued to defend your power to collect these hidden taxes.

I know you’re trying to confuse Ontario families, so how about keeping your word on this one? Stand in your place, do the right thing and repeal

section 26.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act. Assure Ontario families that the backdoor energy tax will be gone and that you will no longer be able to impose new ones. Will you do that?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think my honourable colleague is talking about our effort to support conservation programs in Ontario. I will happily contrast our long-term energy plan with their absence of any plan. I’ll also happily contrast our record when it comes to promoting conservation with their record, where they didn’t promote conservation at all.

They tell us that Ontarians are not interested in conservation, but when we put forward our home energy savings program, almost 400,000 Ontario families took advantage of the audit program; 250,000 have then helped themselves with our energy savings and retrofits program.

They’re against conservation programs. We understand that. We put something out before the people of Ontario, and 400,000 said, “Where can we sign on?”

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. John Yakabuski: Premier, families will try anything to get some relief from the burden that you’re inflicting on them with your hydro policies. Families and electricity consumers in this province cannot—

Interjections.

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

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Judge not.

The Minister of Agriculture will please come to order.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Finance.

Please continue.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Families and electricity consumers in this province simply cannot afford your increases to the cost of hydro. The Minister of Energy said he’d be doing away with the $53-million tax, but it’s still on the books.

Premier, if you can’t stand in your place and say the right thing and do the right thing, I’m going to help you. Today, I will be introducing a bill that, if passed, will remove

section 26.1 of the Ontario Energy Board Act, thereby giving Ontario families a break, the break they so badly need.

Premier, this is a bill that can help Ontario families. Will you support it?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I think I felt a disturbance in the Force. I think there may be an inkling of some kind of a proposal put forward by a representative of the Conservative Party, and we look forward to seeing that.

But let me tell you again, they have no energy plan. They claim that they’re on the side of ratepayers who are concerned, legitimately, about costs going up. Yesterday, they had a very clear opportunity to stand up in favour of families, farmers and small businesses when we voted on our clean energy benefit, which will reduce electricity bills by 10% over the course of the next five years. When presented with a very specific opportunity to stand up in favour of people who are concerned about rates, they voted against that.

Not only do they not have a plan they can put before the people of Ontario, but when it comes to seizing an opportunity to help families, farmers and small businesses, they said no.

NIAGARA PARKS COMMISSION

Ms. Andrea Horwath: My question is to the Premier. The Premier is not answering questions in this Legislature about the revelations of financial improprieties at the Niagara Parks Commission, even though it’s clear that he personally is no stranger to the issue. At least one Niagara Parks commissioner received a letter from the Premier, congratulating him on a job well done, a few weeks before he was fired.

Why won’t the Premier call in the Auditor General to investigate allegations of wrongdoings at the Niagara Parks Commission?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Tourism and Culture.

Hon. Michael Chan: Thank you for the question. We must steer the Niagara Parks Commission in a new direction. This is why we appointed a new chair back in April of this year. This is why, in June of this year, we appointed a new vice-chair. Since the appointments, we have seen a redefined governance structure in both committees, and development of a new code of conduct.

But the changes do not stop here. We are seeing changes in the way—consultations with individuals across the Niagara region, through public meetings; restructuring the commission’s operations; and implementation of the recommendations from the governance review.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Andrea Horwath: Judging by the Premier’s refusal to answer the question and the minister’s response, I’ll take it that the answer is no.

Families are tired of hearing about scandal at this public organization, an organization with an important public mandate. Today’s Globe and Mail quotes a former senior bureaucrat, saying the internal government audit is “unacceptable” and “a conflict of interest.”

Today, New Democrats are sending a letter to the Auditor General, asking specifically for his office to open up an investigation. Will we have the Premier’s support on this effort?

Hon. Michael Chan: The leader of the third party is chasing allegations, not facts. Let me quote from the honourable member: “The forgery allegation... should be forwarded to the police.”

The audit relating to that allegation found no forgery. The leader of the third party is riding on unfounded allegations. The member is dead wrong, and the individual raising that concern is also dead wrong. Instead of chasing false allegations, the member should focus on the facts. The member should focus on the findings.

We have a plan to move forward and build a stronger Niagara Parks Commission. We are focused on getting to the bottom of the matter. This is why we are moving forward with audits of expenses and procurements.

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Today marks an important day in my community of Peterborough and many other communities, not only in Ontario but around the world. Today is the International Day of Persons with Disabilities. Communities everywhere are celebrating with events and promoting the need to empower people with disabilities.

There are many individuals in my community who once resided in a provincially run institution. I, like many others, was proud to be part of the latest institution closing here in Ontario.

What must we do to continue to improve the lives of those with disabilities in communities throughout the great province of Ontario?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: Merci au membre de Peterborough for his question. I know that he was very supportive in helping us to close the institution.

Today, I invite all members to join me in recognizing the contributions that people with disabilities bring to our community. Proudly, Ontario is making a positive difference in many ways. In 2004, we decided to overhaul our developmental services system, a transformation that responds to a need for services and supports that will allow people with developmental disabilities to achieve their goals and enjoy a real sense of belonging.

Today, we are going beyond traditional ways of supporting individuals with developmental disabilities by encouraging a range of opportunities that will help them connect with their communities. This approach encourages families to stay together and provides the opportunity for people with developmental disabilities to build meaningful partnerships in their own communities.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Jeff Leal: I believe, too, that by working together, we can foster a society that will be both inclusive and empowering to those with disabilities. Clearly, our government has taken the right steps in creating this.

It appears that by 2031, almost 50% of Ontarians will have some kind of disability, and for the first time, people older than 55 will outnumber children aged zero to 14.

As baby boomers grow older, their demand for accessible services in all areas of everyday life will increase.

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

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Norm Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Minister, your auto insurance reforms aren’t working. You offered consumers a choice: Pay the most for the least, and you did nothing to tackle the real fraud in the system. We hear that the industry is applying for rate increases as we speak.

Minister, medical rehab costs are a big part of the problem, and the only way to be sure that legitimate assessments are being undertaken is to put health care practitioners—doctors—back into the equation. In fact, FSCO advised you to do this. Why did you not take FSCO’s advice?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Actually, the number of people, according to the Insurance Brokers Association, accessing consumer choice has gone up in some instances by 25%.

I had a chance to meet with leading representatives of the industry, who report that the new policy, the new plan, is starting to work, and they’re optimistic that it will help keep rates down for consumers. For seven years we have done that. We replaced a government that allowed rates to go up—I think it was 40%—when they were there.

We’re fighting fraud. We’re working with consumers. We’re building a new system that will give greater protection to all Ontarians at a fair price. I look forward to working with the insurance industry and with consumer groups to continue to build on the progress we’ve made in the last seven years, and I welcome the support of the opposition—

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

Mr. Norm Miller: Back to the minister: The people out there paying the bills disagree with you. Listen to what one of them has to say:

“Mr. Miller, I want to point out that my car insurance has gone up almost 30%, while my coverage has been decreased by 50%. What can I, as a citizen, do to express my shock?

“A letter I received from my insurers tells me the Ontario government allowed these increases. Along with the increased taxes due to HST being spread to many new items, my spending dollar is less and less. You can be sure that as a senior citizen my income is not going up to match this.”

Minister, with your auto insurance reforms, people are paying more and getting less. When are Ontario drivers going to find some real relief?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I welcome the opportunity to continue to build on our success of keeping the rate of growth in automobile insurance premiums to among the lowest in the country.

No doubt some people will see rising premiums. It’s difficult when the member refuses and has a secret letter and he won’t share names, actual histories and so on; they can play those games.

What we will continue to do is work for all Ontarians to build a better system with lower rates, get fraud out of the system and continue to offer rates and premiums that are among the most competitive now in the country, having undone the damage that he and his partner did to this industry and this sector in Ontario in the years that they were in office.

MANUFACTURING JOBS

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. I’m extremely disappointed with Siemens’ decision to take its operations to southwestern Ontario. We all know that Hamilton has a well-developed transportation system and a highly skilled workforce ready to work tomorrow. We have the facilities in place, ready for quick retrofit, with a natural water port to transport 50-metre long blades to all parts of Ontario.

Why has this Premier again failed Hamilton’s unemployed and highly skilled workforce?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: Let’s just take a gander at what it is we have been able to do in partnership with the good people of Hamilton. Just recently, it was the Max Aicher announcement: 300 high-value jobs in Hamilton; a couple of weeks ago, it was JNE Consulting: 300 new jobs; in the last two years, $130 million in infrastructure stimulus investment in Hamilton: 2,900 jobs.

We’re going to go ahead with the Pan Am Games in 2015. We’re going to invest $150 million in Hamilton. There’s going to be a new 15,000-seat stadium, a new velodrome, a new Olympic-sized pool at McMaster: 1,750 jobs.

I think we’ve done a lot working with Hamilton, and we look forward to doing much more in the days to come.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: My numbers are a little different. The Liberals claim to work—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Minister of Finance, Minister of Economic Development, member from Eglinton–Lawrence.

Please continue.

Mr. Paul Miller: The Liberals claim to work with the CAW, whose president Ken Lewenza was very, very clear: He wants the jobs at Siemens in Hamilton. Our hundreds of locked-out steelworkers could easily produce the steel for these wind turbines.

The Max Aicher jobs the Premier mentioned, those 300 jobs were dealt with three years ago; they’re not new jobs and not due to—

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: That’s nonsense.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister of Economic Development, the honourable member is trying to ask a question. It’s a question to your Premier, who is sitting right next to you, and I want your Premier to be able to hear the question that’s coming.

Please continue.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Speaker.

And the JNE jobs he was bragging about won’t happen for two years, and they’re minimum-paying jobs.

Hamilton has lost 20,000 jobs since 2004. Who was in government in 2004? That’s when you started.

Will this Premier plan to recover the still 19,000 jobs we’ve lost?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I just want to say, having been in Hamilton last Thursday, to see the look of pride on those workers who were US steelworkers who had been laid off for years, in mills closed for months and months, watching—

Mr. Paul Miller: Load of garbage. Load of garbage. How do you like it? Load of garbage.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I have a large landfill site in my riding—

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: That’s where he belongs.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No; that’s not helpful.

The honourable member, you just asked the question, and as I supported you in asking your question, I would now appreciate if you would listen to the answer from the minister.

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Most appropriate, Speaker. Thank you.

I saw the looks on those faces when I was in Hamilton on Thursday, looks of pride that they will have great-paying jobs once again in Hamilton. We welcome Max Aicher to—

Mr. Paul Miller: Baloney.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek: I just warned you about listening.

Mr. Paul Miller: It’s hard to resist—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): No, we’re all honourable members, and that’s not helpful.

The time for question period has ended.

CORRECTION OF RECORD

Mr. Rick Johnson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to correct my record from November 23. During the adjournment debate, I stated that there were only seven new councillors in Simcoe county. That statement was incorrect.

The point I intended to make was that most of the 32 mayors and deputy mayors who will serve on the new Simcoe county council—indeed, all but seven of them—already currently serve as councillors for their respective towns and townships in Simcoe county. My apologies to the House for the error.

Interje