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

April 14, 2011

39th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2011-Apr-14 (PDF)

L109 - Thu 14 Apr 2011 / Jeu 14 avr 2011

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 14 April 2011 Jeudi 14 avril 2011

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER TOMORROW

FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR DES LENDEMAINS

MEILLEURS POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

TAXATION

HYDRO RATES

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

ENERGY POLICIES

HEALTH CARE

NUCLEAR SAFETY

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SPORTS FUNDING

RED TAPE REDUCTION

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

NOTICE OF REASONED AMENDMENT

DEFERRED VOTES

BETTER TOMORROW

FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR DES LENDEMAINS

MEILLEURS POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

ONTARIO BUDGET

HYDRO RATES

TAIBU COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE

AMBULANCE SERVICES

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

HORIZON PLASTICS

HAMID GHASSEMI-SHALL

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

PETITIONS

DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES

ONTARIO SOCIETY

FOR THE PREVENTION

OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS

MATTHEWS HOUSE HOSPICE

CHILD CUSTODY

RURAL SCHOOLS

CEMETERIES

PRIVATE MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

WIRELESS PHONE, SMART PHONE

AND DATA SERVICE

TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES SERVICES DE TÉLÉPHONE MOBILE,

DE TÉLÉPHONE INTELLIGENT

ET DE DONNÉES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SANTÉ

MENTALE DES ENFANTS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

WIRELESS PHONE, SMART PHONE

AND DATA SERVICE

TRANSPARENCY ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA TRANSPARENCE

DES SERVICES DE TÉLÉPHONE MOBILE,

DE TÉLÉPHONE INTELLIGENT

ET DE DONNÉES

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SANTÉ

MENTALE DES ENFANTS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

AMENDMENT ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 MODIFIANT

LE CODE DE LA ROUTE

CHILDREN’S MENTAL

HEALTH ACT, 2010 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR LA SANTÉ

MENTALE DES ENFANTS

The House met at 0900.

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

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BETTER TOMORROW

FOR ONTARIO ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 SUR DES LENDEMAINS

MEILLEURS POUR L’ONTARIO

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 11, 2011, on the motion for second reading of Bill 173,

An Act respecting 2011 Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters / Projet de loi 173, Loi concernant les mesures budgétaires de 2011, l’affectation anticipée de crédits et d’autres questions.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 13, 2011, I am now required to put the question.

On April 6, 2011, Mr. Phillips moved second reading of Bill 173,

An Act respecting 2011 Budget measures, interim appropriations and other matters. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will say “aye.”

All those opposed will say “nay.”

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This vote will be deferred to following question period.

Second reading vote deferred.

STRONG COMMUNITIES THROUGH

AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACT, 2011 /

LOI DE 2011 FAVORISANT

DES COLLECTIVITÉS FORTES

GRÂCE AU LOGEMENT ABORDABLE

Resuming the debate adjourned on April 13, 2011, on the motion for third reading of Bill 140,

An Act to enact the Housing Services Act, 2011, 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 2011 sur les services de logement, abrogeant la Loi de 2000 sur la réforme du logement social et apportant des modifications corrélatives et autres à d’autres lois.

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: It’s a pleasure for me to rise today and participate in the debate, which has been so capably handled by our critic. So we start today on Bill 140, the Housing Services Act of 2010.

I think as all of us in this Legislature know, affordable housing is a critical component of any compassionate society’s social safety net, and it is certainly imperative that we provide those who are disenfranchised and those who are poor and vulnerable with the means to access housing that is both affordable and, obviously, of the highest-possible quality.

Ontario is a society that is both compassionate and responsible. However, the housing needs of those in this province who are disadvantaged have been ignored for far too long. The difficulties that people encounter when simply trying to find a home for their family that is both safe and also provides them with a dignified accommodation have been unacceptable.

So it is certainly incumbent upon all of us in this House, as elected representatives of the people in the province of Ontario, to ensure that we take the steps that are necessary to provide all people with the means to access affordable housing. Certainly, in my community, I meet with many groups who impress upon me the fact that there is not appropriate affordable housing available. And we know that appropriate affordable housing is one of the determinants of good health, so it needs to be a priority for all governments and all parties.

We, as a caucus, are going to be supporting this bill, but having said this, I think our critic yesterday pointed out that there is still certainly disappointment with many aspects of the bill. I understand there were about 100 amendments to the bill, but there was only 24 hours for the three parties and our critic, in particular, to review the 100 amendments. Again, we had a case of this Liberal government trying to rush through the bill, as has been happening a lot recently.

I certainly know from my own experience as a member that you cannot do justice to 100 amendments—even just to read them—in a 24-hour period. To review the context in which they were presented to this House, it’s simply impossible to do justice and to look at how that amendment is going to impact individuals in this province or organizations, or to look at the merits of the amendment. So this was an enormous amount of work which simply wasn’t possible for any of the three parties to do. I guess maybe it was a little easier for the government; they have additional staff. But certainly, for the opposition it just wasn’t possible to do justice, and it’s unacceptable.

I don’t know why we go through the—almost a farce of having committee hearings and inviting people to come in. Having been on the other side of one of those presentations when I was chair of a school board in Kitchener–Waterloo and Cambridge, I can remember the tremendous effort that we took to make sure that we made a presentation that contained all of the concerns that we had and how we constructed recommendations for amendments.

When I think of the work that people put into this behind the scenes before they get here, and then they come in and we have 100 amendments from different groups and organizations and individuals, and then we only have 24 hours—I mean, that’s one day. It’s just not possible, and we don’t do it justice.

I think that in the future, we need to seriously consider this farce that we’re perpetrating: pretending we’re going to allow people input into legislation and then not providing all of the members in this House with a decent period of time, as I say, to review the amendments, determine the merits of the amendments and also decide whether or not they can support them. So I think that is something that we’re seeing far too often and, as I say, it doesn’t do justice to the amount of work that the deputants have put into preparing the amendments.

Having said that, I would go back to say that we have been looking for this bill for a long time in this Legislature. It has been promised, and certainly we did support the government’s initiatives to consult with Ontarians. I think it is important that we go out and we listen first-hand to the people throughout this great province about the concerns and the hardships that they are facing, and also to learn from them what is broken in the housing system.

I come back to the fact that I think we haven’t done justice to the representations that were made. The consultations were almost for naught, because we don’t see a lot reflected in this bill, as we now are at the third reading stage. Despite the fact that the government did say they wanted to get it right, I would say to you that what we’re seeing here doesn’t necessarily represent all the good input we did receive from our people throughout the province of Ontario.

One of the concerns our critic raised was that many of the amendments were submitted by the municipalities. Now, as you know, the municipalities are a very important partner with the provincial government when it comes to affordable housing. Unfortunately the amendments—and there were many that were submitted by the municipalities—were voted against by the government.

My colleague the member for Burlington, our critic, said yesterday, “It would behoove the government to ensure respectful partnerships with municipalities.” She went on to indicate that, unfortunately, the rejection of the amendments indicated that municipalities, a key partner, were not respected as they should have been in the process.

In many respects this bill leaves our municipalities to do the heavy lifting without getting any real help or assistance from the provincial government. As you know, the municipalities asked for more time to devise their 10-year housing plan, which seems very reasonable. In fact, my colleague the member for Burlington did introduce an amendment that would have provided this, but the government refused, instead mandating that the 10-year plans be developed by municipal service managers and submitted to the ministry by January 2012.

According to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, “We think the government should consider a phased approach. Some municipalities have the planning capacity that can get under way and meet the bill’s timeline. Others will need to build or find that capacity, which will take a bit of time.” They go on to say, “Municipalities want to get this right. We are accountable to our taxpayers and the residents of affordable housing in our communities. Appropriate time is needed to transition” to what is going to be a “new way of doing business.”

The other concern, of course, is that the burden on the municipalities has now been exacerbated by the government’s refusal to provide them with a clear picture of what the funding for the plan will be. Again I quote: “The government must understand that municipal councils cannot plan or budget in the absence of knowing what envelope they have to spend from these consolidated programs.”

You know, we see this often with this government. They make decisions, but there’s no indication of the amount of money that is going to be available. We saw that, for example, when they rolled out plans for full-day kindergarten, but we don’t see anything in the budget related to the amount that’s going to be necessary for capital construction. They need to be transparent and honest with the public, and in this case, they need to be honest with municipalities, who are finding it difficult to plan or budget in the absence of knowing what kind of envelope is going to be available.

This bill now downloads enormous amounts of responsibility on to our municipal service managers. It tasks them with developing and implementing their own affordable housing plans. AMO has made it clear as to what they need. They were very clear throughout the consultation process, as you know, yet the government has really not seriously considered all the concerns and issues they brought to the table which they felt deserved an answer. They don’t have it.

So here we are. We waited seven years for a plan. For seven years, the anticipation in the province has grown as people have patiently waited for the government to fulfill its promises and live up to its responsibilities, but we now have a bill coming forward for third reading that is a disappointment to many of the people in our communities who feel they’ve been let down.

This bill is a half measure. It is, one could say, a band-aid solution put forward by this Liberal government. It’s really quite disappointing to think that it took seven years to get this far, and this is all it is accomplishing.

Although the bill does make minor revisions to the way municipal service managers can spend provincial funding and amends the Planning Act to allow for secondary units, it really doesn’t do much of anything else. It doesn’t, most importantly, address the many systemic problems that serve, as all of us know, as significant obstacles to affordable housing.

The bill is a number of things, but people were looking for a thorough, complete strategy to address affordable housing issues, and this bill does not provide that complete, thorough strategy. In that respect, it was disappointing.

Perhaps what was also most worrying to people about this bill is its complete lack of ambition. Now, you might ask, what does that mean? Well, if you take a look at it, it doesn’t contain any clear goals or objectives. There is nothing special in it and nothing that is going to effect real change. If we’re going to correct Ontario’s affordable housing situation, we’re going to require some creative thinking and innovative solutions. This bill doesn’t offer any of that.

There were 485 housing stakeholders, by the way, who were consulted for over six months on this bill. They offered thousands of submissions, but all of them asked for only four distinct actions: new units, new money, rent supplements and inclusionary zoning provisions. Remember that these people are the front-line workers. They know this issue better than any of us in this House, they are the experts who work in this field every day and they are the ones who have a full and complete understanding of the challenges and difficulties.

Do you know that those four things were asked for, but the government gave them nothing in the way of new units, new money, rent supplements or inclusionary zoning provisions?

So, we are left with a bill that is a disappointment. It does absolutely nothing to end generational housing issues that have been with us for a long time and which this government had an opportunity to address.

I’d like to touch upon the need for a youth-specific program, because this is an issue I have heard a lot about in my own community. I know it’s an issue that was very important to our critic, the member for Burlington. I know that she is very disappointed, as am I, that the government chose to ignore her repeated requests to include provisions related specifically to providing housing for youth. For some reason, the government chose to refuse amendments related to providing housing for crown wards.

They did this in spite of the fact that the committee heard many deputations from stakeholders identifying this as a primary concern. Yet, this government chose not to act in response to those very legitimate concerns.

I would say to you that we are baffled as to why this government chose not to protect homeless youth and youth in need of better housing. We all know that a lack of housing for youth puts them at a very severe disadvantage in life. Providing affordable housing for youth in need and at risk is a very necessary, important investment. These young people already face tremendous barriers. Sometimes they come from families which are dysfunctional and they have absolutely no parental support. Surely, the least we can do is to ensure that they have a decent roof over their head.

Another aspect of the bill I’d like to touch on is the McGuinty government’s persistent excuse that it is the federal government that is to blame for Ontario’s dismal record on housing. Stand up, folks. Take some responsibility. This government’s reliance on federal dollars to fund a housing strategy must stop. The federal government has made it clear: They’re not in the housing business. We, in the province, are. It’s time for us to ensure that our residents in the province of Ontario have access to affordable housing.

We need to deliberately make sure that we devise strategies and plans that can address these needs. So I would say, stop the blame game. We need to make sure that we don’t abdicate our responsibilities to our people in this province.

As we know, the 2011 provincial budget made no funding commitments to housing. Instead, it talks about the need that the federal government remain a partner: What an abdication of responsibility. It isn’t good enough. Ontarians deserve much more from this government. You need to stand up and you need to act.

Finally, I’d like to speak to the government’s constant reliance on regulations. Regulations are created by bureaucrats, far from the front lines and without any ability for the public and municipalities to offer any insight, experiences or input. Specifics ought to be included directly in the bill where the public can have some input; now, they can’t.

Having said all this, we are still going to support this bill because at least it moves forward in a minor way. We will support it. But as I’ve pointed out, we are disappointed in the bill’s scope. We are disappointed in the fact that the input from the stakeholders throughout the province of Ontario has been largely ignored. We are concerned about its overly prescriptive nature. We are concerned about its lack of a housing benefit. We are concerned about its lack of youth housing, which is a real deficiency as far as we are concerned. And of course, as I pointed out, we are very concerned about its overall lack of ambition. It contains no clear goals and no clear objectives.

As a government, we should all be held accountable for providing affordable housing.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: I’m going to be doing my lead soon, but suffice it to say, here is a housing bill with not one new unit of housing, not one new dollar for housing and, in fact, a 10% reduction in housing, which makes Ontario the worst in Canada for investing in per capita housing—the very worst. Worse than Alberta, worse than everywhere. And not one new rent supplement. There’s nothing of housing in the housing bill.

Not only that, but this puts the McGuinty government in breach of United Nations laws. We have a letter from the rapporteur’s representative here, who says that unless the amendments that were put forward, that were asked for by the housing advocates who came and made their submissions, were made—they were “critical to ensuring compliance with Ontario’s obligations under international human rights law to fully ensure the right to adequate housing.”

You can’t get worse than that. It’s not us; it’s not the New Democratic Party. It’s the United Nations who’s calling the McGuinty government out and saying they are in non-compliance with international human rights law. That’s number one.

Number two, please remember this: the worst government in Canada—it has nothing to do with the federal government; it has to do with the McGuinty government—in terms of investment per capita in affordable housing.

This bill satisfies no one, absolutely no one. It’s a slap in the faces of over 450 housing groups that made submissions to the representatives here. It’s a disgrace. There are two small little iota items that make it impossible not to vote for it, but this is not a housing bill. As I say, it’s an insult to all of those who’ve been fighting for affordable housing across this province and around the world.

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

Mr. Dave Levac: I need about 60 minutes to rebut some of the things that the honourable member has been talking about. I respect the member from Kitchener–Waterloo, and she knows I do, but when she puts her partisan hat on I think we need to find the other side of the story. So let’s hear it.

The process had the amendments on the table, same as everyone else. The NDP, to their credit, gave us 49 amendments. You know how many you guys gave us? Five. And you’ve got twice the staff. So let me tell you, over the seven years of your party, how many questions did you guys ask on affordable housing? Seven. Seven questions—no, sorry. Correct the record: four. Four questions.

When you were in power, you cancelled 17,000 units. Your leader Mr. Harris said he wanted to get out of the affordable housing business. Oh, my gosh. The rooster is crowing here.

And what did the critic say? The critic said that she wanted to have a respectful partnership for municipalities. Let me read her quotes from when she was the regional chair. I can’t say this one word, Speaker, because it’s unparliamentary, but it’s not quite telling the truth to the public. “I don’t know what rationale the province is using.” “We’ve endured a huge loss of revenue in spite of the fact....” “We’ll come out of this okay....” “Without this confirmation, the question of whether the province’s promises have been”—

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Dave Levac: Could I have the clock stopped?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): No.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: No, you can’t.

There’s a point in our standing orders that says you can’t say indirectly what you can’t say directly, and I think this man said something along the lines that couldn’t—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Thank you. I would agree that the honourable member perhaps came close to saying something unparliamentary, but I’ll allow the honourable member to carry on, please.

Mr. Dave Levac: Nice trick. You just don’t like to hear what you guys did. You didn’t have history before 2003. I’d like the member to stand up and tell us about their record on affordable housing.

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

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As our member from Kitchener–Waterloo pointed out, this bill could be summarized in perhaps one word: timid. Very, very timid.

You can put a lot of adjectives in front of that “timid,” because this bill, as pointed out by the member from—

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Kitchener–Waterloo.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: —Kitchener–Waterloo, just doesn’t do very much. Two little tiny points that you could vote for, but other than that this bill falls far, far short.

After seven years of preparation, it’s a little embarrassing that you’ve struggled mightily and brought forth this excuse for a bill. It’s unfortunate that the government didn’t have a little more chutzpah to bring forth something that is perhaps needed in this province as much as any other issue in this province’s needs. As was pointed out earlier, we are standing last in Canada.

Of course, that’s becoming a place where Ontario is getting used to standing. We’re the lowest producer of new jobs; we’re the lowest producer of recovery items. We stand lowest in economic activity in many different areas. It is a shame that this government, after eight years, has brought Ontario to this very sad position.

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

Mr. Howard Hampton: I think that anyone who works at the municipal level virtually anywhere across the province will tell you that we have a real crisis in affordable housing. We have a real crisis in affordable housing for seniors. We have a real crisis in affordable housing for people who struggle on low and modest incomes. We have a real crisis in affordable housing for people who need assisted living or supportive housing and simply do not have the income.

The travesty of this bill is that for over seven years this government has talked a good game about affordable housing, this government has talked a good game about social housing, it has talked a good game on all of these fronts, and it has continued to say, “Oh, wait. We’re studying it. We’re looking at it. We’re surveying it. We’re detailing it. Just wait; we’re really going to do something. We’re really going to address this problem.” And then out comes this bill.

What does this bill do? Just about nothing—just about nothing. After all of the rhetoric, after all of the happy talk, after all of the “Oh, we’re going to study it. We’re going to detail it. We’re going to address it,” what does this bill do? Just about nothing.

You talk about a game of flim-flam perpetrated on some of the most vulnerable people in Ontario—this is it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The honourable member for Kitchener–Waterloo has two minutes for her response.

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: Thank you very much for the contributions by the members for Parkdale–High Park, Brant, Halton and Kenora–Rainy River.

I just would like to say that affordable housing is an issue that this government has talked about since they were elected in 2003. They have made promises and commitments to the people throughout the province of Ontario, and I know that, because I’ve had so many people make visits to my constituency office in Kitchener–Waterloo who were hanging on to hope—hope that the government actually would address the issues and provide some additional housing for the 142,000 people who were looking for accommodation. Regrettably, these 142,000 people are still going to continue to wait. They are left hoping and waiting for more housing.

You know what? This government, despite the fact that they were making so many promises, didn’t respond to the front-line people, the people who know what’s going on every day; the people who asked for new units, new money, rent supplements and inclusionary zoning provisions. They totally neglected the advice and the input from those individuals, and those individuals, more than anybody else, are the people that they should have listened to. They’re the people in my community who know what is needed, because they interact every day with those in need. They understand the challenges and the difficulty that the people without proper housing are affected by.

Of course, personally, it’s the youth housing—no addressing the issue.

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

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: It’s certainly an honour to stand on behalf of my constituents and all of those who have been fighting for affordable housing for as long as I can remember in the province of Ontario.

I could start off, as I did in my two-minute hit, by saying that this is a government in breach of the United Nations human rights law, according to their rapporteur—that they personally intervened, that they had an observer here for the amendments and the discussion because of how bad things are in Ontario.

I could start off by talking about how this so-called housing bill doesn’t have one new dollar, one new unit, one new rent supplement, any changes to the Planning Act to allow municipalities to bring in things like inclusionary zoning—none of that.

Instead, I’m going to work around to that. What I’d like to start off by doing is telling a story. It’s a story of a young teenage girl who used to sleep in the park just to the north of this House, a young girl who left home, like many teenagers do, not necessarily for economic reasons or because they’ve been orphaned, but because of violence in the home, because their home situation became unbearable and, in fact, the streets were somewhat safer than their home situation. We find this story over and over again amongst homeless youth, and this was certainly the case for this young girl.

She slept in the park because she’d run out of couches to surf; she’d run out of families to stay with. Of course, she didn’t sleep very soundly, because if you’re a teenage girl sleeping in a public park, you don’t sleep very soundly.

Times were different back then—this was a while back. She made her way to her family doctor, who filled out a form and managed to get her on student welfare. Student welfare, back in the day, was enough to live on, pay your rent and go to school with, and that’s what she did. Student welfare allowed her to rent a basement apartment. It was enough to send her back to high school, and from high school she redirected her life and went on to university.

That’s not the case anymore. Now, welfare for a single person is just over $500 a month. You’re going to hear me speak about the plight of our youth, particularly crown wards, who are released on to the streets at the age of 18 with nowhere to go, and who fight, along with the other 142,000 families waiting 10 to 12 years, for affordable housing in this province. So you can’t do that anymore. You can’t do that. I’m hearkening back not to some halcyon days, according to social progressives in Ontario; I’m hearkening back to the days when this province was blue generation in, almost generation out.

The girl that I’m speaking about was me. I tell the story often, because it’s not very far, in terms of physical distance, from that park on the north side of this building to this green leather seat in this chamber.

I’m glad I was alive and born when I was, because who knows how that story would have ended now, if that same girl had slept in the park in this generation? I can tell you the story, because we heard it from many of the submitters to the housing panel that was called to look at Bill 140. We heard from many of them, particularly from the provincial advocates for youth and children, who said that now, the vast majority of girls in the situation I was in back then are doomed to a far, far different fate than one day being elected to be a member of provincial Parliament, and all the background that one needs to get oneself here.

That’s what we’re talking about here; we’re talking about lives. We’re talking about lives resurrected—a good word to remember in this month of Easter—and lives that are defeated, and the single greatest difference is a safe place to live. That’s why the United Nations takes such interest in affordable housing, not only here but around the world. That’s why the United Nations took

part in a provincial housing consultation. That’s why the United Nations ruled this government—and will be sending a letter shortly to that effect—to be in breach of international human rights law. That’s why. We have the worst record in Canada for housing. It’s not about the feds for this issue. It’s not about the feds. It’s about what we do here. We can’t pass the buck. In this province, we actually spent less than half of the national average per capita. You know, in Saskatchewan they spent four times as much per person as they did in Ontario. This is McGuinty’s actual record on housing.

I’m going to tell you that in 2003, when people elected this government, they elected them in part on a promise to build 20,000 new units. You know, eight years later, they’ve still only funded 15,000—eight years later—and built only half that number, barely 11,000 new units. In fact, they’ve built only, and provided only, about one fifth of what every housing advocate across the province has called for. And now that federal funding is probably going to be reduced, we don’t have any plan in place to replace it—none.

In fact, not only do we not have a plan in place—because this isn’t a plan, Bill 140; this is an excuse made instead of a plan—but we are facilitating the privatization of Toronto Community Housing stock. The very few units that we have, this government is walking in lockstep with Rob Ford and the city of Toronto and other mayors who want to privatize, to facilitate the privatization of existing affordable housing stock.

What we have is an upcoming disaster, as if we don’t already live in one. Remember the national disaster? We still live in that. We have the highest housing costs in Canada. Against the backdrop of inaction, we also have the worst possible situation. Do you know that over 50% of our renters pay over 50% of their income on rent? Where is that going to lead to?

Let’s hearken back to that young girl in the park. Let’s hearken back to her days, when she grew up in the province of Ontario. In those days—I know there are some here watching who are at least my age, if not a few years older—on one salary, you could afford to buy a house and a car and, if you were one of the lucky few, a cottage as well. Now let’s compare that reality to our children’s reality, and you know I’m speaking the truth, those who are listening and watching at home. On two salaries you’re lucky, in the city of Toronto, to be able to afford—not a house—maybe a condo, and maybe make payments on a car.

Only the very wealthy can afford a second home. That’s the reality. That’s how far we’ve actually fallen in terms of home ownership over two generations.

Again, don’t buy my word for it; buy the word of the 450-plus groups that work in the housing field that sent their representatives here, almost all of whom called for a few basic items to be in this bill.

What’s one of those basic items? First of all, that you have targets and timelines. How can you have a housing bill, how can you have any kind of bill that talks for action in any area, without targets and timelines? “We will have so many units. We will have so many rent supplements.” Targets—none. Timelines—none. This isn’t, I would argue, a housing bill; this is an excuse for one.

Interjections.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: To my friends opposite who are saying, “Well then, don’t vote for it,” this is a classic McGuinty Liberal ploy, quite frankly.

This is what you do: You name a bill. You could just have one page. You don’t need the rest of the bill; just say, “We like affordable housing.” There’s a bill: “We like affordable housing. Vote for it or against it.” And guess what’s going to happen? You vote against it, and on their campaign literature it will say, “The Progressive Conservatives and the New Democrats don’t like affordable housing.” Come on.

Do you really think you can live in that? Do you think the 142,000 families can live in a bill that says, “We like affordable housing”? Maybe if you got all the bills that this government has put together in the last eight years, you could actually build one unit, because there’s a lot of paper that flies around this place, but you can’t live in that. You can’t live in it. That wouldn’t provide housing for that girl in the park. It wouldn’t provide housing for anybody. This bill will not provide housing for anyone. That’s the simple reality of this bill.

Let’s go through what some of those who made presentations had to say. You are going to hear, Mr. Speaker and those listening at home, a litany of every advocate who works with the impoverished and the marginalized. You will hear from every organization who puts some hope in the 25-in-5 so-called plan. Again, that was a bill that said, “We don’t like poverty.” That was that bill, and you can’t feed yourself on that.

So now, as we’re on our way to increasing the level of child poverty 25% in five years, we have these who came to submit on this so-called housing bill. We had Campaign 2000. Everybody knows Campaign 2000. I certainly know Jacquie Maund. She lives in my riding. She’s an incredible woman who has worked really hard, as has her organization. What were the demands they made? Five, and you will hear these five demands made over and over and over again.

First of all, prevent the privatization and the sell-off of social housing. As our committee was meeting, 47 properties of affordable housing were on the chopping block in the city of Toronto. And by the way, if you think that this has to do with the recession, let me point out that there have been other recessions. This isn’t the first, and it probably will not be the last. Yet this is the worst performance of any provincial government in Canada: half of the investment per capita of the average; a quarter of what Saskatchewan put into per capita affordable housing.

But let’s compare us with, let’s say, a progressive administration; for example, the country of Sweden, nine million people. We have 13 million in Ontario. In Sweden, they had what they called a “million-home plan.” For every year, they built—built—100,000 new units. That’s where they preferred to put their stimulus money: into building homes. Guess what? Building homes produces jobs right across the sector. It stimulated their economy during a recession. That’s when they started building.

What has this government done in response to recession? They’ve given billions to corporations, which no lesser authority than StatsCan has shown is the worst possible way to produce jobs, the worst possible way to stimulate an economy. In fact, StatsCan shows that—where does that money end up? You give tax breaks to corporations—and by the way, we should be ashamed of this—and we now have the lowest corporate tax rate in North America and one of the worst homelessness issues. Hey, maybe the two are related.

That’s the worst possible way of producing jobs, and in fact, it does not stimulate the economy. StatsCan has shown that. What has happened is that these companies simply invest the money again. They basically put the money in their pocket. Cash reserves have gone through the roof. Banks and insurance companies are making huge profits, and more and more people are waiting on housing lists.

So, prevent the privatization and the sell-off of social housing, says Campaign 2000.

Two: Restrict punitive rent-geared-to-income rules. Remember Al Gosling? Remember the death of that poor old man? This bill is not going to prevent any more deaths like Al Gosling’s. In fact, there’ll be fewer units, so you can bet, with the privatization that’s under way in cities like Toronto, there will be more death—no doubt.

Three: Improve fairness for tenants. Well, boy, nothing much in this bill for tenants, I’ll tell you. Second units—you know, what we used to call “granny flats.” That’s in here. That is a minor, minor step forward when we need a major step forward.

I was out travelling with Mary Wiens, the CBC host in my riding, looking at some of the privately held so-called affordable housing stock. I can tell you we went into one apartment where a lady was celebrating I think it was her 92nd birthday. She had been living in the apartment for 30 years, and for 15 of those 30 years she had complained of a leaky roof. She lived on the top floor of an eight-storey building. The roof was leaking, and she was putting a bucket there—a 90-year-old woman—to collect the water.

Well, what did her landlord do? We took pictures, because Mary Wiens couldn’t believe it. They built an indoor eavestrough. They didn’t repair the roof; they built an eavestrough, indoors, going into a bucket. That was their answer, and she has lived that way for 15 years.

What do we need to protect tenants? Well, I can tell you we need some legislation—we in the New Democratic Party put forward landlord licensing—where landlords like that would have to comply with building codes. There’s nothing like that now. Bad landlords ignore building codes; I see it all the time.

If any member here would like to go and visit this lady, I’m happy to accommodate. You will see that this particular landlord has been doing this for 15 years—and still collecting rent, I must say. And, by the way, their capital investment, the building, has gone up hugely in value in that 15 years. Unlike most small business that invests in capital and the capital goes down, housing tends not to in the province of Ontario. So there we have it.

By the way, finally, introduce inclusionary housing. Inclusionary housing, if we recall, was my bill. I put it before this House. Everybody voted for it. It was passed. And guess what? There it died. I hoped that the very least that would come out in Bill 140 would be an amendment to the Planning Act; that’s all that our bill called for. It didn’t even ask municipalities to bring in inclusionary zoning. It wasn’t prescriptive; it simply allowed them the possibility of bringing in inclusionary zoning, if they so chose. Hazel McCallion liked it. People liked it.

Across the province of Ontario, municipalities would like more control over their housing stock. Whether it’s density bonusing or inclusionary zoning, they know that right now, under the rules in Ontario, a developer could appeal that, go to the OMB and get it thrown out. That’s why we don’t have inclusionary zoning in Ontario. It’s all through the States, it’s in Vancouver, but it’s not here.

What is inclusionary zoning? It doesn’t cost a tax dime; all it is is allowing the municipalities to say, “From now on”—here’s an example of inclusionary zoning legislation—“every development over 50 units needs to set aside 10% to be affordable.” Do you know that, at that most conservative number, we calculated that if the city of Toronto and all municipalities had inclusionary zoning laws in place at the 10% rate, we would have 13,000 new units of affordable housing every single year?

Now, that isn’t the whole solution, but it goes a long way to those 142,000 families waiting. It certainly would speed up the process, and it’s good for developers and tenants alike. Why? Because in the down market, it allows developers to unload their less-desirable units or, if the city allows them to build another floor, it doesn’t cost them anything and we get affordable housing out of it, and it doesn’t cost us anything.

This is such a simple step, and even this step this government was unwilling to take. You ask for a mile, you get—I’m used to pushing the elephant uphill in this place, but here, my goodness, most of the housing advocates settled for asking for maybe a few yards, and instead they got a centimetre—a centimetre—in this bill.

Let’s move on; let’s hear from some of the others who made submissions. This is kind of a classic. From ACTO, we got email after email stating again and again the five key demands that you just heard me outline:

“

(1) Prevent the privatization and sell-off of social housing.” That’s not asking a lot. That’s not asking for the 10,000 new builds that some of them ask for; that’s just saying “let’s not get rid of what we have.

“

(2) Restrict punitive rent-geared-to-income rules.” Again, let’s prevent some deaths here; that’s not happening here.

“

(3) Improve fairness for tenants.” Nothing in the bill for that.

“

(4) Introduce inclusionary” zoning or “housing.” Didn’t happen—or, as I said, all my bill would do is allow municipalities to have that option. It’s not even prescriptive. They wouldn’t even do that.

“

(5) Social housing providers need a fair appeals process.” With the disaster that has become not-for-profit housing and the response from the Ford government to it, that’s the least one could ask for. That’s not what Ontarians got.

The Wellesley Institute, which is perhaps the foremost authority on housing, again reiterates, as did everyone, what they asked for.

Recommendation 1: Amend the Planning Act to ensure municipalities have the power “to enact locally appropriate inclusionary housing plans.” For a government that’s frightened of spending a dime, inclusionary zoning, inclusionary housing or allowing municipalities the ability to do that is a no-tax, no-cost alternative. No, couldn’t do that in this bill.

Recommendation 2: Amend Bill 140 to require the provincial government to create a comprehensive, made-in-Ontario affordable housing plan. In other words, what the Wellesley Institute and what they all asked for, quite frankly, and were all ignored on, was, let’s have a housing plan. After all those thousands of hours of deputations—by the way, I should correct myself on that; according to the member from Welland, it’s not “deputations”—the thousands of hours of submissions that were made by housing groups, a plan was one of the first priorities.

A housing bill, you would think, would have a plan for housing in it. No, didn’t get it; they said no to that and no to all the amendments. As you heard, some 49 amendments were voted down.

Housing as a human right: Again, I come back to the United Nations and the fact that this government is in breach of international human rights law and has caught the eye of the United Nations special rapporteur, who actually is going to be writing a letter to this government, actually had a representative here claiming—not claiming; pointing out quite clearly—that without these amendments, this government is in breach of international human rights law.

One would think that would be a shameful thing. One would think that a government would be ashamed to have caught the eye of the United Nations. A provincial government, my goodness: The United Nations have lots of other things on their plate other than focusing in on the government of Ontario and housing, but they did. They did, because it’s so egregious. That should be shameful.

Again, these are very simple demands. Targets and timelines—any plan. I don’t care in what field, in what endeavour: Targets and timelines are necessary.

Oh, here we have the submission from the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario. You already know what they’re going to ask for, don’t you, Mr. Speaker? You already know because it’s the same thing that every other group asked for.

Here we have health care professionals asking for the same things:

“

(1) Immediately enshrine the human right to adequate housing in federal and provincial legislation.” Do you know why this government is not going to do that? Do you know why it will not pass such a law, even though it doesn’t cost a dime? It’s that they know that the next thing—I mean, they’re already going to get class action lawsuits; there’s no doubt about that—people will do, those 142,000 families who are waiting, is say, “Hey, it’s my United Nations-given right to housing. Where is it?” And this government is going to say, “Sorry, too bad. We don’t have it, and we’re not planning on providing it.”

Interjections.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Don’t argue with me. The members across are—the member from London–Fanshawe should be very concerned about affordable housing in his riding, by the way. He’s arguing with the nurses’ association of Ontario and their recommendations. I would say, take it up with Doris, give her a call, because these are their recommendations—not hers; the entire nursing organization.

You remember that each of these folks who came to submit represents hundreds, if not thousands, of members. Do you know how many people were actually sitting at that table making these amendments? Thousands and thousands of Ontarians, all saying the same things, all being repulsed by this government.

“

(2) Immediately implement the recommendation of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to address discrimination in rental housing,” said the RNAO. There’s none of that. In fact, we had two submitters, who I’ll raise right now, who particularly moved me. One was a provincial advocate for youth who talked about the plight of crown wards. Crown wards are literally sent from their foster homes at the age of 18. Where are they? The door is opened, they are sent out. Where do they go? On to the affordable housing waiting list. There is no priority given to an 18-year-old.

That girl in the park wouldn’t have had any priority under this government. She would have waited 10 to 12 years—that’s the average—for an affordable housing unit. An 18-year-old needs schooling, needs direction, needs supervision; they’re out of luck. So the provincial advocate didn’t get what they wanted for crown wards.

At the other end of life, seniors’ groups came here and made their submissions—seniors’ groups. Can you imagine being a senior and living in poverty—and many of them are—using food banks? Imagine being told to wait 10 to 12 years for affordable housing. Give me a break. They don’t have 10 to 12 years. So an African seniors’ organization came—it was very moving—and said to the committee, “Our members don’t have 10 to 12 years left, and they need affordable housing yesterday.”

Where are we giving seniors affordable housing now? I was just at a hospital to visit a friend of mine, and, boy, I saw a number of seniors there, waiting in beds in hospital wards, waiting to be transferred somewhere. How much does it cost? This is absurd.

Talking about the costs, by the way, before I go into all the other RNAO recommendations, do you know that it costs more to keep somebody homeless than to house them? This is the worst kind of false economy. My goodness, Americans have done studies. In New York City, it costs about $55,000 a year to keep someone homeless. Why? They visit emergency wards; they take up beds in hospital; they take up beds in jails; they interact with the justice system; they use shelters, which are expensive housing. Shelters are expensive housing.

This is the ridiculous move of this government: paying more money to keep people homeless. In fact, Mr. Gerretsen, when he was the housing minister, admitted as much—it’s in Hansard—because when he came forward to government agencies and we brought forward this statistic, he said, “I know.” It costs more to keep somebody homeless. It’s ridiculous. They know this is the case. In Vancouver, it was $45,000 a year in the study there to keep somebody homeless. This is absurd, but this is this government’s plan of attack.

“

(3) Introduce”—of course—“inclusionary housing by amending the Planning Act....” Guess what? Yet again, inclusionary housing.

“

(4) Introduce and fund in the upcoming budget a universal housing benefit for all low-income Ontarians....” It’s on the order paper; I put it there. That’s what was asked for. That’s been asked for by every housing advocate. Just think: If you’re on Ontario disabilities and you’re earning around $1,000 a month—and remember, the reason you’re on Ontario disabilities is because you cannot work. You cannot work. You have a disability. You get only about $1,000 a month. Imagine trying to live in the city of Toronto on that and paying rent.

I would challenge any of my Liberal friends across the aisle to try to live in the province of Ontario, while disabled, on $1,000 a month and pay market rent. Good luck. So Daily Bread and every anti-poverty activist across the province has called for a housing benefit. Is there a housing benefit? Absolutely not. There is no housing benefit. So, to Daily Bread and to all those anti-poverty activists across Ontario, this government has said, “No.” It said no to you. Eight years later—it’s had eight years—they’ve said no.

So you know that this government is not the friend of the anti-poverty activists and it’s not the friend of the housing activists.

Again, with the nurses’ recommendations: “Invest, in the upcoming budget, in a minimum of 10,000 affordable housing units each and every year for the next 10 years. To ensure that housing is accessible”—I’m lucky in my riding. We have some supportive housing that went in. Boy, it took about 10 years to get it—Edmond Yu housing. Here’s a shout-out to all of the incredible social workers and others—to Victor Willis and all the people at PARC—who finally got some units of affordable housing done.

It took about 10 years. That’s how much time it usually takes. Don’t tell me that can’t be streamlined. Don’t tell me there isn’t a better way of providing affordable housing in burnt-out buildings, in appropriated buildings, on provincial land that’s sitting idle. It shouldn’t take 10 years, but it did.

A minimum of 10,000 affordable units: You’ve heard me say that it’s a great way of jump-starting the economy too, for all the building trades and for everybody else. Put money into infrastructure development. Put it into housing. It will create jobs.

My example of the Swedish government, with their 100,000 units a year, which they did build: There is virtually no homelessness in Sweden. Guess what? Their economy is doing better than ours. Guess what? That’s the land of IKEA, Sony Ericsson. It’s the land of Volvo. It’s the land of all of these multinational companies. They’re not hurting; they’re doing okay, and their people are housed. Guess what? It’s free to go to university there too. Why? Because they didn’t choose to put billions into corporate tax giveaways. They preferred to put the billions into infrastructure development, because they know it creates jobs.

Hey, this is history. This is New Deal stuff. This isn’t new. StatsCan just said what every other economist or historian will tell you: that giving money away to corporations, the trickle-down economic theory, doesn’t trickle down. It doesn’t work. But putting money in at the bottom and hoping it generates jobs like housing works time and time again.

“Fund in the upcoming budget a program for regular maintenance and repair of new and existing affordable housing.” Not only was this not there—remember, not one new dollar—but in fact what’s going to happen because of this bill is that you’re going to see increasing privatization. As I said, 47 properties are now on the auction block—affordable housing. These are units we will never get back; once they go private, we’re never going to see them again. That’s it. That’s happening as we speak, and this bill does nothing to stop that. In fact, this bill paves the way for more of it.

Another example of an ask here: “Introduce a fair, transparent and independent appeals process for housing providers. Under the existing legislation, non-profit organizations and co-ops have not had the ability to seek an independent review” of municipal service managers’ actions. Again, an ask here with, you know, a kind of measly reply in Bill 140. But truly, service managers and municipalities have far more of a say than they should about existing housing stock. That has also come across in a great many recommendations.

The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation: It becomes redundant, but they asked for something for rights of persons with disabilities; so did the UN, by the way. There’s nothing here, no housing credit for those on disability and no recognition that those on disability might actually need housing, particular kinds of housing, so good luck to them. I really wish good luck to them.

It’s frightening that the use of food banks has gone up. For all the crowing that the McGuinty Liberals do about the Harris-Eves government, the actual reality is that there are more poor people now than there were then. There are more homeless now than there were then. There are more on the housing lists now than there were then, under so-called Liberal rule—majority Liberal rule. That’s the reality.

That girl who slept in a park—that was under a Tory government. Saskatchewan and Alberta are doing better than we are. For all the fearmongering that happens from across the aisle, one would have to ask, where’s the actual policy? Where is a step to making anything better? It’s not here. It’s not in Bill 140.

Where else? Ontario health centres: Again, we know that safe, affordable housing is a key determinant of health. That is why health professionals, including the RNAO, stepped forward, made their submissions, called on the government to act, and sadly, the government did not act. It said no. It did act, really, I should say: It said no. It said, “No, we don’t care what you say.” The Association of Ontario Health Centres: What have they asked for? Let’s see. Any surprises here? No.

Hey, annual funding to build 10,000 affordable homes per year and ongoing maintenance; prevent the privatization and sell-off of social housing; restrict punitive rent-geared-to-income rules, the ones that resulted in the death of Al Gosling; improve fairness for tenants; introduce inclusionary housing. Again, the same five asks over and over and over again.

Golden Horseshoe Co-operative Housing Federation: same asks.

Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario and Housing Network of Ontario, representing thousands and thousands of people across the province: What do you think they asked for? Inclusionary housing, improved fairness for tenants, restrict punitive rent-geared-to-income, prevent the privatization and sell-off.

You know, again, the government’s answer to all those thousands of tenants across Ontario: The answer is no. The answer is, “No, we do not accept your demands. We won’t do what you ask.”

Here is an interesting paragraph. This particularly sad submission is from the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth for Ontario—because there were youth there. As I described that girl sleeping in the park, well, guess what? We have youth sleeping in our parks now, a lot more of them, a whole lot more of them; in fact, thousands more of them than in my day.

Here’s what they wrote in their submission:

“At 18, a youth is no longer considered a child in need of care and the youth is expected to live independently. Typically, youth who are living in foster homes, group homes, and transitional housing program (through CAS) must leave the home they are living in when they turn 18 because the funding agreements that pay the cost of their care are completely withdrawn. Several youth in the care of CAS describe this experience as ‘difficult.’” No kidding. What an understatement. Imagine being thrust out on to the street at 18 after having a history of trauma.

“Young people who have experienced this sudden withdrawal of support are adamant that ‘no child should be forced to live on their own until they are ready; no one cares whether we are ready.’ For many children and youth leaving care, this is a continuation of a loss of control that began with the circumstances that caused them to enter care.”

I only have a few minutes left, and I want to take some of them to tell the story of another youth. After being ordained and being in the United Church, we had a truck in our parking lot that we woke up to one morning, and in the truck were a man and his daughter, and that’s where they lived. They said they could not afford to live anywhere else. This little girl went to school every day, and every night she went home to the truck.

We, as church members, stepped up and we helped in any way we could. We tried to find housing. We did not succeed; there wasn’t any. One day, we woke up and the truck moved away from the parking lot of the church. We don’t know what happened to that little girl and her father, and interestingly enough, not one of her teachers knew what her living circumstances were, either. On the face of it, a normal dad who got up in the morning, put on a suit, went out and looked for work; on the face of it, a perfectly normal little girl, dressed like every other kid, who took a lunch, went to school and came back. They lived in a truck.

How many children right now are living in poverty? Well, I know the answer; it’s a rhetorical question: one in six in the province of Ontario. How many of those one in six are actually living in circumstances like that? We don’t know, but we know there are many.

This is who we’re talking about, because behind the outrageous statistics, behind the startling, galling apathy of this government across the aisle, behind all of the submissions for all of the housing advocates and anti-poverty advocates are these stories. They’re the stories of real children and real people. It’s my story; it’s a story of someone you know or a story of someone they knew. These are real people. You can give them a hand up or you can turn your back on them.

Quite frankly, not just me, but every submitter to this committee was told no and the United Nations was told no. This government, the McGuinty Liberals, has turned their back on them. There’s not a way out under Bill 140 and under this administration. In fact, the hole gets deeper. In fact, the crisis is worse and worse every year that this government has been sitting in those seats. The situation grows worse, and that’s the reality.

Again, it’s not me. It’s the United Nations special rapporteur who says this government’s in breach.

Interjection.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The member from Brant thinks this is funny. He’s laughing. The member from Brant thinks this is funny. I’m outraged. He thinks it’s funny that one in six children live in poverty; that homelessness is going up in his riding, too.

Mr. Dave Levac: No, I think you are.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: The member from Brant thinks I’m funny. Well, I’ll leave that up to the voters at home and to the people who are watching, if they think this is a funny story. The member from Brant thinks this is a funny story, talking about a little girl who lives in a truck, talking about a kid who slept in a park, talking about the provincial advocate, who talks about the situation of crown wards or seniors, or the special rapporteur from the United Nations, who wrote a letter saying if you do not pass these amendments you will be in breach of international human rights law.

Mr. Dave Levac: Get off the pulpit. You are.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: He can insult me all he wants. I’m used to it; I’ve taken it. And women do, all the time, especially in this place. That’s another issue. But you know, certainly the cat—

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Stop the clock, please. Order. I’d just ask the honourable members to settle down, please, and stop the personal insults.

The honourable member for Parkdale–High Park has the floor.

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: Homeless youth are used to being ignored. We see them on the streets all the time now in the city of Toronto. Certainly, those who are on the waiting list are being ignored, because there’s no housing for them.

All that I ask of this government is that they step up to the plate and, for the first time since they’ve taken office, not be in breach of the United Nations human rights laws. That would be a start. I’ll continue.

Third reading debate deemed adjourned.

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

The House recessed from 1015 to 1030.

INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS

Mr. Monte Kwinter: I’d like to introduce Rabbi Yermi Cohen and his son Mendy, who are here today.

Mr. Bruce Crozier: It’s my privilege today to introduce a constituent, Barbara Dupont, who is here today in the gallery to receive a Victim Services Award. Welcome, Barb.

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I am delighted to introduce my guests today. They are the parents of page Grace Conroy: Kathleen Sabyan; her husband, Rick Conroy; and their children John, Ah-mei and Lily. The Conroys also operate the Wellington Times, a wonderful media outlet franchise in Prince Edward County.

Mr. Ted Chudleigh: As you know, we have an exceptional number of pages here today. I’m pleased to introduce Sydney’s parents: her father, Pat O’Brien, who is in the members’ gallery; her mother, Christine; her brother Andrew; her sister Emily; and her brother Tucker. Welcome to the Ontario Legislature.

Mr. Peter Tabuns: It’s my pleasure to introduce students from the journalism course at Centennial College. I have Andrew Phillips, Connie Kennedy, Scott Reid, Nicholas Pescod, Braydon Keddie, Nicole Pulsinelli, Sanja Gavranovic, Alisa Randall, Jilan Nasher, Kris Ali-Trotman, Octavian Lacatusu, Kyle Koivisto, Jesse Mirsky, Matilda Miranda, and Melanie Schawill. I hope you enjoy it. That’s all I can say.

Hon. Christopher Bentley: Today at 12 o’clock, we’re giving out the Attorney General’s Victim Services Awards of Distinction. A number of the recipients are in the gallery or are getting there. If I could just read out their names: Jim Vince from Chatham; Jacquie Carr; Catherine Kedziora; Barbara Dupont; Timea Nagy; Kim Gibson; Sparky J.; Julie Bechard-Fischer; Yevonne Culligan; the Sexual Assault and Violence Intervention Services of Halton, represented by Jacqueline Benn-John; the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Centre of Sarnia-Lambton, represented by Michelle Batty; and the Hearing Healing Hope centre, represented by Steve Irwin. We invite all members to attend the awards.

Mrs. Julia Munro: I’d ask all members to help me welcome Sally Smith and Elaine Iannuzziello, who are here today to witness question period.

Mr. Dave Levac: As very special guests of our page Madelaine Brown, what we have is mum and dad here, Carol Lyn Brown and Dan Brown—up in the special space with a friend of mine—and grandmother and grandfather Nancy and Deane Falle, the grandparents of Madelaine. They’re here to observe question period and they’re excited about it.

Mr. David Caplan: I want to welcome Rabbi Yermi Cohen—he delivered shmurah matzah to members of the Legislature—and his son Mendy, who are here to watch proceedings during Queen’s Park. Welcome.

Mr. Randy Hillier: I’d like to introduce a man who has spent considerable time travelling through the province, speaking of the word of government largesse and waste. He’s a man with vast experience in government and really needs no introduction, since we’ve all seen him in the local papers: Jim Wilson, the member from Simcoe–Grey.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I just remind the honourable members that this is an opportunity to introduce guests to the Legislature. Introducing a member is not an introduction.

Hon. James J. Bradley: Norm wouldn’t do that.

Interjection: He’s been away for a while.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): And as honourable members know, we don’t make references to the attendance of members as well.

The member from Chatham–Kent–Essex.

Mr. Pat Hoy: From Chatham-Kent, Michelle Schryer. She works with the women’s assault crisis centre.

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): On Thursday, April 7, 2011, the member for Welland, Mr. Kormos, raised a point of order with respect to the practice of referring questions asked of one minister to another. The member for Renfrew–Nipissing–Pembroke, Mr. Yakabuski, also spoke to this point of order, and I have received a written submission from the government House leader, Ms. Smith, which I note was copied to the other two House leaders.

The member for Welland made reference to standing order 37(e), which states, “A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates.” The member expressed some concern over the referral of a question on the subject of wood allocations from the Premier to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and the government House leader.

The member will know that the Speaker is not in a position to determine, except in general terms, which particular program or policy falls within the sphere of responsibility for each minister. It’s the prerogative of the government to decide which minister should answer which question. The Speaker cannot compel any particular minister to answer a question or, indeed, decide for the executive council who among them is the most appropriate responder. This position has been taken on numerous occasions by successive Speakers, here and in other jurisdictions. It is further substantiated by a variety of procedural authorities.

I thank the member for Welland for bringing these concerns to the attention of the House, but I cannot find that he has raised a valid point of order.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: To the Minister of Community Safety and Correctional Services. Did you or any member of your staff direct and advise staff in your ministry to withhold the release of freedom-of-information records that the Ontario Progressive Conservative caucus requested on cable television packages in jails?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I can’t believe that we would ever contemplate doing any such thing. Freedom-of-information requests are made from various sources, including, in your case, your caucus; the NDP caucus; members of the public; and members of the media. They are processed in the normal manner, without my knowledge that you’re asking a specific question. Eventually, the answer comes from the ministry. To my knowledge, that most assuredly would not be the case.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Minister, this is very serious. The Ontario PC caucus submitted a freedom-of-information request on August 19 of last year. By September 27, the ministry had gathered all the records. The first sign something was up came a month later, when the ministry said it had photocopied everything, but some parts of the copies were unreadable. Our records show that ministry staff were of the opinion that records would be in our hands no later than the end of November. They were off by five months.

Something is fishy, so I ask again: Did you or anyone in your office direct ministry officials to withhold those freedom-of-information requests?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I have a note from, I believe, the Information and Privacy Commissioner: an acknowledgment of contentious issues process from the 2004 report. It says, “It is our understanding that the Ontario government still has a process in place to give ministers” information “about the disclosure of potentially controversial records under FOI, which, on its own, is not a problem. We are pleased that, over the past year, we have not seen any evidence to show that this process is having an adverse effect on the 30-day statutory time frame for responding to FOI requests.”

There is a process that is in place. The ministry, and I think virtually all ministries in the government—as they would have had to do when you were in power—follow exactly the same process. That is why, when it was established originally under legislation, there was a process that was set in place. This process is followed by ministries of the government, as it should be.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: The seriousness of this nature is appalling. When November passed without the Ontario PC caucus being given the records, we called the deputy FOI coordinator in your ministry. She reconfirmed that all materials were gathered and she saw no reason why we shouldn’t receive the records by the end of January. When the deadline passed, we called her again and she said she will have the records by the end of February. At the beginning of March, she emailed to say the records were going to be “sent in a week or two,” but they never were.

It smells fishy, Minister. How can we believe that neither you nor any of your staff—political communications or otherwise—did not direct the ministry officials to withhold the FOI? Please answer that question.

Hon. James J. Bradley: There are wild allegations that keep coming from the opposition. I know you’re on a fishing trip in this particular case.

I want to say to the member that we follow the appropriate process in any of the ministries of the government, including the ministry for which I am responsible. The information is gathered in as much detail as possible.

There are rules that are set out by the Information and Privacy Commissioner. I can say that, in comparing your previous government with our government in terms of the responses, our rate of response has been 88%, which is the best ever. When your government happened to be in power and your fellow colleagues were in power, the response rate at that time was only 50%. So there’s a substantial improvement that has taken place over this period of time that must—

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

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Back to the Minister of Correctional Services. By April 1, the freedom-of-information records we requested on cable TV packages of provincial jails were 125 days overdue. The Ontario PC caucus had to call the deputy FOI coordinator of your ministry and told her that the delay constituted a “deemed refusal.” It was only when we threatened to haul you in front of the privacy commissioner that you were finally forced to release those records. Even then it took two more weeks for the ministry to send them.

Why should anyone believe that you and your staff had nothing to do with withholding these records?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, I want to correct something I said before, because I think it’s important to be able to correct these. I know my friend Norm Sterling would want me to correct this. The response rate for our government is not 88%, as I said it was; in fact it’s 91.5%, compared to the 50% for the previous government, and we’re striving to move it up. Yours was 50%; ours is over 91%. I know he’d want to compare that.

I can say to the member that we make every effort to provide the information. I know that when her leader was asked in the hallway whether he would change the policy of his own government in regard to cable television, I believe his answer out there was no—

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Look, even the timing of when the records were finally delivered is fishy. The records were dropped off at the PC caucus on Tuesday afternoon. Before we could even open the envelope, a member of the Queen’s Park press gallery already reported that you were claiming credit for cancelling premium cable television packages at jails. Then, you were caught scrambling, running from office to office to office with the press gallery to try to spin your yarn.

Who can believe that no one in your office, whether it was you, your political communications team or others, did not interfere with the release of those FOI records while you scrambled to cook up your latest PR stunt?

Hon. James J. Bradley: First of all, can any member of this House envision me running down the halls? You usually don’t get compliments from the opposition. I want to thank the member from Nepean for the compliment that I could run down the halls. Some of your members might be in the same category, but I assure you, I could not do that.

The information was provided in the normal fashion that it is provided. I know that your members have had some fun with it. Our members have responded to the fun that you have provoked, but I want to tell the member that we follow the normal practice that has taken place. We’re 91.5%, and you were 50%—big improvement.

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

Ms. Lisa MacLeod: Minister, I can assure you it was so memorable yesterday—that’s why we’re raising it in the House—that you were running down the halls on the third floor of this Legislature. Listen, Minister, we would really like to believe you, but something is really fishy. We would like to see for ourselves.

Will you commit, here and now, that if we file an FOI request today, we will receive all correspondence between you or your political staff and the ministry with respect to our freedom-of-information requests for records on premium cable packages of provincial jails within 30 days, as prescribed by law?

Hon. James J. Bradley: Well, I want to say to the member that we will follow the normal practice which is followed.

But I know the member would want to compare, because she would say, “What was the record?” Before you got here, to be fair, before she got here, the PC record in FOI in 2003—and some will remember; Jim, you will remember—was: energy, 28%; citizenship and immigration, 49%; tourism, 8%; natural resources, 57%; culture, 60%; and finance, 68%. I can assure the member that we have moved overall to 91.5%.

We’re always striving to improve, and the member will know that we will follow the normal procedure, as established by the freedom-of-information commissioner.

TAXATION

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is to the Premier. In study after study after study, the evidence could not be clearer: Corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs. In just one week, three different studies of Statistics Canada data have proven conclusively that as corporate tax rates have fallen over the past decade, business investment in jobs and machinery have fallen right along with it.

My question to the Premier: When will this Premier finally admit that his tagalong with Stephen Harper’s policy of corporate tax giveaways simply does not create jobs here in Ontario?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I want to thank the member for the question. I was pleased to release Ontario’s economic accounts this morning that show real growth for last year: 3.8%, which is higher than Canada, higher than the United States. I also want to point out that real net exports rose 11.2% in 2010, in spite of a rising dollar. That means good news for economies all across the province. Most importantly, I want to report that we saw increased business investment in this province over the last year.

Our policies are designed to help families, designed to improve education and health care, and they’re working. It’s about a better future for our children. We’re turning the corner and working with all Ontarians. We have a brighter future for all of our children.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Michael Prue: The minister never said a word about jobs.

One of the studies says that as corporate tax rates fell 30% over a decade, business investment in plant and machinery went from 7.7% of GDP to 5.5%. Another study said that the 200 largest corporations that benefited the most from tax cuts created fewer jobs than the companies with smaller tax cuts. Study number three shows that the combined federal-provincial corporate tax rate went from 50% to 29% over 25 years. Business capital spending declined notably.

When will this Premier and this finance minister admit that the corporate tax giveaway policies that he follows along with Stephen Harper simply do not create jobs?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Net new jobs—96% of the jobs lost in the recession have been regained. Now, compare that to the United States, which I think is at 14%. Compare it to the UK and a variety of other jurisdictions. Ontario leads.

The other interesting information that we put out today is that the average weekly earnings of an Ontario worker have risen by 4.4%. Over the same period, the average hourly wage of an Ontario worker has risen by 4%. These numbers are solid. They compare well to other jurisdictions.

The final point I would make: With respect to real business spending on machinery and equipment in 2010, the most recent numbers—your numbers are years out of date—11%, leading Canada—

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

Mr. Michael Prue: Given an opportunity to believe Statistics Canada or this minister, I know I would choose Statistics Canada.

Statistics Canada data proves that corporate tax cuts don’t create jobs. Three out of the four federal leaders running—

Interjection.

Mr. Michael Prue: Excuse me. Four out of the five federal leaders running in this election, including Mr. Ignatieff, don’t believe that corporate tax cuts create jobs. The majority of the public doesn’t believe that corporate tax giveaways create jobs.

With so much evidence against this government and the waste of public money, why don’t the Premier and this finance minister finally admit that his policy of corporate tax giveaways does not create jobs and is just bad economics that is spun here every day?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: Our tax plan for jobs and growth is increasing jobs. You can check Stats Canada, you can check every legitimate source that says the same thing: 96% of jobs lost in the recession are back. Real wages are up. Average hourly wages are up.

There’s still more to go, because Ontarians are still looking for work, and that’s why we’ve put in place the policies we’ve put in place.

I am proud that business investment has gone up some 11% in the last year.

I would remind the member of what he said just a couple of weeks ago. This is what the member for Beaches–East York said: “I mean, the tax burden has gone down on everyone, in spite of what people think. You know, taxes have gone down, literally on all income groups.”

He’s right. Our plan is working. We’re lowering taxes for people, for businesses, making this a better, more—

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

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Paul Miller: My question is to the Premier. Last month, Bonnie McLaughlin, a Hamilton senior who lives with her husband and who recently retired after 40 years, wrote to us saying, “I’m tired of eating cold food in the dark and not having clean clothes to wear because I can’t afford to use the hydro to perform these simple daily functions.”

Why won’t this government help Ontarians like Bonnie and her husband and take the HST off hydro?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I’m not sure of the basis for this question, but I’ll respond nonetheless.

The fact of the matter is that the NDP, on countless occasions, stood in this House and asked that we lower the cost of electricity by 8%. We’ve done it by 10%, and at some point, I would ask that they acknowledge that and accept that as good public policy.

I would also ask that they accept that the work we are doing to rebuild 80% of our electricity system over the course of the next 20 years is absolutely essential to ensure that we have all the power we need to power our schools, to light our homes, our factories and our hospitals, and power our economy.

We’re doing important work on behalf of our economy, on behalf of our families. We know that there’s a cost associated with this. There’s no getting around that, and that’s why we reduced electricity costs by 10%.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: More and more Ontarians are struggling to pay their hydro bills. Marlene van Droogenbroeck, also from Hamilton, writes, “Electricity far outweighs all [my] other bills. My bill has gone up at least 25% since smart meters have been around and [the] HST introduced.”

Hydro rates are rising because the government is spending billions on smart meters, which don’t reduce electricity use, and on expensive new nuclear plants—instead of cheaper conservation and energy efficiency.

Why does the McGuinty government care more about supporting its friends in the power industry than making hydro affordable for people like Bonnie and Marlene?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I say to my honourable colleague, it may be that he believes that we can actually do all this work to repair and restore vitality to our electricity system, but that’s magic, and we don’t have magic on this side of the House; we just have reality and a sense of responsibility.

We’re going to continue investing in the system. We’re trying to do it in a very smart way. In addition to expanding the capacity at Niagara Falls, for example, we’re investing in renewables. We have the fastest-growing renewables sector in all of North America. It’s enabling us to shut down dirty coal-fired generation. We’ve shut down eight plants so far; that’s like taking 2.5 million cars off our roads. We think that’s important to our families. Doctors and nurses have been telling us for years now that coal-fired generation is making our people sick, so we’re actually acting on that.

We’re introducing new clean energy, and we’re creating thousands of new jobs as we build an exciting, new clean energy industry in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): final supplementary?

Mr. Paul Miller: The McGuinty government keeps bungling the hydro policy. Today, the Toronto Star reports that a high-efficiency co-generation plant at the Toronto airport, which uses natural gas for heating and producing electricity, only runs sporadically because the OPA refuses to buy cost-effective electricity from co-generation plants. According to the article, that’s because the OPA has been focused on nuclear.

When will the McGuinty government start focusing on making electricity affordable for families instead of pursuing expensive and unnecessary new nuclear plants?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I know that the NDP have always stood in opposition to nuclear energy, even though 50% of our electricity in Ontario comes from nuclear energy.

What surprises me is that they stand against our policy to build here in Ontario an exciting, new, renewable energy industry. We want to position ourselves so that we’re not only meeting our demand here in Ontario for wind turbines and solar panels, but we want to ensure that we can meet growing American demand so that our people will be getting good jobs in a new sector.

Again, I’m confused why it is that the NDP don’t stand in favour of harnessing the power of the wind and the power of the sun to create good clean energy and thousands of new jobs for our children and grandchildren at the same time. I thought they were in favour of standing up for a safe, clean, strong environment. That’s exactly what our policy does: shutting down coal, building up renewables.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: To the Minister of Correctional Services: I listened to your responses to my colleague’s questions earlier and, despite six chances to do so, not once did you categorically rule out interference in our FOI request by anyone in your office. You just talked about process, not your conduct in this case.

Will you agree to have a committee of the Legislature review ministerial interference in our freedom-of-information requests for records of high-definition TV premium cable packages in our provincial jails? Will you agree to that?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I know that the member would not want to go back into the history of this because I can tell you that the compliance rate of this government is substantially higher than the previous government’s. I saw a figure just a moment ago that said that even in the Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services, the compliance rate is far greater today than it was when—here it is; the House leader has given it to me.

In 2010, the 30-day compliance rate was 89%, and 95% overall. So you’re probably asking yourself the question, what was it when the Conservative government was in power? The answer is, in 2002, it was only 78%. I know—

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

Mr. Garfield Dunlop: Well, Minister, there’s something fishy about it taking over 125 days and the threat to haul you before the privacy commissioner to force you to release the records. It’s simply not credible to believe ministry staff needed five extra months to figure out how to work the photocopying machine and fix the problem with the copies they initially made. You look pretty suspicious after scrambling through the halls—and we understand you did have a pair of new Reebok Pumps on when you did that—and you were being embarrassed by what the records showed you were up to.

I’d like to hear your side of the story and ask a few questions in committee. Why won’t you agree to a committee review of interference in the release of the FOI records that we requested on this side of the House?

Hon. James J. Bradley: I’ll tell you, the interference I was worried about was the interference in Carleton–Mississippi Mills, where the member for Lanark was trying to unseat my good friend Norm Sterling—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I remind the honourable member, as I’ve reminded members within this House, that we use riding names or titles and not individuals’ names.

Hon. James J. Bradley: The riding was Carleton–Mississippi Mills. There is a member who has served for some 34 years in the riding of Mississippi Mills. Your colleague the member for Lanark and a cabal of extreme right-wingers deposed my good friend the member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills. So I would be very concerned about—

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

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr. Gilles Bisson: My question is to the Minister of Northern Development, Mines and Forestry. Minister, you refused the request of many people in northern Ontario to allow Bill 151 to go for committee hearings in northern Ontario. Then you sent Mr. Brown, the member from Algoma, into the committee in order to make sure that we didn’t travel into those northern communities. I just quote:

“So I think we need to proceed,” said Mr. Brown in committee. “People have had adequate time to make their presentations, and we’re providing another opportunity on the dates we’ve described. So that’s where we’re at....

“I’ve said what I needed to say. We need to move on. Northerners have had ample opportunity to comment on this.”

But then he goes home and he speaks to the media, in this case Mid-North Monitor, and he’s quoted as saying, “‘I don’t want to see consultations in the cities’”—I suppose he means Toronto—“‘that is what I said, because that is not where the people directly affected by this legislation live,’ explained Brown. ‘I want to see the hearings go to the communities directly affected by this legislation, places like Espanola.’”

How do you square off those two comments?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: I think we all understand, including the member, how important this legislation is, which is why we had such an extensive consultation period—in two sections, in fact—before we introduced the legislation. Indeed, may I say, in a perfect world, we would love to travel all across the province in terms of the forestry communities.

What I want to be able to say is that we’ve worked very hard to bring this legislation forward. We’ve worked very hard with industry, with municipalities and with many other stakeholders to bring forward this legislation. We believe that this will help reinvigorate the forestry sector, and we do want to move it forward.

I am very pleased with the representation that we have had from northerners at our hearings this past week: from municipal leaders, from First Nation organizations and aboriginal leaders, and also from other organizations from the forestry sector. We’ve heard loud and clear. We look forward to finding a way to improve the legislation, because that’s—

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

Mr. Gilles Bisson: Minister, the issue is this: The people want us to say the same thing when we’re in this Legislature that we say to our people back home. In this particular case, the person in charge of the committee, Mr. Brown, is saying one thing completely different on the record in committee, opposing hearings, and on the other hand, is going back home and saying to people, “No, we need to have hearings up in Manitoulin.”

My question to you is, is that what being a Liberal is, being able to walk on the fence without falling off on both sides?

Hon. Michael Gravelle: We have worked extremely hard on this legislation and brought in all members of the Legislature in terms of this process. We’ve also done significant consultations in northern Ontario—two different sections. The first time was before we brought forward the proposal, and then when we brought forward our modernization proposal, we went and consulted all across the north and other parts of the province as well.

The fact is, this is legislation that we feel strongly is going to help reinvigorate the forest industry to deal with situations where, in the past, there was a hoarding of wood. We want to see our forestry sector revived. We want to see our Ontario wood put back to work. We want to see our people put back to work. That’s why we moved forward on our wood supply competition.

What I can say to you is, this is an extraordinarily important piece of legislation. We’re extremely grateful for the presentations that have been made by a series of northerners here in Toronto. I look forward to continuing to carry on this process of consultation in a very significant way.

ENERGY POLICIES

Mr. Bob Delaney: This question is for the Minister of the Environment. Ontarians know they have a role to play in protecting the air that we breathe by taking transit, carpooling or simply walking to where we’re going. My friends and neighbours from the western Mississauga neighbourhoods of Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar also want to know that their government is doing its part as well, developing policies to conserve energy and to reduce emissions.

Minister, here’s what some people are asking me at meetings and on the train. With the recent announcement of the clean energy benefit and much of the focus on rebuilding Ontario’s electricity system, the talk is often about electricity generation and transmission. In what way is conservation still a government priority to protect the air that we breathe?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to share with my friend, and I want him to tell his constituents in Streetsville, Meadowvale and Lisgar, that the air is cleaner today because of conservation. Conservation is absolutely key, because we don’t have to produce the electricity in the first place. In fact, the McGuinty government’s conservation efforts have saved over 1,700 megawatts of electricity. That’s like taking some 500,000 homes right off the grid.

Now, we on this side of the House refuse to go back to the dark and dirty days when the previous government was burning dirty coal to make electricity, where they saw that rise by 127% and air quality go down. Today the air is cleaner in your community and right across this province because we are phasing out dirty coal-fired generation. When we get to that wonderful day, that will be the equivalent of taking some seven million cars off the roads. That is why conservation is so absolutely crucial to all that we are doing to—

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

Mr. Bob Delaney: Our province’s commitment to conservation and renewable energy is to have clean air to breathe and jobs for our children.

Young people are particularly aware that Ontario is doing something bold and innovative. They don’t want to go back to failed energy policies of the past. People who remember the bad old days of the 1990s do not want to see coal emissions increase, or Ontario backslide into being a net importer of energy, or to see diesel generators placed in our cities in case the power grid fails.

Wind and solar are now a small but growing part of Ontario’s electricity supply mix. With some critics affirming the Conservative Party’s commitment to go backwards to burning dirty coal, will Ontario really eliminate coal from our province’s energy mix?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to assure the member that we will, and I’ll tell you why: because our children are counting on us to do that. Their lungs are more important than some company’s dirty profit.

I say to the members opposite that we stand with the Canadian Association of Physicians for the Environment, with the Canadian Lung Association; we stand with the Ontario Medical Association, the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the lung association, the asthma society, who tell us that dirty coal-fired generation results in the pollution that leads to the number one reason that our children are being admitted to emergency rooms.

On this side of the House, we believe that the values that are important are that we must protect our children, and I would invite yet again the members of the opposition to join us in putting our children’s health first. That is the most—

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Renfrew will withdraw the comment that he just made.

Mr. John Yakabuski: Withdraw.

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

HEALTH CARE

Mr. Steve Clark: My question is to the Premier. Ron Sapsford was paid three quarters of a million dollars out of a hospital budget last year, but you won’t say for what. Ontario PCs believe the money you handed the former Deputy Minister of Health to go away after the billion-dollar eHealth boondoggle would have been better spent on front-line health care. The same amount of money you gave Sapsford would pay for over 32,500 hours of home respite in my riding of Leeds–Grenville.

How did your priorities become so out of touch that you used health care dollars for a sweetheart deal for Sapsford instead of front-line health care?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I appreciate the question from my honourable colleague.

I draw to his attention a statement recently made by a newly nominated candidate in their party, Mr. Gaudet. He said that the HST should be lowered from 13% to 10%. That’s $9 billion. I expect that Mr. Gaudet will be very influential in lending shape to the thinking of that party on economic matters. Nine billion dollars: I want you to just try to imagine the devastation that would cause to important public services like health care and education.

Speaker, I just don’t think they have any moral authority when it comes to standing up for public health care in Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Steve Clark: It’s not about your greedy HST tax grab; it’s about front-line health care.

It isn’t only the mystery payout to Ron Sapsford that cheats Ontario families of front-line health care. Earlier this week, we brought to your attention the fact that your local health integration networks are now all part of the million-dollar club. In my own riding, LHIN executive salaries have ballooned from half a million dollars to $1.4 million last year. LHIN bureaucrats don’t spend a minute with patients or do a single surgery. Just one year of what you paid them would have been supporting the operating budget of the Beth Donovan Hospice in North Grenville for 10 years.

What has happened to you that has caused you to become so out of touch with Ontario families who want their money for front-line health care, not—

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

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: I attended the announcement of a new MRI at the Ottawa Hospital with Dr. Keon a few days ago—that’s Conservative senator Dr. Keon. This is what he said on the subject of LHINs: “As a Canadian senator, I conducted research on health systems across the globe and one thing was absolutely clear: to best serve the needs of a population, health care decisions must be made at the local level.”

I am in perfect agreement with Senator Keon, and I can’t understand for the life of me why the party opposite is in favour of big government—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The member from Simcoe North. Member from Simcoe–Grey.

New question?

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Peter Tabuns: To the Minister of Energy: In light of the contamination of Bruce Nuclear workers last year, nuclear safety is more important than ever. Given this, can the minister explain why the Ontario Energy Board has urged Ontario Power Generation to cut radiation protection staff levels at the Pickering and Darlington nuclear plants by 28%?

Hon. Brad Duguid: In this province, we will never, ever contemplate any diminishment of safety at any time. Ontario Power Generation would never, ever contemplate doing anything that would ever jeopardize safety in our nuclear plants. There are issues that they are engaged in with the Ontario Energy Board as they do the very best they can to maintain as small of increases as they possibly can with regard to their budget. But let me assure you, never, ever would Ontario Power Generation contemplate jeopardizing safety under any circumstances.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Peter Tabuns: So I guess that’s why the workers are going to court to try to get these nuclear safety people reinstated.

Ontarians expect every effort to ensure that our nuclear plants are safe. However, this government is prepared to stand by and do nothing while radiation protecttion staffing levels are cut at Ontario nuclear plants. The Society of Energy Professionals who run those plants says that this cut in staffing could “undermine nuclear safety” in Ontario. Does the minister really believe that now is the time to cut nuclear safety protection in Ontario?

Hon. Brad Duguid: The issue with regard to OPG is a case of seeking clarification in terms of law. It won’t impact the rate increase of 1% that they were awarded. It would remain below that. It’s an issue that’s in keeping with our process.

I’ll quote from the OEB, because the member doesn’t appear to want to believe me on this. The OEB said, in their recent report: “An important part of fairness and transparency is the ability of a party to appeal decisions of the board. The board may, upon receiving a request, review a decision or order. Decisions of the board may also be appealed to the Divisional Court on questions of law or jurisdiction.”

That is what this is, and I can once again assure the member—he’s yakking right now and doesn’t want to hear it—that the OPG will never, ever jeopardize safety.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Khalil Ramal: My question is for the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities. While we are seeing the Ontario economy turn the corner, I’m still concerned for students in the province who need to find work during their summer break, which helps them to pay for their schooling and living expenses during the academic year.

However, there is good news for the youth in the province of Ontario. According to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate of full-time Canadian students between the age of 15 and 24 has declined since last year to 14.4%. I know there are numerous employers in my riding of London–Fanshawe that employed a number of students last summer, including East Park Kartland/Watercoasters, the Greater London International Airport Authority, East Park Golf Gardens and the Upper Thames River Conservation Authority, to name a few.

Minister, can you tell us and tell the House what you’re doing to support students this upcoming summer to support their—

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

Hon. John Milloy: I want to thank the member for the question.

I’m pleased to say that yesterday, we formally launched the Ontario summer jobs strategy for the coming summer. I was able to outline for the public the fact that, in the most recent budget, we are contributing an additional $22.5 million towards summer jobs in the province, bringing the Ontario total to $90 million, with the target that we want to help well over 100,000 students this summer as they gain valuable experience and earn money for their studies this fall.

Among the programs that are offered, we have the summer jobs service—it’s the largest component of our strategy—which offers employers $2 an hour to help them employ students and bring them on to their team for the summer months—

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

Mr. Khalil Ramal: Minister, employment agency experts note that the transition between students graduating and landing a full-time job in their field is getting longer. I’m pleased to know that Ontario has recovered 91% of the jobs lost during the last recession, and nearly 84% of those jobs are full-time jobs.

But in the meantime, so many different students are finding it a difficult time to find a job in their profession, which they studied a long time for. Minister, can you tell us and tell the House what you are doing to help students to find a job in their profession and pay for their expenses, fees and tuition?

Hon. John Milloy: It’s very important that we work with graduating students to help them find jobs in their chosen area, but it’s also important that we work with students already in school to give them the opportunity to broaden their horizons, to be exposed to different sectors, to hone their skills and get an idea of the many opportunities that are available in the working world. That’s why the summer jobs program is so important. It allows students to get a wide range of experiences and opportunities.

As I mentioned, we offer incentives to employers. We also have a very robust program within the broader public service to hire students and, through the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade, we offer opportunities for young entrepreneurs to start their own business and to receive the support they want, as well as a grant of up to $3,000 to help them put together their summer job program and really hone their entrepreneurial skills.

SCHOOL TRANSPORTATION

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Education. The minister has ordered a change in school bus transportation procurement, and it is destroying our rural economy, as independent, family-owned businesses are being forced out of business and losing everything, including millions invested in school buses. According to the Independent School Bus Operators Association, your policy is giving multinational corporations a complete monopoly on school transportation. Minister, why are you punishing these independent bus operators for your government scandals?

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: I want to thank the honourable member for again bringing this to the attention of myself and to the floor of this Legislature.

What I can say to the honourable member, first of all, is that she would appreciate that the Provincial Auditor has made some recommendations around how we engage services. The Provincial Auditor has indicated that the way that boards have been engaging school bus services has not been through a competitive process. So we have been working with representatives from the bussing industry to put together a plan on how we might achieve this.

We weren’t sure if we had it right, so we put together a pilot. It was piloted in southern Ontario. We are very carefully reviewing those results. There is a pilot under way in northern Ontario as well. But I want to assure the members of this assembly and the members in the province of Ontario—

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

Mrs. Elizabeth Witmer: To the minister: Unfortunately, these pilots have demonstrated the devastating impact on the small, independent operator at the behest and enhancement of the multinationals. I’ll give you an example: Your pilot process in Wellington county resulted in 103 of the 105 bus routes being awarded to two multinational companies at the expense of Ontario’s small businesses. People like Roland Montgomery, Vaughn Richmond and Lesa McDougall have been successful for years with their family business. They’re now being squeezed out by these monopolies—multinational companies.

Time is running out. I ask the minister: Will you engage, now that you have the facts, in a new round of discussions with ISBOA—

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

Hon. Leona Dombrowsky: First of all, I think that it’s important that I would state that if you look at the results of the pilots, there’s no question that there are some larger companies that have been successful and there have been some smaller mom-and-pop companies that have been successful. Having said that, I have already made it clear—actually, with the Premier—that we will be working with the Independent School Bus Operators and the school bus operators of Ontario to very carefully go over the results of the pilots.

We do want to ensure that the school bus systems in the province of Ontario will be able to continue the safe and quality service that families and students have enjoyed. We want to be sure that it happens in a way that the Auditor General will appreciate this is the best way to spend the almost $1 billion that we spend in transportation services. So we have been engaged with school bus operators—

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. It’s a very simple one: Why won’t the McGuinty government recognize access to affordable housing—an international law, as declared by the UN—as a basic human right?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: We’re very, very proud of the new legislation that has been debated before the House. We’re very proud that our long-term affordable housing strategy finally puts people first. We’re very, very proud that with this strategy we are giving municipalities, the service managers, the local service managers, more decision-making in order to meet the local needs of people in their communities. We think that it’s not only human; we think that it’s right that that decision-making be done at the local level so that we can best meet the needs of those people requiring long-term affordable housing.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Ms. Cheri DiNovo: As a former UN special rapporteur on housing, Miloon Kothari, said in his letter dated April 6, 2011, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, amendments to include targets and timelines for eliminating homelessness are, “in my view, critical to ensuring compliance with Ontario’s obligations under international human rights law....” The NDP suggested these amendments and the government voted them down. Why is this government ignoring the United Nations and violating international law?

Hon. Rick Bartolucci: The reality is that this legislation has received first and second reading. There has been broad public consultation. We debated, clause by clause, the amendments that were put forward by all three parties in this House. We’ve come back with legislation that we are sure is very, very strong legislation, that will meet the needs of those requiring long-term affordable housing. We hope that the official opposition and the third party will support the legislation. We hope, in the future, they will not vote against funding for long-term affordable housing as they’ve done in the past.

We believe that it’s not only human to do; we believe that it’s right for them to support long-term affordable housing money.

SPORTS FUNDING

Mr. Rick Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Health Promotion and Sport. Amateur athletes at the arenas, gyms and fields in my riding know that good equipment and top-notch facilities can help them score that winning goal or make the basket. Coaches are another key to athletic success but they rarely get enough credit. Ontario is currently celebrating both Coaches Week and National Volunteer Week. Athletes and parents in my riding are doing their part by reaching out to coaches to say thanks for the invaluable community service they provide.

Recognition is a simple but great way to support these selfless volunteers. Will this government also do its part to recognize coaches?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I want to take this opportunity to thank the member from Haliburton–Kawartha Lakes–Brock for his interest in athletes and coaches. Our government is indeed pleased to be celebrating coaches this week and, in fact, all year round.

Those who ask for no recognition are often those who deserve it most. Coaches embody this selfless volunteer spirit. Athletes receive much glory; however, coaches are the wind beneath their sails at every practice and every competition. It is our coaches to whom our athletes owe much of their success.

In late February, I attended the Ontario Coaches Conference to deliver my appreciation through awards to outstanding individuals who are nurturing our young athletes. This evening, I will honour coaches and athletes at the Ontario Sport Awards and will announce Ontario’s male and female amateur coaches of the year.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary?

Mr. Rick Johnson: I’m pleased to hear that we are recognizing our volunteer coaches—a wealth of knowledge and encouragement for our young people in Ontario. However, recognition and thanks only go so far. At some point, the government needs to say, “Not only do we value you, but here’s how we are going to support your work.” The minister knows that the quality of the athletes that Ontario sends to sporting events such as the Olympics is largely dependent on the quality of their coaches. Gold medals cannot be won with words of encouragement alone. Will the minister commit to financially supporting coaching in Ontario?

Hon. Margarett R. Best: I commend Ontario coaches for their dedication and commitment and for their great contribution to our province. My ministry has a long-standing funding relationship with the Coaches Association of Ontario. This support helps to deliver over 4,000 coaching workshops per year across the province.

We established the landmark Quest for Gold program in 2006, which not only supports athletes but also provides almost $800,000 per year to support and enhance coaching programs. Our dedication to the Quest for Gold program was reaffirmed in our 2011 budget.

Our government supports our athletes and coaches, and I urge the opposition to reconsider its intention to reject this continued support for athletes and coaches. An active Ontario is a healthy and prosperous Ontario.

I want to thank the coaches for helping our government to further this very important—

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

RED TAPE REDUCTION

Mrs. Julia Munro: My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Small businesses in Ontario are crying out for relief from the burden of regulation and taxation your government puts on them. You claim to be open for business, yet your actions contradict your words.

First you broke your promise to cut regulations by 25% over two years. Then you said in a statement that it’s not the number but the quality of deregulation that matters, even as you claim that you have cut the regulatory burden by 15%.

Minister, businesses want to see the proof of fewer burdens. When will you release the full list of all the burdens you’ve identified and the full list of burdens you claim you have cut, so we can know if these cuts are real?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: Thanks so much for the question. I actually appreciate this because it gives us an opportunity to talk about all the great things we’ve done, in particular in our Open for Business initiative.

As I said in the House last week, we have already eliminated 700,000 burdens for small business across all of our industries—70,000. This member opposite will remember when we brought representatives in this very House from the CFIB, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and from the CME, Canadian manufacturers—these industry associations that represent the lion’s share of small business in the House with us celebrating the elimination of 70,000 burdens across a number of ministries of our government.

We acknowledge that we have more work to do, and I look forward to your next question because I’m happy to report, time and time again—

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

Mrs. Julia Munro: A local hotel owner has told me of the burdens he faces from government red tape every day just from government inspections, most of them unannounced: building inspectors, bylaw inspectors, fire inspectors, liquor inspectors, twice-yearly food inspections, smoking bylaw inspections, occupational health and safety inspections and Electrical Safety Authority inspections.

Minister, when will my constituent see a reduction in burdens? Or will your list remain a secret?

Hon. Sandra Pupatello: I have to tell the member opposite that just last week, we began our Open for Business initiative with the hotelier sector of the economy, and we brought small, medium-sized, and even large businesses that run hotels into our government to meet with us. I can guarantee the public that we will not eliminate fire inspections, we will not eliminate health and safety inspections. What we are doing is working together to find a way to do it well so that it isn’t inconvenient, but rather, it makes it easier for businesses to comply with what the general public expects, and that is a safe place to go to as a consumer, a safe place for workers to be in to work.

The people who are in business also appreciate this, and that’s why they’re delighted to be working with us. They were here with us in the House just last week as we launched this very sector for—

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

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Paul Miller: To the Premier: The Premier’s number two, the finance minister, likes to promote Research in Motion products. He wanted to deliver the budget using a RIM PlayBook. It turns out his one-man advertising campaign cost $150,000, paid for by RIM and the Balsillie family to the Liberal Party. Does the Premier consider this corporate shilling appropriate?

Hon. Dalton McGuinty: To the Minister of Finance.

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am very proud of RIM and their remarkable achievements for Ontarians. They have been creating jobs in Kitchener–Waterloo, Ottawa, Toronto and right across the province. I am very proud that they participate in our democracy and contribute to political parties, and they do so according to the law that was established by this Legislature.

The member opposite probably doesn’t know this: Finance ministers traditionally get new shoes at budget time, but we don’t make shoes in Canada anymore. We do, however, make BlackBerrys. We are going to make PlayBooks, and I think that member ought to be proud of the achievements of RIM and proud of the achievements of the tens of thousands of people who work in that important industry, year in and year out.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Supplementary.

Mr. Paul Miller: Thank you, Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Paul Miller: Speaker, I can’t—

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

Please continue.

Mr. Paul Miller: It appears the Premier and the finance minister have found post-political gigs in advertising. What other products are they prepared to hawk, and how much will the Liberal Party make in return?

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d just ask—

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Stop the clock. Members will please come to order. They have done so well through this question period.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Order.

I just remind the honourable member that he, in both his question and in his supplementary, was coming very close to a line and crossing a line of imputing a motive. I think on the second one you did cross the line, in my opinion, and I would just ask that you withdraw your comment.

Mr. Paul Miller: I’ll withdraw the comment.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Minister?

Hon. Dwight Duncan: I am proud to promote RIM and their products, and I will continue to promote them. I am proud to promote the cars that are built in St. Catharines, in Oshawa and in Brampton, and I am proud that the member opposite and every member of his caucus owns a RIM and uses it day in and day out to promote their product. And you know what? When large public sector unions donate to their party and they advocate on behalf of them, that’s quite acceptable and quite understandable.

So I say to the Balsillies, to the Mike Lazaridises of the world, keep up the good work. Keep investing in Ontario. Keep innovating. Keep paying taxes. Keep helping us build schools and jobs and educatio